Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)

David, to be provocative (as I enjoy being from time to time :) ), if Henry was so influenced by his wife and his mother-in-law, why did he ignore the pleas of his own mother in executing William Stanley? Methinks Stillington was of much less value to the former pair. But, Stillington was quite rich by the time he died and MB and Reggie Bray lost no time in getting their hands on his London property. Never forget property. In fact, as I see it we have no proof a) that Stillington ever left this country to see Francis but Oliver King and Lord Audley certainly did b) that EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel affair (although the dates tally and it's not an unreasonable assumption) c) that Stillington was involved in the above And, were I a Yorkist, then anything which de-stablises Henry's regime has got to be good. And again why would you want to punish Stillington for TR? Does that mean that Edward of Westminster and ROY are the rightful heirs? Is HT really interested in the politics of the Yorkist kings and some 'servant' who was supposed pressured into doing what Richard wanted? I do however agree with your assessment of Commines - I honestly don't think he had an English axe to grind. Regards H

On Wednesday, 11 December 2013, 13:36, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hi Doug,
As usual, your replies are very full of content and give a reasoned view of events.

I am afraid I can't influence the title of the French article a - I think they are looking at the events as a whole. You need to be aware that Francis was rather weak and towards the end of his life ill and possibly senile. He had a high level wish to retain independence from France, but could be easily influenced. There is a view that Edward used the offer of a good marriage for Henry and the protection of Brittany from France in the previous year's treaty to persuade Francis's council. It is evident that this was while Jean du Quelennec was away from court. The prospective marriage is generally thought to be a sham.

The story has J du Q (who may be a distant cousin of Henry) remonstrating with the Duke, who then sends Landais to Saint Malo. It could be (my view) Landais who persuaded Francis to agree to the wishes of the embassy in the first place. It was an early example of the increasing power of Landais and the split from the council that would be so damaging in the next decade.

Since Vannes and Saint Malo are at opposite ends of the Duchy, Henry must have spent some time with his 'abductors'. The idea of his mistaking someone for King is hard to support, since King was treated very well by Henry after Bosworth.

Francis had always been afraid that Henry and or Jasper would be taken by force, which is why they were moved from the castle Suscinio - which was beautifully situated but next to the sea.

As for the dying out of witnesses, I think in an earlier post, I mentioned Richard Fox, who actually signed Stillington's arrest warrant after Bosworth - he was a young man at the time, and his lifetime overlaps that of Hall.

I really can't see why Henry's release of Stillington has any bearing on the truth or otherwise of TR - you can't have it both ways - if he was imprisoned to keep him quiet, but released so as not to allow him to speak - this is not consistent.

My understanding was that the parliament wanted Stillington brought up before it so he could be punished, but Henry said he had already agreed to pardon him.

If Stillington believed in the truth of TR, why did he support a rebellion in favour of Lambert Simnel who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury and Warwick, both of whom he must have believed to be excluded from the succession by TR.

Henry's destruction of copies of TR is in view overplayed. It could have been on the wishes of his wife and mother-in-law. The content of it can not have been unknown. There would be many members of Richard's parliament who also appeared in the one that repealed it - and of course, it was known in France and Brittany as Commynes confirms.

Kind Regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:32:14 PM

David wrote: "Thanks for your clarification. I used the word abduction purely as a translation of the word used in the title of the French article. I thought it might raise an eybrow or two, so I checked and I was also offered the word kidnap." Doug here: Well, it appears, to me anyway, that whoever wrote that article was certainly acquainted with Commynes, but unless there were citations supporting the use of either I'm afraid it still isn't getting us any more forward. My main problem with using *either* word to describe what happened is that neither fits in with what *is* agreed on whether one supports Ricahrd or Henry. According to the information in previous posts which is generally agreed upon by historians, whether pro- or -anti-Tudor, Henry was "escorted" from one place in Brittany to another by a group of Englishmen dispatched from England to Brittany to retrieve Henry and return him to England. However, and again according to historians from both camps, Henry wasn't returned to England because he successly pleaded with the Duke of Brittany (or his ministers) that *to allow* Henry to be returned to England would be a death sentence for Henry. Which leads me to conclude that Francis *originally agreed to* Henry's repatriation, whether willing or no. Otherwsie, why the pleading? Or is the argument that Francis and his ministers were *physically* unable to prevent a group of Englishmen from entering the Duchy, kidnapping someone residing there and returning to England? David wrote: "You are right the uinvolvement of Stillington in 1476 (or not) may have been passed orally. I have thought of another angle, which is that in 1483 Henry would have little knowledge of Stillington - other than the embassy - but the 500 exiles that joined him, being loyal Edwardians and Woodville adherents, would have further impressed on HT during the next two years that the Bishop was a dangerous plotter. Couple this with the view of him that was current at the French court..." Doug here: Again it's my opinion, but I see no viable alternative to any information Hall received about the embassy in question being not only passed to him orally, or in written recollections, but also *not* being information "from the horse's mouth", so to speak, as all those who'd actually participated (probably including any of the clearks!) were dead. To be honest, and until futher facts are presented, it appears to me that what has happened here is one conflation - the original one of two different people, Stillington and King, who both served as bishop of Bath and Wells with the latter succeeding the former - *and* the confusion on Hall's part between "France" and "Brittany", which to give him some credit *were* one country when he (Hall) was writing. Thus an "embassy to France" (which we know Stillington *did* carry out) was confused with an embassy to Brittany, which he didn't - it was the *other* bishop of Bath and Wells. I'm afraid I'm with Carol as to those 500 exiles impressing on Henry how dangerous Stillington was. Henry may very well have considered the possibility Titulus Regius was trumped up by Stillington (that would be his "plotting", I presume) and one can easily see how that position would be advanced by the exiles. But then *why* did Henry release Stillington after a couple of months? Either Stillington *had* falsely slandered EIV and EW or he hadn't; Stillington's release suggests to me that Henry, whatever he may have believed about it *before* Bosowrth, afterwards Henry no longer considerd TR was a fabrication made up for political ends. Retaining Stillington is custody would only have drawn even more attention to TR which was something, from his later actions, Henry obviously didn't want. The final result of all this was that, by the time Hall was writing, it was known that Stillington had been arrested by Henry immediately after Bosworth, Stillington was involved in "French* embassies, *a* person who was bishop of Bath and Wells led an embassy to Brittany to retrieve Henry and therefore Stillington was arrested after Bosworth because he'd led that particular embassy to Brittany, *not* because of TR which, to crib from a popular series of books, had become the "document which shall never be named." Doug

