Embassy to Brittany

Hi David,

I'm always interested in Jasper Tudor's role in Henry Tudor's exile. It seems to me that the chances that the 14-year-old Henry would have been at risk from Edward IV, simply for being in Pembroke whilst it was held for the Lancastrians by his uncle, are rather slim. Even after the carnage of Tewkesbury he pardoned those of the condemned men who were "first offenders". Jasper certainly would have been executed had Edward caught him. Were Jasper's reasons for spiriting his nephew out of the country more to do with family dynastic ambitions than the boy's safety?

Marie

It would seem to me that TR was dynamite. Henry destroyed as many copies as he could, hoping he had got all of them, because far from thinking what was written in the Act was "trumped up" he believed, or even knew, that every word was true and a threat to both his kingship and in some ways his marriage.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

It would seem to me that TR was dynamite. Henry destroyed as many copies as he could, hoping he had got all of them, because far from thinking what was written in the Act was "trumped up" he believed, or even knew, that every word was true and a threat to both his kingship and in some ways his marriage.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

David wrote: //snip// "Regarding the reading of TR, my view is that we are so used to almost universal literacy that we overlook the fact that for the vast majority of people, the piece of writing would have meant nothing without having someone read it aloud for them. So Richard has TR read aloud to the garrison of Calais and placards removed without being read aloud." Doug here: I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. And, as Acts of Parliament could also affect the outcome of lawsuits, after the public reading, copies of really important Acts would be placed in various places around the kingdom; usually, I believe, at the various cathedrals where they would be available if necessary for reference. For example, until TR was repealed, HT was king solely by conquest and none of the actions taken by anyone serving Richard could, *legally*, be termed treason. Thus TR, until it was repealed, could be used as a legal defense in court against actions by *HT!* Surely that would be reason enough not have the document read? If TR was repealed in the usual manner; ie, first being read out in Parliament and, apparently, at those places where copies were held, what was there to stop members of Parliament from wishing to provide a rebuttal that showed what in TR was "false"? Which, in turn, would mean re-examing the validity of the evidence originally presented when TR was passed. My presumption is that there *wasn't* evidence to rebut the contents of TR and that was why TR was to be returned unread. Of course, other opinions may vary... Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive. Doug

Absolutely agree Stephen. Hicks also says in his book on Richard that there was no Woodville plot. Evidence would suggest otherwise.

Hilary

I am fascinated by this. Is there any way, at that time, that parliament would have had the power to stop the king interfering with their own records, do you think?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Carol, According to Wilkinson  'an Act to be repealed would have to be read out, so that everyone would know what it was about. It's contents would be invalidated and the Act repealed. This procedure was not followed in this case. Instead TR was repealed unread and the Act itself removed from the Roll and burned. On pain of imprisonment fine and ransom at the king's will, all copies were to be taken to the chancellor for burning or otherwise destroyed.'  (Wilkinson The Princes in the Tower page 100). She uses this in her argument that HT wanted Stillington out of the way in case he opposed its repeal because of his conscience as a bishop. So as well as responding to the question above  about procedure, I'm asking why, when I look at the ratification in the 1484 Parliament Rolls today, the gist of it is there (not the Act itself of course)- has someone put it in later or did Henry simply forget to tamper with the original ratification which quite clearly spells out Richard's rightful claim to the throne and more importantly that he came to the throne at the request of Parliament? One wonders why so many later historians and Shakespeare have Richard as the dark plotter who forces his reign of the people when it's pretty clear from this he came to the throne at their behest. H.

On Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 1:24, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  Doug wrote: "I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it  would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. <snip> Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive."

Right, Doug.Apples and oranges.  Simply put, it's the difference between repealing a constitutional amendment unread and destroying all copies of said amendment and tearing down and burning an "Impeach Obama" sticker--only, of course, it would be impossible today to destroy all copies of anything.

Sorry about the American examples. I'm sure that those of you who read this post can mentally supply comparable British examples.

Carol

I would think Marie would know if anyone did.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I don't know Jessie. That's why I was wondering if Marie did. The Parliament Rolls, like other Rolls, seem to be on separate membranes which don't always follow one another. Did someone refuse to alter this one, or was it simply 'forgotten' as being too much bother? And how can you really say that something that happened clearly never did? Would you have to burn the original and re-write it - a big job? Presumably it was the job of the Master of the Rolls (now a legal office) to safeguard their veracity? Does anyone know any more about this?  H

On Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 11:37, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
  Hilary I am fascinated by this. Is there any way, at that time, that parliament would have had the power to stop the king interfering with their own records, do you think? Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 10:42:45 AM

  Carol, According to Wilkinson  'an Act to be repealed would have to be read out, so that everyone would know what it was about. It's contents would be invalidated and the Act repealed. This procedure was not followed in this case. Instead TR was repealed unread and the Act itself removed from the Roll and burned. On pain of imprisonment fine and ransom at the king's will, all copies were to be taken to the chancellor for burning or otherwise destroyed.'  (Wilkinson The Princes in the Tower page 100). She uses this in her argument that HT wanted Stillington out of the way in case he opposed its repeal because of his conscience as a bishop. So as well as responding to the question above  about procedure, I'm asking why, when I look at the ratification in the 1484 Parliament Rolls today, the gist of it is there (not the Act itself of course)- has someone put it in later or did Henry simply forget to tamper with the original ratification which quite clearly spells out Richard's rightful claim to the throne and more importantly that he came to the throne at the request of Parliament? One wonders why so many later historians and Shakespeare have Richard as the dark plotter who forces his reign of the people when it's pretty clear from this he came to the throne at their behest. H.

On Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 1:24, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  Doug wrote: "I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it  would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. <snip> Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive."

Right, Doug.Apples and oranges.  Simply put, it's the difference between repealing a constitutional amendment unread and destroying all copies of said amendment and tearing down and burning an "Impeach Obama" sticker--only, of course, it would be impossible today to destroy all copies of anything.

Sorry about the American examples. I'm sure that those of you who read this post can mentally supply comparable British examples.

Carol

Doug,

As they say, nepotism is OK, as long as you keep it in the family!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur.

[ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

I've bolded the portion which says that the bill itself should be destroyed. Again, there is no precis, just the depiction of Richard as a usurper who caused a false and malicious bill (the uninformative first line of which is quoted) to be passed and that the said bill is to be burned and utterly destroyed, with all copies also burned unread. The only indications of the contents are the words "petition" and "election," but no hint is given of the reasons for the election or the basis of Richard's claim. It's clear, however, that Henry regards it as "hurtful and prejudicial" to his own claim and that of his heirs. It also depicts Richard as the initiator of the bill, which he "caused to be put to him," presumably making the election void. The unspecified contents are described as seditious, false, and malicious imaginations, but as always under Henry, we have only generalizations, not details.

Interestingly, another act of the same Parliament that restores "the . . . blessed King Herrie" to his place in the succession and reverses the charges of treason made against him by Edward IV, refers to Henry VI as Henry VII's uncle. He was, of course, the half-uncle (if there's such a term) of Edmund Tudor, making him the (half-)great uncle of Henry VII--less closely related to him than "Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and after in deed and not of right King of England, called Richard the III" was to Henry's future wife!

Anyway, I hope the quoted passage will prove once and for all that there was no precis of Titulus Regius in the Parliament Rolls and that Henry VII was absolutely determined to wipe out all memory and record of it (except this characterization of it as a false and malicious bill forced on Parliament by a usurper. *That* was the official "truth," thanks to Henry, his Parliament, and Robert Morton, Master of the Rolls. There is no mention anywhere of bastardy, precontracts, invalid marriages, or any other basis for Richard's claim, nor is there any mention of the deposition of Edward V.

Carol

Thank you so much for posting that link, Carol. I have no idea yet where to look for original source material, although I am working on it, that was so helpful.

Jess

.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Doug wrote:

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur.

[ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

I've bolded the portion which says that the bill itself should be destroyed. Again, there is no precis, just the depiction of Richard as a usurper who caused a false and malicious bill (the uninformative first line of which is quoted) to be passed and that the said bill is to be burned and utterly destroyed, with all copies also burned unread. The only indications of the contents are the words "petition" and "election," but no hint is given of the reasons for the election or the basis of Richard's claim. It's clear, however, that Henry regards it as "hurtful and prejudicial" to his own claim and that of his heirs. It also depicts Richard as the initiator of the bill, which he "caused to be put to him," presumably making the election void. The unspecified contents are described as seditious, false, and malicious imaginations, but as always under Henry, we have only generalizations, not details.

Interestingly, another act of the same Parliament that restores "the . . . blessed King Herrie" to his place in the succession and reverses the charges of treason made against him by Edward IV, refers to Henry VI as Henry VII's uncle. He was, of course, the half-uncle (if there's such a term) of Edmund Tudor, making him the (half-)great uncle of Henry VII--less closely related to him than "Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and after in deed and not of right King of England, called Richard the III" was to Henry's future wife!

Anyway, I hope the quoted passage will prove once and for all that there was no precis of Titulus Regius in the Parliament Rolls and that Henry VII was absolutely determined to wipe out all memory and record of it (except this characterization of it as a false and malicious bill forced on Parliament by a usurper. *That* was the official "truth," thanks to Henry, his Parliament, and Robert Morton, Master of the Rolls. There is no mention anywhere of bastardy, precontracts, invalid marriages, or any other basis for Richard's claim, nor is there any mention of the deposition of Edward V.

Carol

"Thank you so much for posting that link, Carol. I have no idea yet where to look for original source material, although I am working on it, that was so helpful."

Carol responds:

You're welcome. It's amazing what you can find with a Google search. I just typed in "Henry VII repeal of Titulus Regius" (no quotes) and found what I needed. I bookmarked it and copied it to my Richard III files. Some day I'll organize them. They're becoming unwieldy!

Speaking of links, the American Richard III Society seems to have taken down its excerpt from Vergil. Does anyone know of another link to a readable version (other than the Wayback Machine, which is what I currently use)? Not that I would ever rely on Vergil, but it's always good to know what he said on a particular matter and compare it with earlier sources.

Carol

Thank you so much for posting that link, Carol. I have no idea yet where to look for original source material, although I am working on it, that was so helpful.

Doug wrote:

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur.

[ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

I've bolded the portion which says that the bill itself should be destroyed. Again, there is no precis, just the depiction of Richard as a usurper who caused a false and malicious bill (the uninformative first line of which is quoted) to be passed and that the said bill is to be burned and utterly destroyed, with all copies also burned unread. The only indications of the contents are the words "petition" and "election," but no hint is given of the reasons for the election or the basis of Richard's claim. It's clear, however, that Henry regards it as "hurtful and prejudicial" to his own claim and that of his heirs. It also depicts Richard as the initiator of the bill, which he "caused to be put to him," presumably making the election void. The unspecified contents are described as seditious, false, and malicious imaginations, but as always under Henry, we have only generalizations, not details.

Interestingly, another act of the same Parliament that restores "the . . . blessed King Herrie" to his place in the succession and reverses the charges of treason made against him by Edward IV, refers to Henry VI as Henry VII's uncle. He was, of course, the half-uncle (if there's such a term) of Edmund Tudor, making him the (half-)great uncle of Henry VII--less closely related to him than "Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and after in deed and not of right King of England, called Richard the III" was to Henry's future wife!

Anyway, I hope the quoted passage will prove once and for all that there was no precis of Titulus Regius in the Parliament Rolls and that Henry VII was absolutely determined to wipe out all memory and record of it (except this characterization of it as a false and malicious bill forced on Parliament by a usurper. *That* was the official "truth," thanks to Henry, his Parliament, and Robert Morton, Master of the Rolls. There is no mention anywhere of bastardy, precontracts, invalid marriages, or any other basis for Richard's claim, nor is there any mention of the deposition of Edward V.

