Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany (was R

Marie,The information you sent is very fascinating and good to see set out chronologically. A couple of asides relating to the persons involved. Firstly, the family Dinham or Dynham was another of Breton origin. Although it sounds typically English, it is a mutation of de Dinan.Maurice Gourmel's wife, Marie Perhirin was a native of the small town where my ancestor lived at the end of the 15th century - Ploudalmezeau.Jacques de la Villéon went on to be chancellor of Brittany and one of the commissioners in the trial of Pierre Landais. His son married a member of the L'Enfant family - the same family as the archtect of Washington DC. Another random (not related to your post) link to American history was Henry's Breton follower Guillaume de la Rivière - he was from the same family as the mother of
Lafayette.Two of the events that do still give a very logical window for an embassy or mission of some kind.The June 1476 letter to Francis, seems to be implying that there is some matter concerning Richmond (Henry Tudor) that is not put into writing, but which will be conveyed by word of mouth.If Gourmel was copying correspondence, this could be a means to keep the communication secret.The 3 December confimation is odd. It could have been prompted by the failure of the plot to hand over Richmond, placing the situation as it was before the plot.The fragment from the accounts of the Duchy paying for the transport of Henry from Brest to Saint Malo is intriguing. What was he doing in Brest? His captors were not at that end of the country. However, Bertrand du Parc, who was Jasper's guardian did have a manor not far from Brest and Henry's greatest supporter at court, Jean du Quelennec was the
captain of the castle of Brest. So for Henry, a proposed move to Brest would not have caused any anxiety. The ports of Northern Brittany are only a few hours' sailing away from the West Country given favourable conditions.Best wishes and thanks for the informationDavid From: mariewalsh2003 ; To: ; Subject: RE: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard) Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 8:24:40 PM   Hi David,I'll pop this in here for want of a better place. This is the information I have been able to put together on Anglo-Breton diplomacy 1474-6
based on strictly contemporary sources (with the single except of a couple of comments from Commines). Sorry it's so long but I think it needs to be. When you've had a look, perhaps we can discuss some more? I can also give you proper list of sources if need be. Sorry about rogue italics, underscore, etc.Marie1474February 1474 - Edwardbegan preparations to send 1,000 archers and a few men at arms to Burgundy, and2,000 archers to Brittany under the command of Lords Duras and Audley.Volunteers for Burgundy were to assemble on 28th Feb at the GreatHorn, Christchurch Street, London, where the Burgundian ambassadors werestaying. (Scofield, p.91)30 March 1474  Payment of £4,586 10s tolords Audley and Duras going to serve under the Duke of Brittany with 2,000 archers(Foedera Syllabus, p. 704, Foedera Vol xi p. 791).c. end August 1474 - William Slefeld went over toBrittany to see if Francis II would sign another treaty binding himself to takepart in an attack on Louis; Francis, however, was wary and assured Louis he wasnot in league with the English and had only ever treated with them forcommercial intercourse, and would not do otherwise unless driven to it. Some ofhis councillors, however, were favourable to Edward's overtures. (Scofield,p.99).24 October 1474  The Milaneseambassador Bollati wrote back to the Duke of Milan from Chartres:-Thereis nothing of consequence from Brittany either except something about theduke's remonstrances upon the Perpignan affair. This is due to the constantprompting he has from the ambassadors of the King of Aragon, the English andthe Burgundians with him. (CMP p.188)Early December 1474  It was believed byKing Louis that Edward planned to land his army in Normandy
and join forceswith Brittany against him (CMP p.189) 12 December1474  Edward made an agreement with the Breton envoy,de la Villéon,about the indemnity to be paid to certain Breton merchants who had sufferedloss at the hands of the King's subjects (Scofield, p.100).147524April 1475  The Milanese Ambassador with Charles of Burgundy wrote: at theend of May he [Charles] will find himself towards France with his army, to makewar on the King of France. He has arranged this with King Edward, who willcross at that time with 40,000 combatants on the one side, and the Duke ofBrittany on the other. (CMP p.195)Commines later commented: Besides this the king of England was to send three thousand men to landin Brittany to join the duke's army. I saw two letters written by my lord ofUrfé ([later] chief esquire of
France). He was then a retainer of the duke ofBrittany. One was addressed to the king of England and the other to LordHastings, Lord Chamberlain of England, and amongst other things, they said thatthe duke of Brittany would achieve more in a month by his intrigues than the armiesof the English and the Burgundians would achieve in six, however powerful theywere. 16 May 1475 A treaty was drawn with Breton envoysbinding Francis to join Edward with 8,000 men to recover France, Aquitaine andNormandy. Edward promised that, if Francis needed help against Louis, LordDinham should take the fleet to his assistance, and that a force of Englisharchers should be kept ready to assist Brittany (Scofield, p.124).19 May 1475  Lords Audley and Duras indented withEdward to do him service of war for a year with 8,000 archers under the Duke ofBrittany, in Brittany or France.