Hi David,

I'll pop this in here for want of a better place. This is the information I have been able to put together on Anglo-Breton diplomacy 1474-6 based on strictly contemporary sources (with the single except of a couple of comments from Commines). Sorry it's so long but I think it needs to be. When you've had a look, perhaps we can discuss some more? I can also give you proper list of sources if need be. Sorry about rogue italics, underscore, etc.

Marie

1474

February 1474 - Edward began preparations to send 1,000 archers and a few men at arms to Burgundy, and 2,000 archers to Brittany under the command of Lords Duras and Audley. Volunteers for Burgundy were to assemble on 28th Feb at the Great Horn, Christchurch Street, London, where the Burgundian ambassadors were staying. (Scofield, p.91)

30 March 1474  Payment of £4,586 10s to lords Audley and Duras going to serve under the Duke of Brittany with 2,000 archers (Foedera Syllabus, p. 704, Foedera Vol xi p. 791).

c. end August 1474 - William Slefeld went over to Brittany to see if Francis II would sign another treaty binding himself to take part in an attack on Louis; Francis, however, was wary and assured Louis he was not in league with the English and had only ever treated with them for commercial intercourse, and would not do otherwise unless driven to it. Some of his councillors, however, were favourable to Edward's overtures. (Scofield, p.99).

24 October 1474  The Milanese ambassador Bollati wrote back to the Duke of Milan from Chartres:-

There is nothing of consequence from Brittany either except something about the duke's remonstrances upon the Perpignan affair. This is due to the constant prompting he has from the ambassadors of the King of Aragon, the English and the Burgundians with him. (CMP p.188)

Early December 1474  It was believed by King Louis that Edward planned to land his army in Normandy and join forces with Brittany against him (CMP p.189)

12 December 1474  Edward made an agreement with the Breton envoy, de la Villéon, about the indemnity to be paid to certain Breton merchants who had suffered loss at the hands of the King's subjects (Scofield, p.100).

1475

24 April 1475  The Milanese Ambassador with Charles of Burgundy wrote: at the end of May he [Charles] will find himself towards France with his army, to make war on the King of France. He has arranged this with King Edward, who will cross at that time with 40,000 combatants on the one side, and the Duke of Brittany on the other. (CMP p.195)

Commines later commented: Besides this the king of England was to send three thousand men to land in Brittany to join the duke's army. I saw two letters written by my lord of Urfé ([later] chief esquire of France). He was then a retainer of the duke of Brittany. One was addressed to the king of England and the other to Lord Hastings, Lord Chamberlain of England, and amongst other things, they said that the duke of Brittany would achieve more in a month by his intrigues than the armies of the English and the Burgundians would achieve in six, however powerful they were.

16 May 1475 A treaty was drawn with Breton envoys binding Francis to join Edward with 8,000 men to recover France, Aquitaine and Normandy. Edward promised that, if Francis needed help against Louis, Lord Dinham should take the fleet to his assistance, and that a force of English archers should be kept ready to assist Brittany (Scofield, p.124).

19 May 1475  Lords Audley and Duras indented with Edward to do him service of war for a year with 8,000 archers under the Duke of Brittany, in Brittany or France. They were to muster at Weymouth on 23rd June. (Scofield, p.124)

Edward was short of money and did not have the cash to send Audley and Duras over to Brittany (Scofield, p.127).

Note. This may be based on TNA E 404/76/1/22, which I have not copied but which according to my notes concerns Audley and Duras and would be dated some time between 19th May and 1st June.

12 June 1475  At Westminster, EIV issues a proclamation that Lords Audley and Duras have been placed in charge of an armed force going to Brittany, and have been given full power to command it (Foedera, Vol xii, p. 12).