Carol

Thank you so much for posting that link, Carol. I have no idea yet where to look for original source material, although I am working on it, that was so helpful.

Doug wrote:

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur.

[ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

I've bolded the portion which says that the bill itself should be destroyed. Again, there is no precis, just the depiction of Richard as a usurper who caused a false and malicious bill (the uninformative first line of which is quoted) to be passed and that the said bill is to be burned and utterly destroyed, with all copies also burned unread. The only indications of the contents are the words "petition" and "election," but no hint is given of the reasons for the election or the basis of Richard's claim. It's clear, however, that Henry regards it as "hurtful and prejudicial" to his own claim and that of his heirs. It also depicts Richard as the initiator of the bill, which he "caused to be put to him," presumably making the election void. The unspecified contents are described as seditious, false, and malicious imaginations, but as always under Henry, we have only generalizations, not details.

Interestingly, another act of the same Parliament that restores "the . . . blessed King Herrie" to his place in the succession and reverses the charges of treason made against him by Edward IV, refers to Henry VI as Henry VII's uncle. He was, of course, the half-uncle (if there's such a term) of Edmund Tudor, making him the (half-)great uncle of Henry VII--less closely related to him than "Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and after in deed and not of right King of England, called Richard the III" was to Henry's future wife!

Anyway, I hope the quoted passage will prove once and for all that there was no precis of Titulus Regius in the Parliament Rolls and that Henry VII was absolutely determined to wipe out all memory and record of it (except this characterization of it as a false and malicious bill forced on Parliament by a usurper. *That* was the official "truth," thanks to Henry, his Parliament, and Robert Morton, Master of the Rolls. There is no mention anywhere of bastardy, precontracts, invalid marriages, or any other basis for Richard's claim, nor is there any mention of the deposition of Edward V.

Carol

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur.

[ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

I've bolded the portion which says that the bill itself should be destroyed. Again, there is no precis, just the depiction of Richard as a usurper who caused a false and malicious bill (the uninformative first line of which is quoted) to be passed and that the said bill is to be burned and utterly destroyed, with all copies also burned unread. The only indications of the contents are the words "petition" and "election," but no hint is given of the reasons for the election or the basis of Richard's claim. It's clear, however, that Henry regards it as "hurtful and prejudicial" to his own claim and that of his heirs. It also depicts Richard as the initiator of the bill, which he "caused to be put to him," presumably making the election void. The unspecified contents are described as seditious, false, and malicious imaginations, but as always under Henry, we have only generalizations, not details.

Interestingly, another act of the same Parliament that restores "the . . . blessed King Herrie" to his place in the succession and reverses the charges of treason made against him by Edward IV, refers to Henry VI as Henry VII's uncle. He was, of course, the half-uncle (if there's such a term) of Edmund Tudor, making him the (half-)great uncle of Henry VII--less closely related to him than "Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and after in deed and not of right King of England, called Richard the III" was to Henry's future wife!

Anyway, I hope the quoted passage will prove once and for all that there was no precis of Titulus Regius in the Parliament Rolls and that Henry VII was absolutely determined to wipe out all memory and record of it (except this characterization of it as a false and malicious bill forced on Parliament by a usurper. *That* was the official "truth," thanks to Henry, his Parliament, and Robert Morton, Master of the Rolls. There is no mention anywhere of bastardy, precontracts, invalid marriages, or any other basis for Richard's claim, nor is there any mention of the deposition of Edward V."

Doug here:

Well, it's certainly not looking very good for Master Robert, is it?

(who's cutting and pasting, hope thhis flies)

"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ]

¶ Item, quedam Billa in pergameno exhibita fuit in presenti Parliamento, in forma que sequitur.

[ Further, this Bill in parchment was presented to the current Parliament, in the following form. ]

¶ Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:

¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.

The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.

And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.

And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.

So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.

And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."

http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment

I've bolded the portion which says that the bill itself should be destroyed. Again, there is no precis, just the depiction of Richard as a usurper who caused a false and malicious bill (the uninformative first line of which is quoted) to be passed and that the said bill is to be burned and utterly destroyed, with all copies also burned unread. The only indications of the contents are the words "petition" and "election," but no hint is given of the reasons for the election or the basis of Richard's claim. It's clear, however, that Henry regards it as "hurtful and prejudicial" to his own claim and that of his heirs. It also depicts Richard as the initiator of the bill, which he "caused to be put to him," presumably making the election void. The unspecified contents are described as seditious, false, and malicious imaginations, but as always under Henry, we have only generalizations, not details.

Interestingly, another act of the same Parliament that restores "the . . . blessed King Herrie" to his place in the succession and reverses the charges of treason made against him by Edward IV, refers to Henry VI as Henry VII's uncle. He was, of course, the half-uncle (if there's such a term) of Edmund Tudor, making him the (half-)great uncle of Henry VII--less closely related to him than "Richard, late Duke of Gloucester, and after in deed and not of right King of England, called Richard the III" was to Henry's future wife!

Anyway, I hope the quoted passage will prove once and for all that there was no precis of Titulus Regius in the Parliament Rolls and that Henry VII was absolutely determined to wipe out all memory and record of it (except this characterization of it as a false and malicious bill forced on Parliament by a usurper. *That* was the official "truth," thanks to Henry, his Parliament, and Robert Morton, Master of the Rolls. There is no mention anywhere of bastardy, precontracts, invalid marriages, or any other basis for Richard's claim, nor is there any mention of the deposition of Edward V.

Carol

ÿ

It would seem to me that TR was dynamite. Henry destroyed as many copies as he could, hoping he had got all of them, because far from thinking what was written in the Act was "trumped up" he believed, or even knew, that every word was true and a threat to both his kingship and in some ways his marriage.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

David wrote: //snip// "Regarding the reading of TR, my view is that we are so used to almost universal literacy that we overlook the fact that for the vast majority of people, the piece of writing would have meant nothing without having someone read it aloud for them. So Richard has TR read aloud to the garrison of Calais and placards removed without being read aloud."   Doug here: I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it  would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. And, as Acts of Parliament could also affect the outcome of lawsuits, after the public reading, copies of really important Acts would be placed in various places around the kingdom; usually, I believe, at the various cathedrals where they would be available if necessary for reference. For example, until TR was repealed, HT was king solely by conquest and none of the actions taken by anyone serving Richard could, *legally*, be termed treason. Thus TR, until it was repealed, could be used as a legal defense in court against actions by *HT!* Surely that would be reason enough not have the document read? If TR was repealed in the usual manner; ie, first being read out in Parliament and, apparently, at those places where copies were held, what was there to stop members of Parliament from wishing to provide a rebuttal that showed what in TR was "false"? Which, in turn, would mean re-examing the validity of the evidence originally presented when TR was passed. My presumption is that there *wasn't* evidence to rebut the contents of TR and that was why TR was to be returned unread. Of course, other opinions may vary... Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive. Doug

Jess and Stephen,

I am really quite surprised that you consider TR to be dynamite, or that Henry's position was in any way weakened by it - true or false.

Some writers who have concocted conspiracy theories around Henry's actions regarding TR - in many cases attributing events to TR that are more probably explained otherwise.

I don't know if they have considered that the essence of TR - the invalidation of Edward's marriage to EW - had the effect of eliminating the claim to the throne of several children who had a stronger 'legitimist' claim than did Henry.

Especially when arriving in England believing the boys to have been killed, he must have found no evidence of what had happened to them. So TR removed the claim of the boys - if they should ever turn up alive.

So the question to ask is what motive could Henry possibly have for having TR repealed?

He could have married EofY without repealing TR, which would have been to stress his right to the throne by conquest.

It is my belief that his repealing of TR had more to do with the wishes of his inlaws, the belief among his companions in exile that TR was trumped up and promises made to these companions before Bosworth.

If TR did cause a stir in James I's reign it was on a matter of the constitutional role of parliament and nothing to do with the truth of TR or Henry.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 5:12:57 PM

ÿ

It would seem to me that TR was dynamite. Henry destroyed as many copies as he could, hoping he had got all of them, because far from thinking what was written in the Act was "trumped up" he believed, or even knew, that every word was true and a threat to both his kingship and in some ways his marriage.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

David wrote: //snip// "Regarding the reading of TR, my view is that we are so used to almost universal literacy that we overlook the fact that for the vast majority of people, the piece of writing would have meant nothing without having someone read it aloud for them. So Richard has TR read aloud to the garrison of Calais and placards removed without being read aloud." Doug here: I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. And, as Acts of Parliament could also affect the outcome of lawsuits, after the public reading, copies of really important Acts would be placed in various places around the kingdom; usually, I believe, at the various cathedrals where they would be available if necessary for reference. For example, until TR was repealed, HT was king solely by conquest and none of the actions taken by anyone serving Richard could, *legally*, be termed treason. Thus TR, until it was repealed, could be used as a legal defense in court against actions by *HT!* Surely that would be reason enough not have the document read? If TR was repealed in the usual manner; ie, first being read out in Parliament and, apparently, at those places where copies were held, what was there to stop members of Parliament from wishing to provide a rebuttal that showed what in TR was "false"? Which, in turn, would mean re-examing the validity of the evidence originally presented when TR was passed. My presumption is that there *wasn't* evidence to rebut the contents of TR and that was why TR was to be returned unread. Of course, other opinions may vary... Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive. Doug

I think my feeling is that the actions that HT took as regards TR show that he regarded it as dynamite. Why else would he have destroyed practically every copy of an Act of Parliament?
I am also of the opinion that HT, far from being responsible for the deaths of the princes, had no idea what had happened to them, and that this is why he was so troubled by pretenders during the course of his reign.
It would be hard to second guess his thought processes, but presumably, he thought, but had no real proof, that the Princes were dead, and therefore did not want his wife to be declared illegitimate, so therefore no longer able to fulfill her part of passing on the Yorkist heritage.

TR was of a life changing significance for not just Richard, but was regarded as such by Henry Tudor.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Jess and Stephen,

I am really quite surprised that you consider TR to be dynamite, or that Henry's position was in any way weakened by it - true or false.

Some writers who have concocted conspiracy theories around Henry's actions regarding TR - in many cases attributing events to TR that are more probably explained otherwise.

I don't know if they have considered that the essence of TR - the invalidation of Edward's marriage to EW - had the effect of eliminating the claim to the throne of several children who had a stronger 'legitimist' claim than did Henry.

Especially when arriving in England believing the boys to have been killed, he must have found no evidence of what had happened to them. So TR removed the claim of the boys - if they should ever turn up alive.

So the question to ask is what motive could Henry possibly have for having TR repealed?

He could have married EofY without repealing TR, which would have been to stress his right to the throne by conquest.

It is my belief that his repealing of TR had more to do with the wishes of his inlaws, the belief among his companions in exile that TR was trumped up and promises made to these companions before Bosworth.

If TR did cause a stir in James I's reign it was on a matter of the constitutional role of parliament and nothing to do with the truth of TR or Henry.

