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

Jonathan,
I don't think there is any mystery to the pattern you mention. Stillington was arrested soon after Bosworth and was given a pardon (as was Ralph Assheton). His later arrest was for involvement in the Lambert Simnel affair. He had an earlier arrest under Edward, from which he was also released.

I don't think that the 1476 embassy is generally disputed except by those who want to create a myth that Henry's first act was to hoover up all those who had something to do with Titulus Regius - thus creating the entirely false impression that TR was of more significance than it actually was.

There was always a settling of scores to some extent after the battles of this period. Henry's actions seem quite moderate when compared with the events after Towton and Tewkesbury.

Incidentally, Henry's first recorded act was to commission one of his most trusted followers - Sir Robert Willoughby - to go to Sheriff Hutton to secure Warwick and Elizabeth. That seems quite sensible to me in the circumstances. (Source Materials for a history of the reign of Henry VII)

Kind regards
David

David Durose wrote:

"<snip> I don't think that the 1476 embassy is generally disputed except by those who want to create a myth that Henry's first act was to hoover up all those who had something to do with Titulus Regius - thus creating the entirely false impression that TR was of more significance than it actually was."


Carol responds:

David, we are not trying to create myths. We are trying to dispel myths by finding the truth. Certainly, your point that more attention should be paid to Breton sources is well taken, but we also need to find confirmation in contemporary English records, which is difficult to do since so many seem to be missing or destroyed by someone connected with Henry Tudor.

The significance of Titulus Regius cannot be overstated. It delegitimizes all of Edward's children by Elizabeth Woodville, including the woman that the Yorkists wanted Henry to marry. It also disqualifies Edward, Earl of Warwick, on the grounds of his father's treason. All of this (along with other arguments that held equal weight for Richard's Parliament and the Three Estates if not to us) made Richard the rightful king of England. If Richard was the rightful king, Henry Tudor was a usurper and regicide. For those reasons, Tudor's followers, particularly those who wanted a "union" of (legitimized) York and "Lancaster," would urge Henry to repeal it.

Henry himself would, I think, have had mixed feelings. Certainly, he would prefer being seen as the savior of England (as his propaganda depicts him) and destroyer of a usurper and regicide rather than being so labeled himself, but he didn't want to marry EoY if her claim was stronger than his (hence "king by conquest"). But the big problem for Henry was that if Elizabeth's brothers were alive, their claim, especially Edward's, was already stronger than his and repealing Titulus Regius would make Edward V, if he were alive, the rightful king--and, if the brothers were not alive, it would make Edward of Warwick the rightful king (primogeniture and an overall preference for kings, even child kings, over ruling queens or husbands of queens)--hence, the immediate need for controlling and imprisoning Edward of Warwick, whose attainder could easily have been reversed had the Yorkists so chosen.

Given the mixed consequences to Henry of repealing Titulus Regius, he ordered it repealed unread and refused to allow Stillington to testify before Parliament regarding it. That is not a myth; it is a fact. A newly crowned king does not order an act of Parliament burned unread, all copies to be destroyed with severe penalties for preserving one, unless that act is of the greatest importance to him.

The authorship of Titulus Regius, which made Richard the rightful king (and Edward's heirs illegitimate) is a much more plausible reason for immediately imprisoning Stillington than an old grudge over a failed embassy nine years earlier--if Stillington even participated in that embassy.

The myth in question is the one I quoted earlier--that Edward IV and the "evil" Stillington attempted to trap Henry into boarding a ship that would take him to his execution, tempting him with the false promise of marriage to EoY. That myth lies somewhere between the trap *Henry* laid for another Yorkist heir, Edmund de la Pole, and the fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Shakespeare's "Hamlet." If Stillington had really participated in a plot to kill "the innocent youth," would Henry have so quickly pardoned him once Titulus Regius had been repealed? The dates are instructive. Titulus Regius was repealed in November 1485 (apparently as one of the first acts of Henry's first Parliament); Stillington was released on November 22 after having been pardoned by that same Parliament for unspecified "horrible and heinous offenses." As Kendall says, "Of what offense could he be accused save one which Henry did not wish to be publicly examined"? (n. 14, p, 554). Had he been accused of having tried to kidnap Henry and take him to imprisonment and execution, he would certainly have been found guilty of those specific offenses and *not* pardoned. But Henry's (or his associates') typically vague wording has led certain people (perhaps Hall, certainly Agnes Strickland) to imagine that we should take "horrible and heinous" at face value and apply them to a sinister plot on Henry's life rather than to a legal document which was both convenient and inconvenient to Henry Tudor. Best burn it unread rather than have it--or its repeal--used against him, and in the meanwhile, silence Stillington, who could no doubt present the same persuasive evidence and arguments to Henry's Parliament as he had done in Richard's.

Don't underestimate the wiles of a king who could declare his crowned and anointed predecessor a traitor against his rightful sovereign--not Edward V but Henry VII.