20 June 1475  At Westminster, EIV commissions lords Audley and Duras and Master Oliver King to treat with Francis Duke of Brittany or his ambassadors both for a perpetual peace and for improvements to existing truces and alliances (Foedera, Vol xii, p. 12).

Mon ?7 July 2475 - King René's secretary Antonillo Pagano, left Malines to go towards Morenz. At his departure Duke Charles said to him: Go quickly to my Uncle, King René, as quickly as possible, and / tell him that the King of England descended on Calais on the 4th of this month, accompanied by 24,000 good men, and he has already sent 6,000 of them to the Duke of Brittany. He himself was going to meet the King of England, and he would remain with his Majesty four or six days and no more. He proposed that this charge for the enterprise of Normandy should rest with the King of England, some of the English, the Duke of Burgundy and the Constable of France, who has declared himself an open Burgundian. He has got the Duke of Brittany to promise to enter Normandy with 30,000 combatants, which is ample, with the help of the English, for the conquest of Normandy, according to those who have the most experience.  (CMP pp.198-9, letter written on 30th July)

14-18 July 1475  When Duke Charles met EIV at Calais he proposed that Edward, with Brittany and St Pol, should overrun Normandy and then push into Champagne, whilst he himself returned to fetch his army and enter Champagne from the east; they would all meet up at Rheims, where Edward would be crowned. In the end it was decided that Edward should advance by Doullens and Peronne to Saint-Quentin, which Queen Elizabeth's uncle the Count of St Pol had offered to surrender to him. (Scofield, p.132)

By 20 August 1475  Edward had agreed the terms of the truce with Louis, which allowed for the dukes of Brittany and Burgundy to join if they wished (CMP pp.200-201). There was also a marriage treaty agreed, whereby Elizabeth of York was to marry the Dauphin.

20 August 1475  The Milanese Ambassador with King Louis wrote: They say that ambassadors of Brittany are destined for England. M. Duchanour and the chancellor are returning to Brittany and I think it only remains for the king [Louis] to live well with everybody. (CMP pp.200-1).

28 August 1475  Francis of Brittany wrote to Edward expressing both his intention to keep loyally his 30 years' truce and intercourse of merchandise with him, no matter what happened, and his belief that Edward would do the same. He sent the letter with his secretary Maurice Gourmel and the English envoys Lord Duras and Oliver King (Scofield, p.151).

29 August 1475  At Picquigny, Louis mentioned the duke of Brittany, who was the real reason for his beginning this conversation, and asked a similar question about him. The king of England replied, begging him not to want to make war on the duke of Brittany, and saying that in his moment of need he had never found such a good friend. The King left it at that and with the most gracious and friendly words to each of his men. So both of them left the barrier at the same moment, or as near as makes no difference, and mounted their horses. . . . The duke of Gloucester, the king of England's brother, and several others, who were not pleased by this peace, were not present at this conference. (Commines, Book 4, Chapter 10)

30 August 1475  During the feast at Amiens, Louis was still suspicious of Edward's intentions because he had found him a little obdurate when he spoke to him about the duke of Brittany. He would have very willingly won him over so that he would allow war to be waged in Brittany. And he had sounded him out again through my lords of Bouchage and Saint-Pierre. But when the king of England saw himself cornered he said that if anyone waged war in Brittany he would cross over at once and defend the duchy. On hearing his reply no one said another word to him about it. (Commines, Book 4, Chapter 10)

9 September 1475 - Brittany signed a treaty with Louis renouncing all alliances he had formed against France (Lettres de Louis XI, vol VI, p. 73, n. 1; Scofield, p.151).

Edward sent Oliver King back to Brittany to obtain from Francis a renewal of the mercantile treaty, to ask for recompense for the cost of the troops sent to him in 1468 and 1475 (Scofield, p.166).

c. 20 September 1475  Duke of Exeter (heir of Lancaster) went overboard and drowned on return to England.

28 September 1475  Francis wrote to Edward via his secretary Maurice Gourmel and Lord Duras and Oliver King, expressing his intention to keep loyally the 30 years' truce and intercourse of merchandise, and his belief that Edward would do the same (Scofield, p. 150).

Very soon after Oliver King came home with the letter in which Francis expressed his determination to stick to his thirty years' mercantile treaty with England, he was sent back to Brittany ...to obtain a renewal of the treaty.... (Scofield, p. 166).

Note. Scofield believes that this was the embassy that brought the request to hand over Henry Tudor.

5 November 1475  The Duke of Brittany, at Nantes, raised letters to Louis XI concluding the treaty with him (Lettres de Louis XI, vol VI, p. 73, n. 1).

1476

22 January 1476  At Nantes, Francis Duke of Brittany confirms the existing truce and trade agreement with EIV (Foedera, Vol xii, pp. 22-23). Francis renewed the 30-year mercantile treaty with England, but he denied owing England any money, pointing out the large sums owed to Brittany for English infractions of the truce. He sent Gourmel to Edward again. (Scofield, p.166)

Presumably, Oliver King now returned to England with the trade agreement.

6 March 1476  At the Bishop of Lincoln's palace of Buckden, Huntingdonshire, EIV confirms the treaty with Brittany (Foedera, Vol xii, p. 24).