Kind regards
David

ÿ

It would seem to me that TR was dynamite. Henry destroyed as many copies as he could, hoping he had got all of them, because far from thinking what was written in the Act was "trumped up" he believed, or even knew, that every word was true and a threat to both his kingship and in some ways his marriage.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

David wrote: //snip// "Regarding the reading of TR, my view is that we are so used to almost universal literacy that we overlook the fact that for the vast majority of people, the piece of writing would have meant nothing without having someone read it aloud for them. So Richard has TR read aloud to the garrison of Calais and placards removed without being read aloud."   Doug here: I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it  would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. And, as Acts of Parliament could also affect the outcome of lawsuits, after the public reading, copies of really important Acts would be placed in various places around the kingdom; usually, I believe, at the various cathedrals where they would be available if necessary for reference. For example, until TR was repealed, HT was king solely by conquest and none of the actions taken by anyone serving Richard could, *legally*, be termed treason. Thus TR, until it was repealed, could be used as a legal defense in court against actions by *HT!* Surely that would be reason enough not have the document read? If TR was repealed in the usual manner; ie, first being read out in Parliament and, apparently, at those places where copies were held, what was there to stop members of Parliament from wishing to provide a rebuttal that showed what in TR was "false"? Which, in turn, would mean re-examing the validity of the evidence originally presented when TR was passed. My presumption is that there *wasn't* evidence to rebut the contents of TR and that was why TR was to be returned unread. Of course, other opinions may vary... Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive. Doug

David, I partially agree with you. Certainly, the Edwardian Yorkists would have pressured Henry VII to have TR repealed given that the whole reason they had supported him was to have him marry Elizabeth of York, and they would have wanted her to be legitimate. A larger advantage, seldom discussed but very important, was that TR made Richard the rightful king and depicting it as a malicious tissue of lies (as Parliament did) made it easy to depict Richard as a tyrannical usurper and Henry, by virtue of deposing him, as the rightful king (referred to inaccurately in the same Parliament's legislation as the "nephew" of wrongfully deposed and saintly Henry VI).

The disadvantage to Henry was that repealing TR legitimated EoY's brothers, who might or might not still be alive. (Henry's actions indicate that he never did learn what happened to them.) It would also, if the boys were legitimate but dead, make EoY the heir to the throne, hence his insistence on being king by right of conquest to make certain that if and when he married her, he would be ruling in his own right and not hers. Of course, their children would be Edward IV's rightful heirs as well as his own, which would later strengthen *their* claim (Henry VIII later claimed the throne through his mother, not his father), but that made the repeal of TR advantageous to his heirs without giving any advantage to himself.

It appears that Henry's chief objection to TR, the reason that he wanted all memory of it obliterated, was that it would bring the memory of the "rightful" heirs, EoY's, brothers (dead or alive), to people's minds. Another objection was that the act made Richard the rightful claim and reading it aloud or allowing it to remain on the Parliament rolls made that claim a matter or public record. If TR was indeed a malicious tissue of lies, why not expose it as such? Henry must have feared that he could not do it, hence his refusal to let Stillington testify and his insistence that all record of TR be destroyed.

Henry had several choices. He could let it stand and marry EoY anyway, or choose another wife (and anger the Yorkists who had supported him). He could have it repealed in the normal way--read, argued, against, and left on the books as on obvious tissue of lies and evidence or Richard's tyranny. Or he could do what he did, have it repealed, expunged from the books, with all copies ordered to be burned unread with heavy penalties for disobedience so that it would be removed from all memory.

If TR was no threat to him, why would he do that?

Carol

David, I'd agree with you on this. I think most folks now believe that Henry honestly didn't know what had happened to the Princes; I certainly do. So by repealing TR he was actually taking a risk, even though he'd taken the throne by conquest there would still be some who said, if they re-emerged, they were the rightful heirs. And of course some did. Was he persuaded by EW and his wife that they were dead - for whatever strategic reason? On the other hand, he wouldn't want a big row in Parliament when it was repealed (ie a Stillington fit of conscience) so if you're going to do it, do it quietly, but consitutionally wrongly. Remember however that we, unlike the US, don't have a written constitution, merely a blend of Parliamentary Acts and Judicial Precedent which can be overturned at any time. As to his companions, I've done a lot more research which has encompassed the gentry of the NW, the Home Counties and some of the South. I've taken it back to Richard II and sometimes before. I would describe their aims as self-interest and self-preservation, with a bit of bounty thrown in such as the French Wars. People gained from a usurpation; new kings wanted new adherents, so it suitedthe gentry to change with the wind to the winning party. The exemplification of this is the Stanleys, but there were many, many more who held on to their positions for a century or more whilst the nobility died on the battlefields. If Henry's  companions had an interest in TR it would be because they just didn't want any more war or someone coming back who would accuse them of treachery.   Just like Charles II did when he returned in 1660.   Cheers  H.

On Saturday, 18 January 2014, 15:18, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
  Jess and Stephen,

I am really quite surprised that you consider TR to be dynamite, or that Henry's position was in any way weakened by it - true or false.

Some writers who have concocted conspiracy theories around Henry's actions regarding TR - in many cases attributing events to TR that are more probably explained otherwise.

I don't know if they have considered that the essence of TR - the invalidation of Edward's marriage to EW - had the effect of eliminating the claim to the throne of several children who had a stronger 'legitimist' claim than did Henry.

Especially when arriving in England believing the boys to have been killed, he must have found no evidence of what had happened to them. So TR removed the claim of the boys - if they should ever turn up alive.

So the question to ask is what motive could Henry possibly have for having TR repealed?

He could have married EofY without repealing TR, which would have been to stress his right to the throne by conquest.

It is my belief that his repealing of TR had more to do with the wishes of his inlaws, the belief among his companions in exile that TR was trumped up and promises made to these companions before Bosworth.

If TR did cause a stir in James I's reign it was on a matter of the constitutional role of parliament and nothing to do with the truth of TR or Henry.

Kind regards
David
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 5:12:57 PM

  ÿ Quite. It completely undermined his position, other than by conquest. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jessie Skinner To: Cc: Doug Stamate Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany
  It would seem to me that TR was dynamite. Henry destroyed as many copies as he could, hoping he had got all of them, because far from thinking what was written in the Act was "trumped up" he believed, or even knew, that every word was true and a threat to both his kingship and in some ways his marriage. Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 5:30:58 PM

  David wrote: //snip// "Regarding the reading of TR, my view is that we are so used to almost universal literacy that we overlook the fact that for the vast majority of people, the piece of writing would have meant nothing without having someone read it aloud for them. So Richard has TR read aloud to the garrison of Calais and placards removed without being read aloud."   Doug here: I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it  would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. And, as Acts of Parliament could also affect the outcome of lawsuits, after the public reading, copies of really important Acts would be placed in various places around the kingdom; usually, I believe, at the various cathedrals where they would be available if necessary for reference. For example, until TR was repealed, HT was king solely by conquest and none of the actions taken by anyone serving Richard could, *legally*, be termed treason. Thus TR, until it was repealed, could be used as a legal defense in court against actions by *HT!* Surely that would be reason enough not have the document read? If TR was repealed in the usual manner; ie, first being read out in Parliament and, apparently, at those places where copies were held, what was there to stop members of Parliament from wishing to provide a rebuttal that showed what in TR was "false"? Which, in turn, would mean re-examing the validity of the evidence originally presented when TR was passed. My presumption is that there *wasn't* evidence to rebut the contents of TR and that was why TR was to be returned unread. Of course, other opinions may vary... Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive. Doug

David wrote:

"I have found a biography of Anne, his daughter, that suggests that Landais discussed a marriage between HT and Anne if the expedition succeeded."

Marie:

Something of an age gap, eh what? Does your biography give a source for this statement, or is it only the author's own musing? The problem is that "history" has been written by historians who themselves assume Edward V was dead. If HT, Francis or anyone else knew the details of Edward V's death then it would surely have been recorded much earlier than it was and without all the alternative theories and "men say".

The contemporary sources make it quite clear that the rising was originally intended to restore Edward V; as such, any involvement by Francis II must have been with a view to protecting his daughter's existing marriage arrangements. The news of Edward V's death does not seem to have swept through the rebel cells until a very late stage, and this is the reason why the rebellion fell apart so easily: there would have been insufficient time for the sort of negotiations with Brittany necessary to replace EV with HT as the official pretender, although it is quite plausible that, at home. Margaret Beaufort was working to swing things in that direction.

Whilst we're on the subject of Henry's intentions, when you say the Year Book entry does not specifically state that Henry refused to let Stillington testify with regard to TR: this is true if you take that particular sentence out of its context, although even out of context it is difficult to see what Henry is supposed to have meant, in responding to requests for Stillington to testify by saying he would do nothing more to him because of his pardon. In fact, the preceding sentence, which you did not quote, states unequivocally that Henry was vetoing all discussion of TR, viz: "the Bill and Act were so false and slanderous that he does not wish to rehearse the matter, nor the effect of the matter..."

Also remember that it would have been difficult to have kept a senior bishop in custody indefinitely without bringing charges and submitting him to a trial, so it is quite plausible that Henry felt that pardoning the old man, after having given him frightened him sufficiently to ensure his silence, was the lesser of two evils.

Best, Marie

ÿ

Jess and Stephen,

I am really quite surprised that you consider TR to be dynamite, or that Henry's position was in any way weakened by it - true or false.

Some writers who have concocted conspiracy theories around Henry's actions regarding TR - in many cases attributing events to TR that are more probably explained otherwise.

I don't know if they have considered that the essence of TR - the invalidation of Edward's marriage to EW - had the effect of eliminating the claim to the throne of several children who had a stronger 'legitimist' claim than did Henry.

Especially when arriving in England believing the boys to have been killed, he must have found no evidence of what had happened to them. So TR removed the claim of the boys - if they should ever turn up alive.

So the question to ask is what motive could Henry possibly have for having TR repealed?

He could have married EofY without repealing TR, which would have been to stress his right to the throne by conquest.

It is my belief that his repealing of TR had more to do with the wishes of his inlaws, the belief among his companions in exile that TR was trumped up and promises made to these companions before Bosworth.

If TR did cause a stir in James I's reign it was on a matter of the constitutional role of parliament and nothing to do with the truth of TR or Henry.

Kind regards
David

ÿ

It would seem to me that TR was dynamite. Henry destroyed as many copies as he could, hoping he had got all of them, because far from thinking what was written in the Act was "trumped up" he believed, or even knew, that every word was true and a threat to both his kingship and in some ways his marriage.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

David wrote: //snip// "Regarding the reading of TR, my view is that we are so used to almost universal literacy that we overlook the fact that for the vast majority of people, the piece of writing would have meant nothing without having someone read it aloud for them. So Richard has TR read aloud to the garrison of Calais and placards removed without being read aloud."   Doug here: I rather think this is another example of "apples and oranges". First the apples: Official acts of the government were read aloud, not necessarily because of illiteracy, but because before the printing press, large numbers of copies of *any* Act of Parliament simply weren't available. In the 15th century, reading important documents aloud to a gathered crowd could be looked at in much the same way as scattering leaflets about an upcoming event nowadays. With the leaflets, it's a case of the more people who know about the event increasing the chances of more people finding out about, and attending the event. The same reasoning applies to reading documents aloud; it  would increase the number of people who *knew* about the documents' existance, regardless of the listeners' literacy. And, as Acts of Parliament could also affect the outcome of lawsuits, after the public reading, copies of really important Acts would be placed in various places around the kingdom; usually, I believe, at the various cathedrals where they would be available if necessary for reference. For example, until TR was repealed, HT was king solely by conquest and none of the actions taken by anyone serving Richard could, *legally*, be termed treason. Thus TR, until it was repealed, could be used as a legal defense in court against actions by *HT!* Surely that would be reason enough not have the document read? If TR was repealed in the usual manner; ie, first being read out in Parliament and, apparently, at those places where copies were held, what was there to stop members of Parliament from wishing to provide a rebuttal that showed what in TR was "false"? Which, in turn, would mean re-examing the validity of the evidence originally presented when TR was passed. My presumption is that there *wasn't* evidence to rebut the contents of TR and that was why TR was to be returned unread. Of course, other opinions may vary... Unread placards didn't have the protection, for want of a better word, that Acts of Parliament usually did; they were unoffical, *anonymous* proclamations. There was no "repeal" involved and thus there was no guarantee, in practice anyway, for their being read aloud *before* being taken down. Also, if the contents of the placards urged illegal actions, reading them aloud would be, to say the least, counter-productive. Doug

David wrote:

"I have found a biography of Anne, his daughter, that suggests that Landais discussed a marriage between HT and Anne if the expedition succeeded."