They were to muster at Weymouth on 23rdJune. (Scofield, p.124)Edward was short of money and did not have the cashto send Audley and Duras over to Brittany (Scofield, p.127).Note. This may be based on TNA E 404/76/1/22, whichI have not copied but which according to my notes concerns Audley and Duras andwould be dated some time between 19th May and 1st June.12 June 1475  At Westminster, EIVissues a proclamation that Lords Audley and Duras have been placed in charge ofan armed force going to Brittany, and have been given full power to command it(Foedera, Vol xii, p. 12).20 June 1475  At Westminster, EIV commissionslords Audley and Duras and Master Oliver King to treat with Francis Duke ofBrittany or his ambassadors both for a perpetual peace and for improvements toexisting truces and alliances (Foedera,Vol xii, p. 12).Mon ?7
July 2475 - King René's secretary AntonilloPagano, left Malines to go towards Morenz. Athis departure  Duke Charles said to him:Go quickly to my Uncle, King René, as quickly as possible, and / tell him thatthe King of England descended on Calais on the 4th of this month,accompanied by 24,000 good men, and he has already sent 6,000 of them to theDuke of Brittany. He himself was going to meet the King of England, and hewould remain with his Majesty four or six days and no more. He proposed thatthis charge for the enterprise of Normandy should rest with the King ofEngland, some of the English, the Duke of Burgundy and the Constable of France,who has declared himself an open Burgundian. He has got the Duke of Brittany topromise to enter Normandy with 30,000 combatants, which is ample, with the helpof the English, for the conquest of Normandy, according to those who have themost experience.   (CMP pp.198-9,letter written on 30th July)14-18 July 1475  When Duke Charles met EIV atCalais he proposed that Edward, with Brittany and St Pol, should overrunNormandy and then push into Champagne, whilst he himself returned to fetch hisarmy and enter Champagne from the east; they would all meet up at Rheims, whereEdward would be crowned. In the end it was decided that Edward should advanceby Doullens and Peronne to Saint-Quentin, which Queen Elizabeth's uncle theCount of St Pol had offered to surrender to him. (Scofield, p.132)By 20 August 1475  Edward had agreed the terms ofthe truce with Louis, which allowed for the dukes of Brittany and Burgundy tojoin if they wished (CMP pp.200-201). There was also a marriage treaty agreed,whereby Elizabeth of York was to marry the Dauphin.20 August 1475  The Milanese Ambassador with
KingLouis wrote: They say that ambassadorsof Brittany are destined for England. M. Duchanour and the chancellor arereturning to Brittany and I think it only remains for the king [Louis] to livewell with everybody. (CMP pp.200-1).28 August 1475  Francis of Brittany wrote to Edwardexpressing both his intention to keep loyally his 30 years' truce andintercourse of merchandise with him, no matter what happened, and his beliefthat Edward would do the same. He sent the letter with his secretary MauriceGourmel and the English envoys Lord Duras and Oliver King (Scofield, p.151).29 August 1475  At Picquigny, Louis mentioned the duke of Brittany, who was thereal reason for his beginning this conversation, and asked a similar questionabout him. The king of England replied, begging him not to want to make war onthe duke of Brittany, and saying that in his
moment of need he had never foundsuch a good friend. The King left it at that and with the most gracious andfriendly words to each of his men. So both of them left the barrier at the samemoment, or as near as makes no difference, and mounted their horses. . . . Theduke of Gloucester, the king of England's brother, and several others, who werenot pleased by this peace, were not present at this conference. (Commines,Book 4, Chapter 10)30 August 1475  During the feast atAmiens, Louis was still suspicious of Edward's intentions because he had found him a little obdurate when he spoke to him aboutthe duke of Brittany. He would have very willingly won him over so that hewould allow war to be waged in Brittany. And he had sounded him out againthrough my lords of Bouchage and Saint-Pierre. But when the king of England sawhimself cornered he said that if anyone waged war