16 March 1476  At Buckden, EIV releases Francis Duke of Brittany from the expense of the fleet he had sent to assist him in return for similar release of mercantile damages amounting to 50,000 crowns (Foedera, Vol xii p. 23).

18 March 1476  At Buckden, EIV appoints Oliver King as his Principal Secretary in the French language (Foedera, Vol xi, p. 26).

3 December 1476  Confirmation of EIV's promise of 1468 to protect the Duchy of Brittany (Foedera Syllabus p. 708, Foedera Vol xii p. 37).

Jacques de Villéon arrived from Brittany to enquire into remarks that it was said some English ambassadors had made in France. (Scofield, p.166)

18 June 1476  Edward IV wrote to Duke Francis, emphatically denying the remarks in question had ever been made and assuring the Duke that he would always find him his good cousin and friend, and asking him to give credence to the messages Villéon would bring concerning certain other matters of which I have talked to him concerning the Earl of Richmond. (Scofield, p. 166)

After Villéon's return to Brittany with Edward's request about Richmond, Francis started sending Maurice Gourmel back and forth to England (Scofield, p.172).

Note. Gourmel was acting as a double-agent. He copied all the letters entrusted to him by Edward and Francis for each other, and gave the copy to the addressee and the original to King Louis (Scofield, pp.182-3).

David,

Take it from me - I've researched the subject in depth for a book. The boy crowned in Dublin had never pretended to be Richard of Shewsbury.

Marie

David wrote:

"Since Vannes and Saint Malo are at opposite ends of the Duchy, Henry must have spent some time with his 'abductors'. The idea of his mistaking someone for King is hard to support, since King was treated very well by Henry after Bosworth."

In his notes, Chris Skidmore cites an interesting "mangled" document paying for Henry Tudor's transport from Brest to Saint-Malo and six days spent at Saint-Malo. The date seems to be one of the lost bits, however.

David wrote:
"As for the dying out of witnesses, I think in an earlier post, I mentioned Richard Fox, who actually signed Stillington's arrest warrant after Bosworth - he was a young man at the time, and his lifetime overlaps that of Hall."

Marie replies:

I wasn't aware we had an arrest warrant. Do you know the source for this, David?

There is no record at all of Bishop Stillington having been sent on embassy to Brittany, and you will find no self-respecting modern historian who repeats this. He was in any case too old and too frail; it is not credible. Beside, Hall says the ambassador was "Dr. Stillington", not Bishop Stillington (the bishop had several illegitimate sons with clerical positions in his diocese).

Why do you imagine Edward IV would have appointed this old man, who hadn't been able to manage a couple of days for years, and who had had to give up the chancellorship on ground of ill health in the summer of 1473, to travel all the way to Brittany to escort a prisoner? The trouble is, you can always find someone whose life spanned the gap and who "could" have been a source of a statement that springs up out of nowhere in some Tudor "history", but when there is no corroborative evidence for such a statement in the relevant classes of document then it is probably wrong, and why would Richard Fox, as a young man, have been privy to all this?

The 16th century didn't think of "history" in the same way that we do - these things contained a lot of invention (long speeches and letters that are clearly not in 15th C style are the easiest inventions to spot), and developed over time. The stories in these "histories" are generally based in fact but, even as early as Vergil, are not reliable in regard to details. There are, for instance, a couple of documents that seem to confirm that Edward tried to get Henry Tudor repatriated after the Duke of Exeter's death, and that HT was indeed brought as far as Saint-Malo. But Vergil's tale about Princess Elizabeth having been offered as bait *cannot* be correct since she had just been very publicly promised to the Dauphin, and no such claim was ever laid before the Papal Legate in January 1486 when witnesses were desperately attempting to create the impression that Edward IV had been thinking about such a match, in order to obtain a ratification of the marriage dispensation. This is why if you read modern scholarly accounts they generally omit this part of Vergil's tale. All that seems to have happened is that by late in his life HT had developed for himself a firm story that Edward IV had once actually offered him Elizabeth's hand (even if he hadn't meant it). This is about the politics of the Tudor dynasty, not the history of the 1470s.

David wrote:

"I really can't see why Henry's release of Stillington has any bearing on the truth or otherwise of TR - you can't have it both ways - if he was imprisoned to keep him quiet, but released so as not to allow him to speak - this is not consistent.
My understanding was that the parliament wanted Stillington brought up before it so he could be punished, but Henry said he had already agreed to pardon him."

Marie replies:

There are only two sources for this parliament of which I'm aware: the Parliament Rolls themselves and an account kept by the two MPs for Colchester. Neither mentions any wish on the part of parliament regarding Stillington; the only mention comes in a private petition brought by Stanley's clerical nephew James who had - partly for "the horrible and heinous offences imagined and done by the Bishop of Bath" - been informally given Stillington's post of Dean of St. Martin le Grand, and who wanted letters patent legally confirming the grant for life.