Marie:

Something of an age gap, eh what? Does your biography give a source for this statement, or is it only the author's own musing? The problem is that "history" has been written by historians who themselves assume Edward V was dead. If HT, Francis or anyone else knew the details of Edward V's death then it would surely have been recorded much earlier than it was and without all the alternative theories and "men say".

The contemporary sources make it quite clear that the rising was originally intended to restore Edward V; as such, any involvement by Francis II must have been with a view to protecting his daughter's existing marriage arrangements. The news of Edward V's death does not seem to have swept through the rebel cells until a very late stage, and this is the reason why the rebellion fell apart so easily: there would have been insufficient time for the sort of negotiations with Brittany necessary to replace EV with HT as the official pretender, although it is quite plausible that, at home. Margaret Beaufort was working to swing things in that direction.

Whilst we're on the subject of Henry's intentions, when you say the Year Book entry does not specifically state that Henry refused to let Stillington testify with regard to TR: this is true if you take that particular sentence out of its context, although even out of context it is difficult to see what Henry is supposed to have meant, in responding to requests for Stillington to testify by saying he would do nothing more to him because of his pardon. In fact, the preceding sentence, which you did not quote, states unequivocally that Henry was vetoing all discussion of TR, viz: "the Bill and Act were so false and slanderous that he does not wish to rehearse the matter, nor the effect of the matter..."

Also remember that it would have been difficult to have kept a senior bishop in custody indefinitely without bringing charges and submitting him to a trial, so it is quite plausible that Henry felt that pardoning the old man, after having given him frightened him sufficiently to ensure his silence, was the lesser of two evils.

Best, Marie

David wrote:

The actions of the Breton and French courts were not based on sources other than the reports they were receiving to the effect that the 'princes' were dead. Josephine Wilkinson's analysis has ruled out France or Brittany as a source for the rumours - tracing the earliest occurrence she has found to the English Midlands. So the French and Bretons were acting on the reports. Commynes' source seems to have been quite good about TR, because the main point of it was stated in his memoirs. So Francis II did not act at all in response to the risings in England, but to the news of the deaths and the suggestion of Henry as an alternative.

Marie responds:

This is not really addressing my point that Francis could not have heard of the rumour in time to have arranged with the English rebel cells to put HT forward as a candidate. Wilkinson's supposed early Midlands source for the rumour of Edward V's death - if it's the one I think you mean - is not what she claims it to be. She has actually got the info from Philip Morgan's article 'The Death of Edward V and the Rebellion of 1483' which is a (to my mind) tortured attempt to pin down Edward V's death. There are several annals and king lists that make statements about Edward V's death - Colin Richmond found one in the Anlaby Cartulary giving the date of EV's death as 22nd June, and made much of it, only to have his arguments slapped down by Michael Hicks and others. John Ashdown-Hill came across another instance in Colchester and has similarly overplayed it. Morgan's example (the one cited by Wilkinson) comes from the Mlddleton Collection in the Nottingham Record Office, but it belongs to a document which shows signs of having been owned by the southern Lewkenor family and doesn't really do what Wilkinson says it does. It reads:

Edwardus quintus infans regnavit a dicto die ixno Aprilisi usque xxvjtum die Junij tunc proximam sequentem quo die interfectus fuit et corpus eius submersum fuit

(the child Edward the Fifth reigned from the said 9th April until the 26th of June then next following, on which day he was killed and his body was drowned)

Her argument that this entry was actually written in 1483 is based entirely on the fact that the of itself it doesn't name the year. In fact, however, it follows straight on from the entry on Edward IV, which does give the year of his death as 1483; it was therefore not necessary for the writer to give the year in which EV's reign finished since he states that it was the 26th June following. Wilkinson has missed this point because she has mistranslated the EV entry, viz: "Edward V reigned from 9th April to 26th June, after which he was killed and his body drowned". So she seems to have interpreted "tunc proximam sequentem" as "shortly afterward", when in fact it is a stock phrase attached to dates in medieval Latin documents and means "then next following" - ie it indicates that the date cited is the one immediately following the previous date cited and not in a later year. One thing is very clear, and that is that Edward V was still alive at the end of 26th June 1483.

Neither the Middleton doc nor any of the other king lists help us one jot in pinning down either the date of Edward's death or the earliest date of the rumour of it. What evidence we do have indicates that the planned rebellion had as its aim the reinstatement of Edward V at least until late September.

David wrote:

On the subject of the Year Book entry, it does not state that Stillington is being required to testify. It says that he is to answer (to it / for it). The preamble makes it clear that the original act was considered false and is there to be removed and not discussed or investigated.

Marie responds:

I;m glad to see you know agree that nobody , including Stillington, was being allowed to talk about the contents of TR during the repeal process - in your previous post you had seemed to be saying this was not so.

No one has claimed that the Year Book entry states that Stillington was being *required* to testify, but certain of the lords were asking for him to be brought in to answer thereupon, and Henry refused:

"et disoient que le Evesque de B. fist le bil, et les Seigniors vouloient aver luy en le Parlement Chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le Roy disoit, q'il avoit luy pardonne, et pur ceo et ne voule plus faire a luy. Nota constantiam Regis."

I can't see that testifying and answering are really different things in this context.

The wording of the preamble, and the repeal without reading or discussion, was what had been agreed between the King and the Justices in the preparatory meeting recorded in the Year Book. Henry had to clear the legality of it with the Justices because it was not the way that Acts were normally repealed. Henry's refusal to allow discussion - which included a direct refusal of a request from the lords that they be allowed to question Stillington on the matter - was a total departure from established parliamentary procedure; this is what interests so many members of the forum.

"et disoient que le Evesque de B. fist le bil, et les Seigniors vouloient aver luy en le Parlement Chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le Roy disoit, q'il avoit luy pardonne, et pur ceo et ne voule plus faire a luy. Nota constantiam Regis." <snip>"

Carol responds:

I must have missed something in this discussion. What Year Book are you referring to? Is an English translation available online?

On a side note, it's interesting to me that Henry and his supporters kept records in French in contrast to Richard). Having spent so much time in France and Brittany and being one quarter French by blood (as well as the much-touted one-quarter Welsh), it would seem that Henry was more French than English.

You mentioned that Henry didn't backdate his reign specifically to August 21, but he *did* backdate it, which is the significant point. As you know, neither the Croyland Chronicler nor Parliament was happy with that decision, and Parliament later passed legislation to prevent the followers of an anointed king from being declared traitors in future.

Carol

Carol

Carol wrote:

I must have missed something in this discussion. What Year Book are you referring to? Is an English translation available online?

Marie replies:

Ooh, you sure have missed something. It is Year Book for the first year of Henry VII's reign. The Year Books were composed of items that arose during the year in question that resulted in a new interpretation of the law, and were put together afterwards by the lawyers. If you go back over the posts you will find all the information on the entry that concerns the repeal of TR, including quotation with translation.

The Year Books were all printed later in different editions, but I couldn't find an online version of the whole year book and the only versions for sale were electronic and astronomically expensive. But this is a link to the relevant page, which is from one of the footnotes to the Wiki article on TR:

http://www.bu.edu/lawyearbooks/pages/full-size/11/11050.jpeg

Best,

Marie

Carol responded to Marie:

Carol earlier:

"I must have missed something in this discussion. What Year Book are you referring to? Is an English translation available online?"

Marie replied:

"Ooh, you sure have missed something. It is Year Book for the first year of Henry VII's reign. The Year Books were composed of items that arose during the year in question that resulted in a new interpretation of the law, and were put together afterwards by the lawyers. If you go back over the posts you will find all the information on the entry that concerns the repeal of TR, including quotation with translation.

The Year Books were all printed later in different editions, but I couldn't find an online version of the whole year book and the only versions for sale were electronic and astronomically expensive. But this is a link to the relevant page, which is from one of the footnotes to the Wiki article on TR:

http://www.bu.edu/lawyearbooks/pages/full-size/11/11050.jpeg

Best,

Marie

Carol again:

Hm. Now I'm really confused. Since I'm the one who uploaded the repeal of TR and provided the "translation," maybe I was using the Year Books? My source was http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment which provides a clear and easy-to-read (but untranslated) text of the acts of Henry's first Parliament but says nothing about Year Books, only the Rolls of Parliament (Rotuli Parliamentorum).

The same page contains links to Titulus Regius (original and modern spelling), and the attainder of Margaret Beaufort (Richard's Parliament). No mention of Year Books, though.

I can't read the file you linked to, I'm afraid. I need large, clear, modern type!

Carol

Carol again:

Hm. Now I'm really confused. Since I'm the one who uploaded the repeal of TR and provided the "translation," maybe I was using the Year Books? My source was http://partyparcel.co.uk/information/price-guarantee.html#annullment which provides a clear and easy-to-read (but untranslated) text of the acts of Henry's first Parliament but says nothing about Year Books, only the Rolls of Parliament (Rotuli Parliamentorum).
The same page contains links to Titulus Regius (original and modern spelling), and the attainder of Margaret Beaufort (Richard's Parliament). No mention of Year Books, though.
I can't read the file you linked to, I'm afraid. I need large, clear, modern type!

Marie replies:

Can't quite believe what I'm reading, Carol. I spent a long time tracking down the Year book entry, explaining on the forum what it was about and providing text and translation .Please either look back through the posts on the Yahoo website or do some more googling for yourself.

My apologies, Marie. I did overreact, but I really can't even see the file that you posted because my eyes are so bad, and I thought that your response to *me* was rude ("I can't believe what I'm reading," etc.). As I said, it's now impossible to access old posts on this forum, and I really don't recall any discussion of a Year Book (which, btw, I did find with some difficulty in Google Books--Google ignores "Henry VII" and gives me stuff I don't want on Henry VIII). At any rate, please accept my apology and don't leave the forum on my account.

Carol

Carol earlier:
" [I]if you can tell me where to find an online copy of Vergil (English version) to replace the (partial) one that the American branch of the RIII Society took down, I will be indebted to you. I've resorted for the time being to the Wayback Machine,"

Carol again:

Never mind. I've found it. Apparently, it was temporarily down or it wasn't where I thought it would be, but it's accessible now at http://www.r3.org/links/to-prove-a-villain-the-real-richard-iii/these-supposed-crimes/anglica-historia/ (I hate the URL).

Carol

David (and anyone else interested), I've gone back to Chris Skidmore's book and started ploughing through the genealogies of those listed as taking the oath at Vannes. I haven't completed it yet but, guess what, every one so far has a familial relationship with MB or her mother - even the harbourmaster at Haverfordwest! If anyone's read Geoffrey Richardson's book they'll know that there is this MI5 view of MB and Morton scheming, with Reggie Bray dashing about like a night hawk sending messages overseas. But perhaps our lady has been much more subtle than that? After Tewkesbury she needs to make sure that the allegiance once due to MOA and EOL transfers to her Henry if and when the time is right. She can't knock on doors but she can make sure that those who are Lancastrian at heart stay close to her by those two old inducements, patronage and marriage. With her own three marriages and her mother's three she has enormous resources on which to draw - particularly the huge Welles clan and exploitation of the quarrel over the Berkeley lands. I stumbled on this first in Northants where she'd managed to marry one of her Welles relatives into the estates of Sir Robert Whittingham, a vastly rich friend of John Duke of Bedford (who actually probably embezzled some of his fortunes) went into exile with MOA and died at Tewkesbury. As someone on here once said, Margaret always looked after those related to her. Clever woman! And it throws the old chestnut about discontent with just Richard out of the window. These folk had been wearing a Lancaster vest under their outergarments for years. The time might never have come. But it did H.

On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 3:41, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Jan wrote:
"Thank you, Carol. It will be good to have a primary source. Chris Skidmore says there is a slightly different version in the Vatican archives, not digitised as far as I know. IIRC the differences refer to Christopher Urswick."