BTW, I quite agree that securing EoY and little Warwick was "sensible under the circumstances," however unfortunate that seizure proved for the poor little boy and perhaps for Elizabeth. The same argument applies to Richard's securing of Edward V at Stony Stratford and his younger brother later. Best to have them in *his* control, not the Woodvilles' (or, in Henry's case, the diehard Ricardians').

Carol

Carol.....very good points and very well said...Eileen

--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "<snip> I don't think that the 1476 embassy is generally disputed except by those who want to create a myth that Henry's first act was to hoover up all those who had something to do with Titulus Regius - thus creating the entirely false impression that TR was of more significance than it actually was."
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> David, we are not trying to create myths. We are trying to dispel myths by finding the truth. Certainly, your point that more attention should be paid to Breton sources is well taken, but we also need to find confirmation in contemporary English records, which is difficult to do since so many seem to be missing or destroyed by someone connected with Henry Tudor.
>
> The significance of Titulus Regius cannot be overstated. It delegitimizes all of Edward's children by Elizabeth Woodville, including the woman that the Yorkists wanted Henry to marry. It also disqualifies Edward, Earl of Warwick, on the grounds of his father's treason. All of this (along with other arguments that held equal weight for Richard's Parliament and the Three Estates if not to us) made Richard the rightful king of England. If Richard was the rightful king, Henry Tudor was a usurper and regicide. For those reasons, Tudor's followers, particularly those who wanted a "union" of (legitimized) York and "Lancaster," would urge Henry to repeal it.
>
> Henry himself would, I think, have had mixed feelings. Certainly, he would prefer being seen as the savior of England (as his propaganda depicts him) and destroyer of a usurper and regicide rather than being so labeled himself, but he didn't want to marry EoY if her claim was stronger than his (hence "king by conquest"). But the big problem for Henry was that if Elizabeth's brothers were alive, their claim, especially Edward's, was already stronger than his and repealing Titulus Regius would make Edward V, if he were alive, the rightful king--and, if the brothers were not alive, it would make Edward of Warwick the rightful king (primogeniture and an overall preference for kings, even child kings, over ruling queens or husbands of queens)--hence, the immediate need for controlling and imprisoning Edward of Warwick, whose attainder could easily have been reversed had the Yorkists so chosen.
>
> Given the mixed consequences to Henry of repealing Titulus Regius, he ordered it repealed unread and refused to allow Stillington to testify before Parliament regarding it. That is not a myth; it is a fact. A newly crowned king does not order an act of Parliament burned unread, all copies to be destroyed with severe penalties for preserving one, unless that act is of the greatest importance to him.
>
> The authorship of Titulus Regius, which made Richard the rightful king (and Edward's heirs illegitimate) is a much more plausible reason for immediately imprisoning Stillington than an old grudge over a failed embassy nine years earlier--if Stillington even participated in that embassy.
>
> The myth in question is the one I quoted earlier--that Edward IV and the "evil" Stillington attempted to trap Henry into boarding a ship that would take him to his execution, tempting him with the false promise of marriage to EoY. That myth lies somewhere between the trap *Henry* laid for another Yorkist heir, Edmund de la Pole, and the fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Shakespeare's "Hamlet." If Stillington had really participated in a plot to kill "the innocent youth," would Henry have so quickly pardoned him once Titulus Regius had been repealed? The dates are instructive. Titulus Regius was repealed in November 1485 (apparently as one of the first acts of Henry's first Parliament); Stillington was released on November 22 after having been pardoned by that same Parliament for unspecified "horrible and heinous offenses." As Kendall says, "Of what offense could he be accused save one which Henry did not wish to be publicly examined"? (n. 14, p, 554). Had he been accused of having tried to kidnap Henry and take him to imprisonment and execution, he would certainly have been found guilty of those specific offenses and *not* pardoned. But Henry's (or his associates') typically vague wording has led certain people (perhaps Hall, certainly Agnes Strickland) to imagine that we should take "horrible and heinous" at face value and apply them to a sinister plot on Henry's life rather than to a legal document which was both convenient and inconvenient to Henry Tudor. Best burn it unread rather than have it--or its repeal--used against him, and in the meanwhile, silence Stillington, who could no doubt present the same persuasive evidence and arguments to Henry's Parliament as he had done in Richard's.
>
> Don't underestimate the wiles of a king who could declare his crowned and anointed predecessor a traitor against his rightful sovereign--not Edward V but Henry VII.
>
> BTW, I quite agree that securing EoY and little Warwick was "sensible under the circumstances," however unfortunate that seizure proved for the poor little boy and perhaps for Elizabeth. The same argument applies to Richard's securing of Edward V at Stony Stratford and his younger brother later. Best to have them in *his* control, not the Woodvilles' (or, in Henry's case, the diehard Ricardians').
>
> Carol
>