But we do know that parliament wanted Henry to marry Elizabeth and to have TR repealed before doing so. It is therefore likely that Stillington's presence in the Lords would have been awkward for Henry. At any rate Stillington did not receive a summons to attend. He seems to have hung around Westminster, though, and on 22nd November he was granted a pardon and the king's protection "on account of his great age, infirmity and feebleness." This may well have prevented parliament summoning him to answer awkward questions. I think Henry, having now seen Stillington, believed him to have learned his lesson and to be too old, sick and frightened to cause trouble for him. The fact is that arresting Stillington was one of Henry's first acts, that he was not involved in Henry's coronation or summoned to his first parliament, that he gave up a Hampshire property to Sir John Cheney on the very day he received his pardon, and as already described, Stillington had been deprived of the deanery of St Martin le Grand. Surviving council minutes from Henry's first year refer to Stillington as the author of TR. Despite his pardon of him, Henry clearly had something against Stillington, and, as I think is now clear, it was nothing to do with his near-repatriation from Brittany in 1476. Apart from anything else, the ambassadors who went to fetch him in 1476 would have been acting on King Edward's orders, and Edward IV was politically approved.

David wrote:

"If Stillington believed in the truth of TR, why did he support a rebellion in favour of Lambert Simnel who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury and Warwick, both of whom he must have believed to be excluded from the succession by TR."

Marie replies:

I know I'm answering this twice, but no serious historian takes any notice of Andre's garbled account, which is the only one to suggest that the pretender first claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury. There was a lot of disinformation being set down in these official accounts, which we know to be disinformation because it is contradicted by the documents we have from the actual time in question. I can't go into more detail here, but I shall be publishing on the subject. As far as TR is concerned, the only impediment to Warwick's claim was his father's attainder, which could easily have been overturned. It is certainly the case that Warwick was the candidate of choice for Richard's old supporters in the early part of Henry's reign.

David wrote:

"Henry's destruction of copies of TR is in view overplayed. It could have been on the wishes of his wife and mother-in-law. The content of it can not have been unknown. There would be many members of Richard's parliament who also appeared in the one that repealed it - and of course, it was known in France and Brittany as Commynes confirms."

Marie answers:

He was not yet married to Elizabeth. The evidence that we have from that parliament tells us that Henry only confirmed that he would indeed marry Elizabeth after being petitioned to do so; he was certainly not taking much notice of Elizabeth's mother, who did not have custody of her daughter and had to petition parliament in order to obtain her queen's dower. For the marriage to have the effect desired by the people, of uniting York and Lancaster, Elizabeth had of course to be re-legitimated. The Act suppressing Titulus Regius makes it quite clear that TR was repealed by Henry "at the special instance, desire and prayer of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons in this present parliament assembled." It was a normal part of the procedure when repealing an Act of Parliament that it should first be read out. Henry insisted that it be repealed *without* reading, that all copies should be destroyed: "be it ordained by the same authority that every person having any copy or remembrances of the said bill or Act bring unto the Chancellor of England for the time being the same copies and remembrances, or otherwise utterly destroy them, afore the feast of Easter next coming, upon pain of imprisonment and making fine and ransom to the King at his will, so that all things said and remembred in the said bill and Act thereof may be for ever out of remembrance and forgot."

Oh, and he also insisted that the repeal of TR should in no way be prejudicial to his own title.

You could argue that Henry was reluctant to repeal the Act at all because it legitimated Edward IV's issue, with all the risk entailed should one of Elizabeth's brothers turn up again. His motives for suppressing the contents, given that he did not wish to share power with Elizabeth, are not so clear. Sorry about the italic..

Correcting myself here.

This was my bit - forgot to put my name to it:-

"In his notes, Chris Skidmore cites an interesting "mangled" document paying for Henry Tudor's transport from Brest to Saint-Malo and six days spent at Saint-Malo. The date seems to be one of the lost bits, however."

"Why do you imagine Edward IV would have appointed this old man, who hadn't been able to manage a couple of days for years"

Should have written "hadn't been able to manage a couple of days' ride..."

Ah, but you might want to remember that until Buck discovered the surviving copy of Titilus Regius in Stuart times, the general populace believed the Tudor propaganda that Richard was a monster, else Henry Tydder couldn't be their savior. Much of the general populace still sees Richard as a usurping child-killer today thanks to the deliberate Tudor destruction of Richard's reputation and Shakespeare's use of same. And so it goes.

~W.

David, to be provocative (as I enjoy being from time to time :) ), if Henry was so influenced by his wife and his mother-in-law, why did he ignore the pleas of his own mother in executing William Stanley? Methinks Stillington was of much less value to the former pair.   But, Stillington was quite rich by the time he died and MB and Reggie Bray lost no time in getting their hands on his London property. Never forget property. In fact, as I see it we have no proofa) that Stillington ever left this country to see Francis but Oliver King and Lord Audley certainly didb) that EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel affair (although the dates tally and it's not an unreasonable assumption)c) that Stillington was involved in the above   And, were I a Yorkist, then anything which de-stablises Henry's regime has got to be good. And again why would you want to punish Stillington for TR? Does that mean that Edward of Westminster and ROY are the rightful heirs? Is HT really interested in the politics of the Yorkist kings and some 'servant' who was supposed pressured into doing what Richard wanted?  I do however agree with your assessment of Commines - I honestly don't think he had an English axe to grind.  Regards H   

On Wednesday, 11 December 2013, 13:36, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
  Hi Doug,
As usual, your replies are very full of content and give a reasoned view of events.