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Did he specify the differences? I suppose the Vatican will get around to digitizing their archives eventually. Maybe they'll find the lost portion of Richard's and Anne's papal dispensation.

Carol

Hilary and Sandra, I should think everyone will be interested, what fabulous research and thoughts !Love it! Thank you xx
Kathryn

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Fascinating, Hilary. I think youâ¬"re right about MB â¬" tentacles everywhere. Poor Richard, he was forced to take the throne, and may have seen what was coming, but could do nothing except fight his corner. Which he did, so brilliantly that his heroic charge almost succeeded. That would have scuppered MBâ¬"s years of planning! If only. Imagine that. Iâ¬"d love to have seen her face if Henry had lost at Bosworth. And the Stanleysâ¬" faces, and Northumberlandâ¬"s. And all the other rats. If only we could have been there with a digital camera. A moment captured in time. What a roguesâ¬" gallery.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: Embassy to Brittany
>
>
>
> David (and anyone else interested),
>
> I've gone back to Chris Skidmore's book and started ploughing through the genealogies of those listed as taking the oath at Vannes. I haven't completed it yet but, guess what, every one so far has a familial relationship with MB or her mother - even the harbourmaster at Haverfordwest! If anyone's read Geoffrey Richardson's book they'll know that there is this MI5 view of MB and Morton scheming, with Reggie Bray dashing about like a night hawk sending messages overseas.
>
> But perhaps our lady has been much more subtle than that? After Tewkesbury she needs to make sure that the allegiance once due to MOA and EOL transfers to her Henry if and when the time is right. She can't knock on doors but she can make sure that those who are Lancastrian at heart stay close to her by those two old inducements, patronage and marriage. With her own three marriages and her mother's three she has enormous resources on which to draw - particularly the huge Welles clan and exploitation of the quarrel over the Berkeley lands.
>
> I stumbled on this first in Northants where she'd managed to marry one of her Welles relatives into the estates of Sir Robert Whittingham, a vastly rich friend of John Duke of Bedford (who actually probably embezzled some of his fortunes) went into exile with MOA and died at Tewkesbury. As someone on here once said, Margaret always looked after those related to her. Clever woman! And it throws the old chestnut about discontent with just Richard out of the window. These folk had been wearing a Lancaster vest under their outergarments for years. The time might never have come. But it did H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 3:41, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Jan wrote:
>
>
> "Thank you, Carol. It will be good to have a primary source. Chris Skidmore says there is a slightly different version in the Vatican archives, not digitised as far as I know. IIRC the differences refer to Christopher Urswick."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Did he specify the differences? I suppose the Vatican will get around to digitizing their archives eventually. Maybe they'll find the lost portion of Richard's and Anne's papal dispensation.
>
> Carol
>

I've never seen anything that would lead to that conclusion which surely would have led to him treating young Warwick in a more kinder and humane manner instead of setting him up.

I also see that the theme of exterminating the Plantagenets until there were none left continued into his son's reign with the execution of Clarence's daughter, a lady in her 60s and if reports on her execution are true, in the most horrendous manner. Henry reconciled to York...hmmmm I don't think so.
Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandra, that's why I have a problem with those who would love to think that EOY had made Henry reconciled to York. He never could be, could he? He's like a police officer who's shot a suspect he thought was going to shoot him. He's got  to believe what happened that day at Bosworth was right, otherwise he'll go mad. So the more nasty stories fed to him about Richard the better, it re-inforces his belief that he's done the right thing
> And every time there's a plot against him he'll see the dead, handsome face of the young man he'd never seen before and had never had a conversation with. He never dares to think they might have got on - two serious young men who'd experienced humiliating period of exiles with mothers with unnatural expectations. No, all he'll ever come back to is that body being thrown over a horse and someone whispering in his ear that this is what happens to kings who make mistakes, however valiant their intentions.  H.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 14:38, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Fascinating, Hilary. I think you’re right about MB â€" tentacles everywhere.
> Poor Richard, he was forced to take the throne, and may have seen what was
> coming, but could do nothing except fight his corner. Which he did, so
> brilliantly that his heroic charge almost succeeded. That would have scuppered
> MB’s years of planning! If only. Imagine that. I’d love to have seen
> her face if Henry had lost at Bosworth. And the Stanleys’ faces, and
> Northumberland’s. And all the other rats. If only we could have been there with
> a digital camera. A moment captured in time. What a rogues’ gallery.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: [Richard III
> Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
>
> Â
> David (and anyone else interested),
> Â
> I've gone back to Chris Skidmore's book and started ploughing through
> the genealogies of those listed as taking the oath at Vannes. I haven't
> completed it yet but, guess what, every one so far has a familial relationship
> with MB or her mother - even the harbourmaster at Haverfordwest! If anyone's
> read Geoffrey Richardson's book they'll know that there is this MI5 view of MB
> and Morton scheming, with Reggie Bray dashing about like a night hawk sending
> messages overseas.
> Â
> But perhaps our lady has been much more subtle than that? After
> Tewkesbury she needs to make sure that the allegiance once due to MOA and EOL
> transfers to her Henry if and when the time is right. She can't knock on doors
> but she can make sure that those who are Lancastrian at heart stay close to her
> by those two old inducements, patronage and marriage. With her own three
> marriages and her mother's three she has enormous resources on which to draw -
> particularly the huge Welles clan and exploitation of the quarrel over the
> Berkeley lands.
> Â
> I stumbled on this first in Northants where she'd managed to marry
> one of her Welles relatives into the estates of Sir Robert Whittingham, a vastly
> rich friend of John Duke of Bedford (who actually probably embezzled some of his
> fortunes) went into exile with MOA and died at Tewkesbury. As someone on here
> once said, Margaret always looked after those related to her. Clever woman! And
> it throws the old chestnut about discontent with just Richard out of the window.
> These folk had been wearing a Lancaster vest under their outergarments for
> years. The time might never have come. But it did H.Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 3:41,
> "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Jan wrote:
>
>
>
> "Thank you, Carol. It will be good to have a primary source. Chris
> Skidmore says there is a slightly different version in the Vatican archives, not
> digitised as far as I know. IIRC the differences refer to Christopher
> Urswick."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Did he specify the differences? I suppose the Vatican
> will get around to digitizing their archives eventually. Maybe they'll find the
> lost portion of Richard's and Anne's papal dispensation.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> >
>

I've never seen anything that would lead to that conclusion which surely would have led to him treating young Warwick in a more kinder and humane manner instead of setting him up.

I also see that the theme of exterminating the Plantagenets until there were none left continued into his son's reign with the execution of Clarence's daughter, a lady in her 60s and if reports on her execution are true, in the most horrendous manner. Henry reconciled to York...hmmmm I don't think so.
Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandra, that's why I have a problem with those who would love to think that EOY had made Henry reconciled to York. He never could be, could he? He's like a police officer who's shot a suspect he thought was going to shoot him. He's got  to believe what happened that day at Bosworth was right, otherwise he'll go mad. So the more nasty stories fed to him about Richard the better, it re-inforces his belief that he's done the right thing
> And every time there's a plot against him he'll see the dead, handsome face of the young man he'd never seen before and had never had a conversation with. He never dares to think they might have got on - two serious young men who'd experienced humiliating period of exiles with mothers with unnatural expectations. No, all he'll ever come back to is that body being thrown over a horse and someone whispering in his ear that this is what happens to kings who make mistakes, however valiant their intentions.  H.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 14:38, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Fascinating, Hilary. I think you’re right about MB â€" tentacles everywhere.
> Poor Richard, he was forced to take the throne, and may have seen what was
> coming, but could do nothing except fight his corner. Which he did, so
> brilliantly that his heroic charge almost succeeded. That would have scuppered
> MB’s years of planning! If only. Imagine that. I’d love to have seen
> her face if Henry had lost at Bosworth. And the Stanleys’ faces, and
> Northumberland’s. And all the other rats. If only we could have been there with
> a digital camera. A moment captured in time. What a rogues’ gallery.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: [Richard III
> Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
>
> Â
> David (and anyone else interested),
> Â
> I've gone back to Chris Skidmore's book and started ploughing through
> the genealogies of those listed as taking the oath at Vannes. I haven't
> completed it yet but, guess what, every one so far has a familial relationship
> with MB or her mother - even the harbourmaster at Haverfordwest! If anyone's
> read Geoffrey Richardson's book they'll know that there is this MI5 view of MB
> and Morton scheming, with Reggie Bray dashing about like a night hawk sending
> messages overseas.
> Â
> But perhaps our lady has been much more subtle than that? After
> Tewkesbury she needs to make sure that the allegiance once due to MOA and EOL
> transfers to her Henry if and when the time is right. She can't knock on doors
> but she can make sure that those who are Lancastrian at heart stay close to her
> by those two old inducements, patronage and marriage. With her own three
> marriages and her mother's three she has enormous resources on which to draw -
> particularly the huge Welles clan and exploitation of the quarrel over the
> Berkeley lands.
> Â
> I stumbled on this first in Northants where she'd managed to marry
> one of her Welles relatives into the estates of Sir Robert Whittingham, a vastly
> rich friend of John Duke of Bedford (who actually probably embezzled some of his
> fortunes) went into exile with MOA and died at Tewkesbury. As someone on here
> once said, Margaret always looked after those related to her. Clever woman! And
> it throws the old chestnut about discontent with just Richard out of the window.
> These folk had been wearing a Lancaster vest under their outergarments for
> years. The time might never have come. But it did H.Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 3:41,
> "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Jan wrote:
>
>
>
> "Thank you, Carol. It will be good to have a primary source. Chris
> Skidmore says there is a slightly different version in the Vatican archives, not
> digitised as far as I know. IIRC the differences refer to Christopher
> Urswick."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Did he specify the differences? I suppose the Vatican
> will get around to digitizing their archives eventually. Maybe they'll find the
> lost portion of Richard's and Anne's papal dispensation.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> >
>

Jan here. H7 made it to 51/52, didn't he? That was a pretty good age for C15/16!



On 30 Jan 2014, at 16:21, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Agreed Hilary and Eileen. If Henry had a nice side, he kept it suppressed. He was filled with suspicion and dread throughout his reign, imagining Yorkist claimants falling out of the woodwork around him. Which they frequently did. I often wonder, if he'd known how his reign would turn out---that it would worry him into ill health and an early grave---he would still have come to England in the way he did in 1485. With the benefit of hindsight, he probably wished he'd made his peace with Richard and come home to a quiet life in a peaceful, prosperous Yorkist realm that had a charismatic, just, honourable king. Dream on, Henry, because no one ever saw YOU in that light! You were a rotter at the beginning, and remained one until you turned up your bony toes. Sandra =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:55 PM To: Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany

I've never seen anything that would lead to that conclusion which surely would have led to him treating young Warwick in a more kinder and humane manner instead of setting him up.

I also see that the theme of exterminating the Plantagenets until there were none left continued into his son's reign with the execution of Clarence's daughter, a lady in her 60s and if reports on her execution are true, in the most horrendous manner. Henry reconciled to York...hmmmm I don't think so.
Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandra, that's why I have a problem with those who would love to think that EOY had made Henry reconciled to York. He never could be, could he? He's like a police officer who's shot a suspect he thought was going to shoot him. He's got  to believe what happened that day at Bosworth was right, otherwise he'll go mad. So the more nasty stories fed to him about Richard the better, it re-inforces his belief that he's done the right thing
> And every time there's a plot against him he'll see the dead, handsome face of the young man he'd never seen before and had never had a conversation with. He never dares to think they might have got on - two serious young men who'd experienced humiliating period of exiles with mothers with unnatural expectations. No, all he'll ever come back to is that body being thrown over a horse and someone whispering in his ear that this is what happens to kings who make mistakes, however valiant their intentions.  H.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 14:38, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Fascinating, Hilary. I think you’re right about MB â€" tentacles everywhere.
> Poor Richard, he was forced to take the throne, and may have seen what was
> coming, but could do nothing except fight his corner. Which he did, so
> brilliantly that his heroic charge almost succeeded. That would have scuppered
> MB’s years of planning! If only. Imagine that. I’d love to have seen
> her face if Henry had lost at Bosworth. And the Stanleys’ faces, and
> Northumberland’s. And all the other rats. If only we could have been there with
> a digital camera. A moment captured in time. What a rogues’ gallery.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: [Richard III
> Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
>
> Â
> David (and anyone else interested),
> Â
> I've gone back to Chris Skidmore's book and started ploughing through
> the genealogies of those listed as taking the oath at Vannes. I haven't
> completed it yet but, guess what, every one so far has a familial relationship
> with MB or her mother - even the harbourmaster at Haverfordwest! If anyone's
> read Geoffrey Richardson's book they'll know that there is this MI5 view of MB
> and Morton scheming, with Reggie Bray dashing about like a night hawk sending
> messages overseas.
> Â
> But perhaps our lady has been much more subtle than that? After
> Tewkesbury she needs to make sure that the allegiance once due to MOA and EOL
> transfers to her Henry if and when the time is right. She can't knock on doors
> but she can make sure that those who are Lancastrian at heart stay close to her
> by those two old inducements, patronage and marriage. With her own three
> marriages and her mother's three she has enormous resources on which to draw -
> particularly the huge Welles clan and exploitation of the quarrel over the
> Berkeley lands.
> Â
> I stumbled on this first in Northants where she'd managed to marry
> one of her Welles relatives into the estates of Sir Robert Whittingham, a vastly
> rich friend of John Duke of Bedford (who actually probably embezzled some of his
> fortunes) went into exile with MOA and died at Tewkesbury. As someone on here
> once said, Margaret always looked after those related to her. Clever woman! And
> it throws the old chestnut about discontent with just Richard out of the window.
> These folk had been wearing a Lancaster vest under their outergarments for
> years. The time might never have come. But it did H.Â
> Â
> Â
> Â
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 3:41,
> "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Jan wrote:
>
>
>
> "Thank you, Carol. It will be good to have a primary source. Chris
> Skidmore says there is a slightly different version in the Vatican archives, not
> digitised as far as I know. IIRC the differences refer to Christopher
> Urswick."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Did he specify the differences? I suppose the Vatican
> will get around to digitizing their archives eventually. Maybe they'll find the
> lost portion of Richard's and Anne's papal dispensation.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> >
>

Hilary, I definitely read somewhere that after Tewkesbury MB considered Henry to be the "Lancastrian" heir. I thought it was in Charles Oman's" Warwick the Kingmaker" but I re-checked and I couldn't find it. I checked other books that I had read at the time, Mary Clive and Cora Scofield, but could not find the the quote. It certainly looks as if MB was up to something. Reggie Bray and Lewis Caerleon, MB using her family as you describe. The fact that she was accused of treason by Richard, as I think Carol showed a few posts ago. We know that Henry had no claim to the Lancaster inheritance let alone the throne of England, indeed the Lancastrians had no claim to the throne because it belonged to the Mortimers after Richard II. There is so much that we don't know and so many pieces of evidence that have been destroyed but there are bits of evidence out there which absolutely refute the traditionalist view that Richard was an evil tyrant who murdered the Princes.

Someone, I think it was Richard Collins could have been Geoffrey Richardson, thinks that Buckingham and Rivers were involved in the plot to put E5 on the throne and that Buckingham went to meet Richard at Rivers instigation. Ludlow and Brecon not being a million miles apart.

If Jan can't, I can.
Liz
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014, 17:15
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany



Jan wrote:

"I'm sure AJ will be interested in this too."

Carol responds:

Hi, Jan. If you're in touch with AJ, can you tell her that I miss her posts and would love to see her return to the forum?

Thanks,
Carol

I can contact AJ.Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 30 Jan 2014, at 17:55, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

If Jan can't, I can.
Liz
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2014, 17:15
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany



Jan wrote:

"I'm sure AJ will be interested in this too."

Carol responds:

Hi, Jan. If you're in touch with AJ, can you tell her that I miss her posts and would love to see her return to the forum?

Thanks,
Carol

Mary, I'm sure I've read somewhere that H6 in one of his 'prophetic moods' blessed the child HT and said he would one day be king. It must be an old book like Kendall because I've known it for some time. And MB had such a respectable reputation, didn't she - the complete opposite of EW? She brushed shoulders with them all - I bet she comforted Cis when Edward was in exile, stroked Anne Beauchamp's shoulder. Bet they all confided in her, woman to woman ..... To be liked and embraced by the Lady Margaret must have made the gentry glow! H

On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 19:55, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Hilary, I definitely read somewhere that after Tewkesbury MB considered Henry to be the "Lancastrian" heir. I thought it was in Charles Oman's" Warwick the Kingmaker" but I re-checked and I couldn't find it. I checked other books that I had read at the time, Mary Clive and Cora Scofield, but could not find the the quote. It certainly looks as if MB was up to something. Reggie Bray and Lewis Caerleon, MB using her family as you describe. The fact that she was accused of treason by Richard, as I think Carol showed a few posts ago. We know that Henry had no claim to the Lancaster inheritance let alone the throne of England, indeed the Lancastrians had no claim to the throne because it belonged to the Mortimers after Richard II. There is so much that we don't know and so many pieces of evidence that have been destroyed but there are bits of evidence out there which absolutely refute the traditionalist view that Richard was an evil tyrant who murdered the Princes.

Yes so do I Doug, if that helps? But if someone else chips in before I have time to respond I have to go back through all the postings to find the one I read - it disappears. It really is a pig. H

On Saturday, 1 February 2014, 16:39, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Carol wrote: Another blank post. You're quoting yourself again, Doug! Doug here: And who better to use as a source? Seriously though, *this* post is a "created" post and the previous one was a "reply." If this goes through I'll just return to re-typing posts rather than using cut-n-paste. For some reason unexplained Hilary received the body of my post (based on her reply) and they were complete when I received both my copies (the "cc" one *and* the one via the group) Outlook Express. Perhaps it's the method you're using to acces the group? I just get 'em via my own email account. Doug (whose knowledge of how email *actually* works is on a par with his knowledge of particle physics)

If you want to know anything about Reynold/ Reginald / Reggie Bray’s morals, try changing the first letter of his surname.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: 02 February 2014 11:11
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Embassy to Brittany

I don't know Pamela, I'm not much into More and his story. But I'm sure someone else on here does. I just stumbled on it when chasing Bray connections. H

On Sunday, 2 February 2014, 10:23, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

Now that is very interesting, Hilary. Was it Roper who 'amended' More's version and published it?

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

This is probably all out of order again, but talking of the sainted Sir Thomas and his fable, Morton always squarely gets the blame, but did you know that Will Roper (More's son in law) had a mother who was Reggie Bray's great-niece? Such tight circles, weren't they? H

On Friday, 31 January 2014, 18:58, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:

Robert reverses to trebor meaning perhaps TR England be our Richard perhaps.

--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary wrote:
>
> "Still a lot to do - really need to look at all of them and not go off half-cocked or I'll get torn to pieces. Thinking of it overnight (sad really) it was a clever strategy because if you infiltrate one family you infiltrate another half-dozen because of all the inter-marrying. So win over one High Sheriff or Escheator of a county and you've probably won the lot. And of course it was a strategy she was to employ later - the marriage broker - with her own son and EOY and with Cecily and Lord Welles."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Why wasn't Welles executed for his involvement to free the "Princes" from the Tower, do you know? And Henry had to finagle a divorce (annulment) for Cecily from Ralph Scrope (the husband Richard chose for her) to arrange that marriage. Wikipedia would have us believe that she was overcome with grief at the death of her much older husband. If so, it seems odd that she would marry a commoner, Thomas Kyme, for love (and without Henry's permission) after the deaths of her two daughters. Maybe she *wanted* to be banished from the court and escape from Margaret's thumb.
>
> It's interesting that she named her children by Kyme Margaret and Richard (according to the 1602 enhanced copy of the Heraldic Visitation of Hampshire--I always wondered what Sharon Kay Penman's source for this statement was and now I know!). Was Margaret for Margaret Beaufort (who is so often claimed to have regarded Cecily with affection), or for Margaret of York, the enemy of Henry Tudor? And Richard! Imagine Henry's and Lord Welles's reaction if she had given that name to her son by him! To me, it speaks volumes about her attitude toward her uncle, the rightful king of England , whom she clearly did not believe murdered her brothers if she named her son after him.
>
> I wonder why she named her first son Robert. I suppose it's because the Yorkist names weren't safe at the time (neither was Ralph!) and she didn't want to name him Henry or John (after Lord Welles).
>
> Carol
>

David (and anyone else interested), I've gone back to Chris Skidmore's book and started ploughing through the genealogies of those listed as taking the oath at Vannes. I haven't completed it yet but, guess what, every one so far has a familial relationship with MB or her mother - even the harbourmaster at Haverfordwest! If anyone's read Geoffrey Richardson's book they'll know that there is this MI5 view of MB and Morton scheming, with Reggie Bray dashing about like a night hawk sending messages overseas. But perhaps our lady has been much more subtle than that? After Tewkesbury she needs to make sure that the allegiance once due to MOA and EOL transfers to her Henry if and when the time is right. She can't knock on doors but she can make sure that those who are Lancastrian at heart stay close to her by those two old inducements, patronage and marriage. With her own three marriages and her mother's three she has enormous resources on which to draw - particularly the huge Welles clan and exploitation of the quarrel over the Berkeley lands. I stumbled on this first in Northants where she'd managed to marry one of her Welles relatives into the estates of Sir Robert Whittingham, a vastly rich friend of John Duke of Bedford (who actually probably embezzled some of his fortunes) went into exile with MOA and died at Tewkesbury. As someone on here once said, Margaret always looked after those related to her. Clever woman! And it throws the old chestnut about discontent with just Richard out of the window. These folk had been wearing a Lancaster vest under their outergarments for years.  The time might never have come. But it did  H.     

On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 3:41, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
  Jan wrote:

"Thank you, Carol. It will be good to have a primary source.  Chris Skidmore says there is a slightly different version in the Vatican archives, not digitised as far as I know. IIRC the differences refer to Christopher Urswick."

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Did he specify the differences? I suppose the Vatican will get around to digitizing their archives eventually. Maybe they'll find the lost portion of Richard's and Anne's papal dispensation.

Carol

I've never seen anything that would lead to that conclusion which surely would have led to him treating young Warwick in a more kinder and humane manner instead of setting him up.