I am afraid I can't influence the title of the French article a - I think they are looking at the events as a whole. You need to be aware that Francis was rather weak and towards the end of his life ill and possibly senile. He had a high level wish to retain independence from France, but could be easily influenced. There is a view that Edward used the offer of a good marriage for Henry and the protection of Brittany from France in the previous year's treaty to persuade Francis's council. It is evident that this was while Jean du Quelennec was away from court. The prospective marriage is generally thought to be a sham.

The story has J du Q (who may be a distant cousin of Henry) remonstrating with the Duke, who then sends Landais to Saint Malo. It could be (my view) Landais who persuaded Francis to agree to the wishes of the embassy in the first place. It was an early example of the increasing power of Landais and the split from the council that would be so damaging in the next decade.

Since Vannes and Saint Malo are at opposite ends of the Duchy, Henry must have spent some time with his 'abductors'. The idea of his mistaking someone for King is hard to support, since King was treated very well by Henry after Bosworth.

Francis had always been afraid that Henry and or Jasper would be taken by force, which is why they were moved from the castle Suscinio - which was beautifully situated but next to the sea.

As for the dying out of witnesses, I think in an earlier post, I mentioned Richard Fox, who actually signed Stillington's arrest warrant after Bosworth - he was a young man at the time, and his lifetime overlaps that of Hall.

I really can't see why Henry's release of Stillington has any bearing on the truth or otherwise of TR - you can't have it both ways - if he was imprisoned to keep him quiet, but released so as not to allow him to speak - this is not consistent.

My understanding was that the parliament wanted Stillington brought up before it so he could be punished, but Henry said he had already agreed to pardon him.

If Stillington believed in the truth of TR, why did he support a rebellion in favour of Lambert Simnel who claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury and Warwick, both of whom he must have believed to be excluded from the succession by TR.

Henry's destruction of copies of TR is in view overplayed. It could have been on the wishes of his wife and mother-in-law. The content of it can not have been unknown. There would be many members of Richard's parliament who also appeared in the one that repealed it - and of course, it was known in France and Brittany as Commynes confirms.

Kind Regards
David
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 4:32:14 PM

  David wrote: "Thanks for your clarification. I used the word abduction purely as a translation of the word used in the title of the French article. I thought it might raise an eybrow or two, so I checked and I was also offered the word kidnap."   Doug here: Well, it appears, to me anyway, that whoever wrote that article was certainly acquainted with Commynes, but unless there were citations supporting the use of either I'm afraid it still isn't getting us any more forward. My main problem with using *either* word to describe what happened is that neither fits in with what *is* agreed on whether one supports Ricahrd or Henry. According to the information in previous posts which is generally agreed upon by historians, whether pro- or -anti-Tudor, Henry was "escorted" from one place in Brittany to another by a group of Englishmen dispatched from England to Brittany to retrieve Henry and return him to England. However, and again according to historians from both camps, Henry wasn't returned to England because he successly pleaded with the Duke of Brittany (or his ministers) that *to allow* Henry to be returned to England would be a death sentence for Henry. Which leads me to conclude that Francis *originally agreed to* Henry's repatriation, whether willing or no. Otherwsie, why the pleading? Or is the argument that Francis and his ministers were *physically* unable to prevent a group of Englishmen from entering the Duchy, kidnapping someone residing there and returning to England?   David wrote: "You are right the uinvolvement of Stillington in 1476 (or not) may have been passed orally. I have thought of another angle, which is that in 1483 Henry would have little knowledge of Stillington - other than the embassy - but the 500 exiles that joined him, being loyal Edwardians and Woodville adherents, would have further impressed on HT during the next two years that the Bishop was a dangerous plotter. Couple this with the view of him that was current at the French court..."   Doug here: Again it's my opinion, but I see no viable alternative to any information Hall received about the embassy in question being not only passed to him orally, or in written recollections, but also *not* being information "from the horse's mouth", so to speak, as all those who'd actually participated (probably including any of the clearks!) were dead. To be honest, and until futher facts are presented, it appears to me that what has happened here is one conflation - the original one of two different people, Stillington and King, who both served as bishop of Bath and Wells with the latter succeeding the former - *and*  the confusion on Hall's part between "France" and "Brittany", which to give him some credit *were* one country when he (Hall) was writing. Thus an "embassy to France" (which we know Stillington *did* carry out) was confused with an embassy to Brittany, which he didn't - it was the *other* bishop of Bath and Wells. I'm afraid I'm with Carol as to those 500 exiles impressing on Henry how dangerous Stillington was. Henry may very well have considered the possibility Titulus Regius was trumped up by Stillington (that would be his "plotting", I presume) and one can easily see how that position would be advanced by the exiles. But then *why* did Henry release Stillington after a couple of months? Either Stillington *had* falsely slandered EIV and EW or he hadn't; Stillington's release suggests to me that Henry, whatever he may have believed about it *before* Bosowrth, afterwards Henry no longer considerd TR was a fabrication made up for political ends. Retaining Stillington is custody would only have drawn even more attention to TR which was something, from his later actions, Henry obviously didn't want. The final result of all this was that, by the time Hall was writing, it was known that Stillington had been arrested by Henry immediately after Bosworth, Stillington was involved in "French* embassies, *a* person who was bishop of Bath and Wells led an embassy to Brittany to retrieve Henry and therefore Stillington was arrested after Bosworth because he'd led that particular embassy to Brittany, *not* because of TR which, to crib from a popular series of books, had become the "document which shall never be named." Doug

Hi David,

Can I just ask you how you :-

1) reconcile Stillington's age and ill health with appointment to such an embassy,

A:

2) explain how no other writer has found evidence of it. What was Griffiths' source?