I also see that the theme of exterminating the Plantagenets until there were none left continued into his son's reign with the execution of Clarence's daughter, a lady in her 60s and if reports on her execution are true, in the most horrendous manner. Henry reconciled to York...hmmmm I don't think so.
Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sandra, that's why I have a problem with those who would love to think that EOY had made Henry reconciled to York. He never could be, could he? He's like a police officer who's shot a suspect he thought was going to shoot him. He's got  to believe what happened that day at Bosworth was right, otherwise he'll go mad. So the more nasty stories fed to him about Richard the better, it re-inforces his belief that he's done the right thing
> And every time there's a plot against him he'll see the dead, handsome face of the young man he'd never seen before and had never had a conversation with. He never dares to think they might have got on - two serious young men who'd experienced humiliating period of exiles with mothers with unnatural expectations. No, all he'll ever come back to is that body being thrown over a horse and someone whispering in his ear that this is what happens to kings who make mistakes, however valiant their intentions.  H.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 14:38, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Fascinating, Hilary. I think youâ¬"re right about MB â¬" tentacles everywhere.
> Poor Richard, he was forced to take the throne, and may have seen what was
> coming, but could do nothing except fight his corner. Which he did, so
> brilliantly that his heroic charge almost succeeded. That would have scuppered
> MBâ¬"s years of planning! If only. Imagine that. Iâ¬"d love to have seen
> her face if Henry had lost at Bosworth. And the Stanleysâ¬" faces, and
> Northumberlandâ¬"s. And all the other rats. If only we could have been there with
> a digital camera. A moment captured in time. What a roguesâ¬" gallery.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re : RE: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: [Richard III
> Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
>
>  
> David (and anyone else interested),
>  
> I've gone back to Chris Skidmore's book and started ploughing through
> the genealogies of those listed as taking the oath at Vannes. I haven't
> completed it yet but, guess what, every one so far has a familial relationship
> with MB or her mother - even the harbourmaster at Haverfordwest! If anyone's
> read Geoffrey Richardson's book they'll know that there is this MI5 view of MB
> and Morton scheming, with Reggie Bray dashing about like a night hawk sending
> messages overseas.
>  
> But perhaps our lady has been much more subtle than that? After
> Tewkesbury she needs to make sure that the allegiance once due to MOA and EOL
> transfers to her Henry if and when the time is right. She can't knock on doors
> but she can make sure that those who are Lancastrian at heart stay close to her
> by those two old inducements, patronage and marriage. With her own three
> marriages and her mother's three she has enormous resources on which to draw -
> particularly the huge Welles clan and exploitation of the quarrel over the
> Berkeley lands.
>  
> I stumbled on this first in Northants where she'd managed to marry
> one of her Welles relatives into the estates of Sir Robert Whittingham, a vastly
> rich friend of John Duke of Bedford (who actually probably embezzled some of his
> fortunes) went into exile with MOA and died at Tewkesbury. As someone on here
> once said, Margaret always looked after those related to her. Clever woman! And
> it throws the old chestnut about discontent with just Richard out of the window.
> These folk had been wearing a Lancaster vest under their outergarments for
> years.  The time might never have come. But it did  H. 
>  
>  
>  
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 30 January 2014, 3:41,
> "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>  
> Jan wrote:
>
>
>
> "Thank you, Carol. It will be good to have a primary source.  Chris
> Skidmore says there is a slightly different version in the Vatican archives, not
> digitised as far as I know. IIRC the differences refer to Christopher
> Urswick."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Did he specify the differences? I suppose the Vatican
> will get around to digitizing their archives eventually. Maybe they'll find the
> lost portion of Richard's and Anne's papal dispensation.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> >
>

Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

………. and precious little Welsh about him, according to JA-H’s evidence, except for an accident of birth. 0/2.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 17:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

David, the Plantagenet Alliance also exists through the descendents of Richard's sister Ann who was married to Thomas St Leger. Also I believe that Magaret de la Pole had children and obviously they had children. I believe that most of John de la Pole's brothers were executed by Henry. One ( maybe Edmund) was sheltered by James Tyrrell at Guisnes and that is why Tyrrell was executed for sheltering a de la Pole. I think that he was tricked into coming to England by Henry offering him a safe conduct but Henry being Henry renaged on the deal and James was imprisoned and executed. If JAH described it as Plantagenet genocide then that is probably what it was because he will have thoroughly researched it before committing pen to paper.

Absolutely agree Eileen and Stephen.

Mary

&&&. and precious little Welsh about him, according to JA-H's evidence, except for an accident of birth. 0/2.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 17:23
To:
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany

Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

Quite right – JA-H does not shoot from the lip.
The first two “Tudors” executed two nephews (Warwick and Edmund of Suffolk), one niece (Margaret of Salisbury) and one great-nephew (Montagu), whilst one nephew (William de la Pole) and one great-great-nephew (Henry Pole the Younger) died in the Tower. Dorset, who was executed with Montagu, was also a great-nephew, UIAVMM.

The surviving legitimate post-Plantagenets must descend through the St. Leger and Pole lines – although there may well be de la Poles as the evidence is not yet conclusive in the “Marguerite” case. Edward IV’s other lines still exist.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 18:24
To:
Subject: RE: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

David, the Plantagenet Alliance also exists through the descendents of Richard's sister Ann who was married to Thomas St Leger. Also I believe that Magaret de la Pole had children and obviously they had children. I believe that most of John de la Pole's brothers were executed by Henry. One ( maybe Edmund) was sheltered by James Tyrrell at Guisnes and that is why Tyrrell was executed for sheltering a de la Pole. I think that he was tricked into coming to England by Henry offering him a safe conduct but Henry being Henry renaged on the deal and James was imprisoned and executed. If JAH described it as Plantagenet genocide then that is probably what it was because he will have thoroughly researched it before committing pen to paper.

And he may not be Welsh at all.

&&&. and precious little Welsh about him, according to JA-H's evidence, except for an accident of birth. 0/2.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 17:23
To:
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany

Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

Quite right  JA-H does not shoot from the lip.
The first two Tudors executed two nephews (Warwick and Edmund of Suffolk), one niece (Margaret of Salisbury) and one great-nephew (Montagu), whilst one nephew (William de la Pole) and one great-great-nephew (Henry Pole the Younger) died in the Tower. Dorset, who was executed with Montagu, was also a great-nephew, UIAVMM.

The surviving legitimate post-Plantagenets must descend through the St. Leger and Pole lines  although there may well be de la Poles as the evidence is not yet conclusive in the Marguerite case. Edward IV's other lines still exist.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 18:24
To:
Subject: RE: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

David, the Plantagenet Alliance also exists through the descendents of Richard's sister Ann who was married to Thomas St Leger. Also I believe that Magaret de la Pole had children and obviously they had children. I believe that most of  John de la Pole's brothers were executed by Henry. One ( maybe Edmund) was sheltered by James Tyrrell  at Guisnes and that is why Tyrrell was executed for sheltering a de la Pole. I think that he was tricked into coming to England by Henry offering him a safe conduct but Henry being Henry renaged on the deal and James was imprisoned and executed. If JAH described it as Plantagenet genocide then that is probably what it was because he will have thoroughly researched it before committing pen to paper.

“……. entirely modern Ricardian propaganda …….” – the ODNB refers to contemporaneous rumours (ie before Richard’s time), but now JA-H has lined up the evidence. Then the Cairo-dwellers launch a homophobic attack upon him.

So where is the evidence that Catherine de Valois and Owen Tudor ever had a relationship, let alone married? We know who is indulging in propaganda and it isn’t JA-H.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Durose David
Sent: 05 February 2014 10:48
To:
Subject: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

Hi Sandra,
Yes, I think this is entirely modern Ricardian propaganda - no doubt really enjoyed in certain quarters. Perhaps you missed some earlier posts on JAH's nonsense about Edmund's parentage. The only thing this demonstrates to me is his lack of knowledge of the rules of heraldry and his willingness to publish anything to cast doubt on Henry.

It is also the rules of heraldry that makes me certain that Roland de Velville was neither illegitimate nor Henry's son. Because the arms granted to him must have been supported by documentary evidence (which Breton nobles were required to keep) and clearly identify his father's and mother's families.

Kind regards
David

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: < >;
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 6:45:15 PM

Nor did he do anything for Wales . He failed what Welsh blood he had. If he had any. I think there is a rumour that his father, Edmund ‘Tudor’, was probably sired by Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and hastily provided with the name Tudor by the timely marriage of his mother, Catherine of Valois, to the lowly Owen Tudor. The choice of the name Edmund might therefore be be a reference to his real father. Mind you, we don’t even know if Catherine and Owen were legally married. Oh, dear, what a disreputably tangled web for Henry.

Of course, it could all be wicked Yorkist propaganda....

Sandra

=^..^=

From: Stephen

Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 6:12 PM

To:

Subject: RE: Embassy to Brittany

………. and precious little Welsh about him, according to JA-H’s evidence, except for an accident of birth. 0/2.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 17:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

As someone who is mostly Welsh (and far more so that  Tydder) I am embarrassed that he is referred to as such.  He did F-all for Wales.   Liz
From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014, 17:23
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany



Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

My post was in answer to particular questions from Eileen and Mary, which I would suggest that you need to read further.

Although Henry VII only imprisoned Edmund of Suffolk, he is said to have advised Henry VIII to execute him before travelling abroad. Suffolk was beheaded on 30 April 1513, the year in which Henry VIII was absent from his realm at times – eg September when Flodden was fought and Catherine of Aragon was informally Regent.
Henry VII was, therefore, probably responsible for this execution. He was also partially responsible for the death of Richard de la Pole who was only safe in exile, as Edmund’s capture and execution showed. Henry VIII was partially responsible in this case because of his dealings with the Habsburgs before the 1523-5 Italian campaign, climaxing in Pavia (see my next book).

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Durose David
Sent: 05 February 2014 11:03
To:
Subject: Re : RE: Re : Re: Embassy to Brittany

Stephen,
John Ashdown-Hill is reported as specifically accusing Henry VII of "Plantagenet Genocide" at a talk given in March 2013. Clearly, this may have been misreported.

But it is clear from the biographies of the de la Poles that Henry VII was responsible of none of their deaths. The Earl of Lincoln was actually taken into Henry's Council after Bosworth. But then killed in battle promoting Lambert Simnel.

Now the term Plantagenet needs to be explained, why is it only used to describe those close relatives of Richard or those who came to sticky ends? After all Henry had Plantagenet blood as did his wife.

Kind regards
David

From: Stephen <stephenmlark@...>;
To: < >;
Subject: RE: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 6:58:01 PM

Quite right – JA-H does not shoot from the lip.
The first two “Tudors” executed two nephews (Warwick and Edmund of Suffolk), one niece (Margaret of Salisbury) and one great-nephew (Montagu), whilst one nephew (William de la Pole) and one great-great-nephew (Henry Pole the Younger) died in the Tower. Dorset, who was executed with Montagu, was also a great-nephew, UIAVMM.

The surviving legitimate post-Plantagenets must descend through the St. Leger and Pole lines – although there may well be de la Poles as the evidence is not yet conclusive in the “Marguerite” case. Edward IV’s other lines still exist.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 18:24
To:
Subject: RE: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

David, the Plantagenet Alliance also exists through the descendents of Richard's sister Ann who was married to Thomas St Leger. Also I believe that Magaret de la Pole had children and obviously they had children. I believe that most of John de la Pole's brothers were executed by Henry. One ( maybe Edmund) was sheltered by James Tyrrell at Guisnes and that is why Tyrrell was executed for sheltering a de la Pole. I think that he was tricked into coming to England by Henry offering him a safe conduct but Henry being Henry renaged on the deal and James was imprisoned and executed. If JAH described it as Plantagenet genocide then that is probably what it was because he will have thoroughly researched it before committing pen to paper.

Hi Sandra,
Yes, I think this is entirely modern Ricardian propaganda - no doubt really enjoyed in certain quarters. Perhaps you missed some earlier posts on JAH's nonsense about Edmund's parentage. The only thing this demonstrates to me is his lack of knowledge of the rules of heraldry and his willingness to publish anything to cast doubt on Henry.

It is also the rules of heraldry that makes me certain that Roland de Velville was neither illegitimate nor Henry's son. Because the arms granted to him must have been supported by documentary evidence (which Breton nobles were required to keep) and clearly identify his father's and mother's families.

Kind regards
David



From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 6:45:15 PM

Nor did he do anything for Wales. He failed what Welsh blood he had. If he had any. I think there is a rumour that his father, Edmund Tudor', was probably sired by Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and hastily provided with the name Tudor by the timely marriage of his mother, Catherine of Valois, to the lowly Owen Tudor. The choice of the name Edmund might therefore be be a reference to his real father. Mind you, we don't even know if Catherine and Owen were legally married. Oh, dear, what a disreputably tangled web for Henry. Of course, it could all be wicked Yorkist propaganda.... Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 6:12 PM To: Subject: RE: Embassy to Brittany

&&&. and precious little Welsh about him, according to JA-H's evidence, except for an accident of birth. 0/2.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 17:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

Wonderful response Sandra. Agree wholeheartly. I am tired of defending the reputation of one of the most enlightened Kings of Medieval times against the lies perpetrated by the most dishonourable, corrupt dynasty ever inflicted upon this country. We may not have much evidence of what happened in Richard's reign but at least it proves that he was definitely not a tyrant.

Agree Eileen JAH has done more than anybody else to back up his writings with documentary evidence. Even then he does not categorically say that it is fact. The Cairo Dwellers, as Stephen calls them, are adamant that what they are saying is fact. However, they offer no evidence to support these so called facts.

Fascinating Sandra!! I shall read up on it. And I do wish Yahoo would stop putting you (and poor old Paul) into my trash. Gawd knows why? But I check just in case you're there. :) H

On Wednesday, 5 February 2014, 12:19, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Long response, so be warned. Cudgels have to be taken up. I don't know about entirely modern, David, because the rumours about Catherine of Valois and Edmund Beaufort were very strong at the time. Their affair was the subject of a political scandal. No, I'm not old enough to have been there, nor do I have anyone's diary at the ready to quote from. JAH is hardly hundreds of years old either, and therefore could not be the perpetrator of such a terrible shock-horror untruth. Nor does he write nonsense. It ill behoves you to say he does. We leave nonsense-writing to wicked Tudorites, who appear willing to pen anything to cast doubt on Richard. And IS there any proof that Catherine and Owen Tudor were actually married? I am sure you have it to hand. As for the rules of heraldry, by what right did Edmund Tudor bear the royal arms? Because his mother was the widow of Henry V and he was therefore the half-brother of Henry VI? Um...except that I think it most likely he was born on the wrong side of the royal blanket, which makes the heraldic rules a little trickier. And if he was actually a Beaufort, well, the illegitimacy aspect becomes harder still to ignore. The rumours about Catherine and Edmund Beaufort were there, and it was a lot of smoke to be without fire. A great fuss was made about it at the time. Maybe you think it is OK to believe rumours that Richard killed his nephews in the Tower? Well, I think it's OK to believe that Catherine of Valois romped with Edmund Beaufort and Edmund Tudor' was the result. And Owen Tudor was a besotted dope, willing to take the blame. Henry VI simply did what he could to protect Mummy's reputation, and dished out an earldom to Edmund Tudor'. Oh, and to Jasper as well, although he probably was Owen Tudor's offspring. Not guaranteeing it, but it seems likely. Sooo, can you also be that certain about Roland de Velville? Clearly arms could be granted at whoever's discretion, even then. Nothing changes. If you're in the right place at the right time, and know the right people, you can fiddle anything. And although we have to imagine that Roland's father' was called de Velville (or whatever permutation of that name) do we yet know which de Velville he was? Or the identity of his mother? Arms is arms, and both sides of Roland's coin must be properly recorded somewhere. So why is there a question mark over him and his background? Ah, JAH and his nonsense again, no doubt. No? Oh, dear. So why does no one really know exactly who this Breton nobleman was, who came to Henry's household, was kept', granted monies, allowed to joust, hawk and do everything else reserved for young English noblemen? He was on a par with the heirs to important English titles. Why? Henry even tolerated his hot temper and violence. Why? Henry wasn't exactly a tolerant man when it came to such things. Unless there was a tinge of York about the miscreant, of course, in which case there would be something even worse trumped up and a reservation at the Tower made pdq. So, for me, with Roland de Velville there was a lot of smoke for there to be no fire. Henry VIII, jealous and resentful no doubt, promptly despatched him to Beaumaris, to be constable there. No inconvenient royal half-siblings to be suffered around Fat Henry! I correct myself, he was young, slender, agile Henry then. Roland must have wondered what hit him. All that luxury at court, then suddenly the outer waste of Anglesey. Sorry Anglesey, it was but an expression, I know you are very beautiful and welcoming, but I don't think Roland de Velville would have been of the same opinion back then. He could probably count himself fortunate he wasn't despatched to the hereafter, which was Henry VIII's favourite way of getting rid of awkward problems. So prove it all, David. Until you do that, the likes of me will keep heaping doubt on Henry VII. He is as open to conjecture and criticism as Richard, who also suffers downright open false accusation. Tudorites appear to think this sort of thing is their sole domain. Sorry, but you've had it your own way since 1483. No more! And I cannot prove anything either, of course, but neither do I claim to be absolutely certain beyond all shadow of doubt that I'm right. Sandra =^..^= From: Durose David Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 10:48 AM To: Subject: Re : Re: Embassy to Brittany Hi Sandra,
Yes, I think this is entirely modern Ricardian propaganda - no doubt really enjoyed in certain quarters. Perhaps you missed some earlier posts on JAH's nonsense about Edmund's parentage. The only thing this demonstrates to me is his lack of knowledge of the rules of heraldry and his willingness to publish anything to cast doubt on Henry.

It is also the rules of heraldry that makes me certain that Roland de Velville was neither illegitimate nor Henry's son. Because the arms granted to him must have been supported by documentary evidence (which Breton nobles were required to keep) and clearly identify his father's and mother's families.

Kind regards
David



From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 6:45:15 PM

Nor did he do anything for Wales. He failed what Welsh blood he had. If he had any. I think there is a rumour that his father, Edmund Tudor', was probably sired by Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and hastily provided with the name Tudor by the timely marriage of his mother, Catherine of Valois, to the lowly Owen Tudor. The choice of the name Edmund might therefore be be a reference to his real father. Mind you, we don't even know if Catherine and Owen were legally married. Oh, dear, what a disreputably tangled web for Henry. Of course, it could all be wicked Yorkist propaganda.... Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 6:12 PM To: Subject: RE: Embassy to Brittany &&&. and precious little Welsh about him, according to JA-H's evidence, except for an accident of birth. 0/2. From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 03 February 2014 17:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

Yes so am I. I think that he has another book coming out in 2015. Not sure of the subject. Stephen will know.

Just checked and the new book is "The Dublin King". Another interesting mystery in the story of the House of York.

http://www.johnashdownhill.com/johns-blog/2014/1/23/coming-in-january-2015

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of maryfriend@...
Sent: 05 February 2014 16:05
To:
Subject: RE: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

Yes so am I. I think that he has another book coming out in 2015. Not sure of the subject. Stephen will know.

David, I've had a quick look at that blog (link below for those who wish to look) and let's face it,Henry was King and could have done more or less whatever he wished. That said, he didn't do much for the country. A lot of what is referred to is personal advancement for individuals rather than legislation that helped the people of Wales. I see nothing that compares, for example, with what Richard III is known to have done for ordinary folk. In fact reading through it, it seems that much of what he did was aimed to Anglicising the Welsh - he encouraged them to move to England, allowed them to buy land there, etc. Again, that did nothing at all for the majority of the Welsh. http://nathenamin.com/2013/03/01/henry-tudor-proud-welshman/
From: Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 February 2014, 11:12
Subject: Re : Re: Embassy to Brittany
Liz, Not being Welsh I can't comment on this, but Nathen Amin has set up a blog on which he has listed the ways in which Henry tried to do things for Wales. As a link to Welsh heros of the past, it is interesting that Henry landed in an area of Brittany controlled by families that had aided Owain Glyndur in the year of the "French" - many of whom were Breton. The county in which he landed was controlled by the du Chastel family and Jean IV de Rieux who accommodated HT in his Tower of Elven was the great grandson of the commander of the army supporting Glyndur. Henry also gave the Welsh / Breton saint Armel or Arthmael thanks for his good fortune in surviving shipwrecks and landing among friends. Kind regards David From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany Sent: Mon, Feb 3, 2014 9:04:55 PM As someone who is mostly Welsh (and far more so that Tydder) I am embarrassed that he is referred to as such. He did F-all for Wales. Liz From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014, 17:23
Subject: Re: Embassy to Brittany
Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really.

David Durose wrote:

That is a very good summary of the situation.

Margaret of Salisbury was surnamed Pole not de la Pole.

Richard de la Pole’s situation will be a little clearer in a few months, but the attentions of an experienced historian (eg JA-H/ MKJ) might well solve it almost conclusively.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67@...
Sent: 08 February 2014 17:24
To:
Subject: RE: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany

David Durose wrote:

"I need to point out that Henry VII did not embark on a policy of Plantagenet extermination. If he had, the Plantagenet Alliance could not exist.

"As someone pointed out in response to an earlier post, the de la Poles were left alive after Bosworth and there were many people left with plantagenet ancestry as there are today.

" Warwick was probably the only plantagenet whose death makes us cringe today, but Henry's actions can hardly be described as Plantagenet Genocide as John Ashdown-Hill described it recently."

Carol responds:

The Plantagenet Alliance is descended from female lines, either Richard's sister, Anne of York, or his niece, Margaret de la Pole. Henry VII definitely imprisoned Warwick as a child and then framed him so that he could be executed along with Perkin Warbeck, who might have been a Plantagenet, Richard Duke of York . Since John of Gloucester disappeared during Henry's reign and the only indication of his fate is a statement by Buck that Henry had him executed, we must at least accept the possibility that Henry did execute him (or perhaps imprison him so that, like TR, he would be forgotten). It's true that he tried to befriend John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and was disappointed when Lincoln was killed at Stoke--not because he liked Lincoln but because he wanted to know the truth about the Simnel rebellion. Nevertheless, Lincoln did die during his reign, rebelling against him--another Yorkist heir out of the picture. And Henry did trick, trap, and imprison de la Pole's younger brother, Edmund, leaving Edmund's execution to his son, Henry VIII. Henry VII imprisoned their brother, William, who died in the Tower after thirty-seven years' imprisonment. His son pretty much finished the job by executing Margaret de la Pole and one or two of her sons, as well as Edward Courtenay, Earl of Devon, son of Edward IV's daughter, Catherine, and Edward Stafford, Earl of Buckingham, not a Yorkist heir but nevertheless a threat because of his Plantagenet blood.

Most of the Plantagenets who were not killed were female and either married off to Tudor supporters or became nuns (Bridget of York, Anne de la Pole). Two de la Pole brothers, Edward and Humphrey, also went into Holy Orders, possibly to escape the Tudors' grasp. Richard de la Pole, like John and Edmund before him, escaped England and rebelled against Henry VIII, calling himself the White Rose and remaining a "pretender" until his death.

We don't know of any surviving de la Pole descendants though I believe Stephen is checking that out. Nor do we know of descendants of any of Edward IV's daughters except Elizabeth , safely made queen of England so she would not be a rival to Henry. Margaret of York, Edward and Richard's sister and Henry's enemy, had no children. That leaves, as I said, only the descendants of George's daughter, Margaret, most of whom, as far as I know, live in Australia , and the descendants of Anne of York and Thomas St. Leger. I would guess that most members of the Plantagenet Alliance are from that line.

Carol

Carol

"Outside the Museum in Cardiff City Centre there is a statue of Tudor and he is described as " a Welsh hero". There was nothing heroic about him, he never actually fought in a battle in his life, as you say cowering behind his body guard and a pike wall." By right of conquest " just doesn't ring true really."

Carol responds:

Not to mention that he was only one-quarter Welsh and, as far as I know, the Welsh were no better off under him than they were under the Yorkists. (DD will correct me if I'm wrong.) They certainly were *worse* off under Henry VIII. It's only Welsh prophecies and Tudor propaganda, before and after Bosworth, that made Henry any kind of "hero." If only the Welsh had realized that Richard's Welsh ancestry, however far back, was more distinguished than Henry's!

Carol

Yes, Richard was descended from Llewellyn Fawr and Tudor was descended from his Steward Ednyfed Fychan.

"That is a very good summary of the situation.

Margaret of Salisbury was surnamed Pole not de la Pole."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Stephen. I do know that Margaret's married name was Pole. Just a slip of the keyboard amid distractions.

Carol