A:

Marie

David wrote:

"I don't think EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel affair either. The assumption that she was seems to be based on the fact that two events seem to occur at around the same time."

Marie adds:

Three events - Dorset was committed to the Tower at the same time.

David wrote:

"I still think that there is a good probability that he was involved in the 1476 embassy, because it is generally dated to late in the year. Prof Griffiths dates it to November - which makes it very distinct from the earlier ones you mention."

Marie replies:

And yet there is extant correspondence from Edward IV to Duke Francis referring to his wishes regarding Henry Tudor dating from July of 1476. Is this not likely to be his demand that, if Francis would not give up HT as he had been asked, would he please confirm that he would be securely kept?

Remember also that the event that made HT dynastically important, and so necessary for Edward to have in his own control, was the death of the Duke of Exeter, and that took place back in September 1475. It fits the evidence much better to suppose that the repatriation of HT was something that Oliver King was asked to bring about when he was sent back to Brittany in November 1475. The scenario we then have is that he returns in the spring empty-handed, Francis sends over an ambassador to discuss with Edward a mutually acceptable alternative to repatriation, and the surviving letter forms part of that discussion.

Hi David,

Can I just ask you how you :-

1) reconcile Stillington's age and ill health with appointment to such an embassy,

A:

2) explain how no other writer has found evidence of it. What was Griffiths' source?

A:

Marie

Hi David,

Thanks for that. Yes, it's known that Stillington travelled to, and within, his diocese during 1476, and after Bosworth was indeed arrested in Yorkshire. But he had never before been sent abroad on embassy, and had been unable to travel several times whilst Chancellor, culminating in a long illness starting in 1472 during which he was unable to preside over parliament, and as a result of which he resigned as Chancellor in the summer of 1473. If I were Edward IV I would not have dreamed of appointing such a person - now probably not far off 70 years of age - as head of a foreign embassy charged with such a challenging task. I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense to me whether or not Stillington's health appeared to be somewhat recovered after 3-years' relative rest.

As for sources, if you check Hall you will see that he does not tell us when this embassy took place (nor does Vergil). So we are no nearer understanding Griffiths & Thomas' source for the notion that the Saint-Malo incident took place "in about November 1476". My suspicion is that it is derived from Pocquet du Haut-Jusse's history of Brittany, which is one of the sources cited by Griffiths & Thomas, since I have checked the English sources they cite, such as Ross and Scofield, and have not found the statement there. It would be nice to know exactly what P du H-J wrote, but I can't find a copy online, either for downloading or to purchase, but that little word "about" in Griffiths & Thomas makes me very suspicious. If we had the actual record of an embassy involving Stillington, wouldn't we know exactly what month it belonged to?

The problem is that secondary sources work like Chinese whispers. Later ones copy earlier ones but firm the suggestions up a bit until some very tentative idea has hardened into an assumed fact. I notice that Sean Cunningham in his recent biography of Henry VII claims categorically that this incident took place "at the end of 1476". Looking at his endnotes, it would seem that Griffiths and Thomas is his source. But he doesn't name Stillington. Few if any historians now seem to place any confidence in Hall's "Dr. Stillington"; apart from anything else, treating mid 16thC histories as primary sources for 15th-century events is no longer regarded as good historical method.

Skidmore's recent book on Bosworth from the Tudor viewpoint further muddies the waters by suggesting that the ambassador in question was Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald, but without dating the embassy concerned. It is the first I have heard of an embassy to Brittany by Thomas Whiting - it is not mentioned in the Foedera, in the biography of Whiting in in Godfrey's "College of Arms", or by Scofield - but it is certainly plausible since he was a herald and had been sent on embassy to Burgundy in 1473. It may be that Skidmore found some reference in the Exchequer accounts, which I understand he has studied (but then so did Scofield), or it may be that he confused Whiting's embassy to Burgundy with one to Brittany. It is all a mess, but what seems fairly plain is that Stillington's embassy to Brittany is inherently unlikely and current writers have found no corroborative evidence for it.

Marie

David Durose wrote:

"Point 2 - (Sources)
Not sure, but you (Marie) have already pointed out that is mentioned in Edward Hall."

Carol responds:

Hall is a highly unreliable source. In addition to incorporating bits of More and Vergil (uncredited, IIRC), he invents wholesale. Here is his colorful and wholly imaginary account of the death of Edmund, Earl of Rutland:

"While this battaill was in fightyng, a prieste called sir Robert Aspall, chappelain and schole master to the yong erle of Rutland ii. sonne to the aboue named duke of Yorke, scace of y age of. xii. yeres, a faire getlema, and a maydenlike person, perceiuyng y flight was more sanegard, then tariyng, bothe for him and his master, secretly conueyed therle out of y felde, by the lord Cliffordes bande, toward the towne, but or he coulde enter into a house, he was by the sayd lord Clifford espied, folowed, and taken, and by reson of his apparell, demaunded what he was. The yog gentelman dismaied, had not a word to speake, but kneled on his knees imploryng mercy, and desiryng grace, both with holding vp his hades and making dolorous countinance, for his speache was gone for feare. Saue him saycle his Chappelein, for he is a princes sonne, and peraduenture may do you good hereafter. With that word, the lord Clifford marked him and sayde: by Gods blode, thy father slew myne, and so wil I do the and all thy kyn, and with that woord, stacke the erle to y hart with his dagger, and bad his Chappeleyn bere the erles mother & brother worde what he had done, and sayde. . . . Yet this cruell Clifforde, deadly bloudsupper not content with this homicyde, or chyldkillyng, came to y place wher the dead corps of the duke of Yorke lay, and caused his head to be stryken of, and set on it a croune of paper, & so fixed it on a pole, & presented it to the Quene, not lyeng farre from the felde, in great despite, and much derision, saiyng: Madame, your warre is done, here is your kinges raunsome, at which present, was much ioy, and great reioysing . . ."

Edmund Earl of Rutland was no maidenly boy of twelve. He was seventeen, fully old enough to fight in battle by medieval standards. (The minimum age was sixteen; the maximum, sixty.) The basis of this story is probably a report in The Annales Rerum Anglicarum that in the flight after the battle, Lord Clifford killed Edmund Earl of Rutland, son of the Duke of York, on the bridge at Wakefield. The rest is Hall's vivid imagination.

Have you by any chance read Richard III and His Tudor Historians by Alison Hanham? The book isn't new--I first read it in 1980 or '81--but Hanham is no Richard partisan, so she can't be accused of favoring his cause. You may find her comments on Hall (and Holinshed) enlightening.

Carol

Fair point, but I wonder if you think EW's retreat to Bermondsey was entirely voluntary. Not only did she retire into a convent, but she lost her dower at the same time, and there is hard evidence that she was completely penniless for a while, until Henry finally awarded her a rather mingy annuity. Her will makes it clear that she lacked the funds to endow her children as she would have wishes - most of her belongings would need to be sold to pay her debts. Her funeral is also a very low-key and odd affair and she seems to have been buried in a cheap coffin.

Also, I can't see that Henry's initial arrest of Stillington is likely to have been in deference to EW's wishes given that she and Dorset had abandoned his cause during Richard's reign and the arrest warrant went out directly after the battle.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

I don't know if Stillington was really that old - I must admit I was going by Mowat. 1420 sounds quite plausible in terms of his known career. I don't know whether his illness was strategic or real, but from Edward IV's point of view it wouldn't really matter. When asked to travel he was flaky - very flaky. The problem could have been anything - idleness, piles, rheumatoid arthritis, a heart condition, chronic infection, major depressive illness, etc - but whatever it was he had proven himself very unreliable when asked to make a journey.

Many people died young in the 15thC, and many others seem to have had long-term ill health, such as the Duke of Suffolk. The commissions to which Stillington was appointed later in Edward's reign don't tell us a lot - it was inevitable that, as Bishop of Bath, he would be appointed to commissions for Somerset, and commissions to negotiate with visiting ambassadors or to be a member (possibly only nominal) of the commission of the peace for Middx didn't involve any travelling.

My suspicion is that after Bosworth he had fled to Nether Acaster to take refuge with his family, and was arrested there. Certainly the folk in York thought he was ill when he was brought to the city ("sore crazed" - crazed meant physically, not mentally, ill back then), and so did Oxford University in 1487.

Marie

EW's retreat to Bermondsey Abbey, the fact that she was reconciled with Richard during his reign, and that she obviously fell out with Henry VII is yet another of the great enigmas of this case.
Thank you for your erudition and incredibly interesting information since I have been here, Marie,..........and merry Christmas too

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Fair point, but I wonder if you think EW's retreat to Bermondsey was entirely voluntary. Not only did she retire into a convent, but she lost her dower at the same time, and there is hard evidence that she was completely penniless for a while, until Henry finally awarded her a rather mingy annuity. Her will makes it clear that she lacked the funds to endow her children as she would have wishes - most of her belongings would need to be sold to pay her debts. Her funeral is also a very low-key and odd affair and she seems to have been buried in a cheap coffin. 

Also, I can't see that Henry's initial arrest of Stillington is likely to have been in deference to EW's wishes given that she and Dorset had abandoned his cause during Richard's reign and the arrest warrant went out directly after the battle.

Marie

"I don't know if Stillington was really that old - I must admit I was going by Mowat. 1420 sounds quite plausible in terms of his known career. [snip]

Carol responds:

Merry Christmas, Marie. Doesn't Henry's pardon of Stillington for unspecified "horrible and heinous offenses against us" (quoting from memory) mention his great old age and frail physical condition?

Carol