in Brittany he would crossover at once and defend the duchy. On hearing his reply no one said anotherword to him about it. (Commines, Book 4, Chapter 10) 9 September 1475 - Brittany signed a treaty with Louis renouncing all alliances hehad formed against France (Lettres deLouis XI, vol VI, p. 73, n. 1; Scofield, p.151).Edward sent Oliver King back to Brittanyto obtain from Francis a renewal of the mercantile treaty, to ask forrecompense for the cost of the troops sent to him in 1468 and 1475 (Scofield,p.166).c. 20 September 1475  Duke of Exeter(heir of Lancaster) went overboard and drowned on return to England.28 September 1475  Francis wrote toEdward via his secretary Maurice Gourmel and Lord Duras and Oliver King, expressinghis intention to keep loyally the 30 years' truce and intercourse ofmerchandise, and his belief that
Edward would do the same (Scofield, p. 150).Very soon after Oliver King came homewith the letter in which Francis expressed his determination to stick to histhirty years' mercantile treaty with England, he was sent back to Brittany...to obtain a renewal of the treaty.... (Scofield, p. 166).Note. Scofield believes that this wasthe embassy that brought the request to hand over Henry Tudor.5 November 1475  The Duke of Brittany, at Nantes,raised letters to Louis XI concluding the treaty with him  (Lettresde Louis XI, vol VI, p. 73, n. 1).147622 January 1476  At Nantes, FrancisDuke of Brittany confirms the existing truce and trade agreement with EIV (Foedera, Vol xii, pp. 22-23). Francisrenewed the 30-year mercantile treaty with England, but he denied owing Englandany money, pointing out the large sums owed to Brittany for English
infractionsof the truce. He sent Gourmel to Edward again. (Scofield, p.166)Presumably, Oliver King now returned toEngland with the trade agreement.6 March 1476  At the Bishop ofLincoln's palace of Buckden, Huntingdonshire, EIV confirms the treaty withBrittany (Foedera, Vol xii, p. 24).16 March 1476  At Buckden, EIV releasesFrancis Duke of Brittany from the expense of the fleet he had sent to assisthim in return for similar release of mercantile damages amounting to 50,000crowns (Foedera, Vol xii p. 23).18 March 1476  At Buckden, EIV appointsOliver King as his Principal Secretary in the French language  (Foedera,Vol xi, p. 26).3 December 1476  Confirmation of EIV'spromise of 1468 to protect the Duchy of Brittany (Foedera Syllabus p. 708, FoederaVol xii p. 37).Jacquesde Villéon arrived from
Brittany to enquire into remarks that it was said someEnglish ambassadors had made in France. (Scofield, p.166)18 June 1476  Edward IV wrote to Duke Francis, emphatically denying the remarksin question had ever been made and assuring the Duke that he would always findhim his good cousin and friend, and asking him to give credence to themessages Villéon would bring concerning certain other matters of which I havetalked to him concerning the Earl of Richmond. (Scofield, p. 166)AfterVilléon's return to Brittany with Edward's request about Richmond, Francisstarted sending Maurice Gourmel back and forth to England (Scofield, p.172).Note. Gourmel was acting as a double-agent. Hecopied all the letters entrusted to him by Edward and Francis for each other,and gave the copy to the addressee and the original to King Louis (Scofield,pp.182-3).
  

David wrote:"The June 1476 letter to Francis, seems to be implying that there is some matter concerning Richmond (Henry Tudor) that is not put into writing, but which will be conveyed by word of mouth."Marie replies:With any political or otherwise sensitive correspondence there were usually two arms to a message - the relatively anodyne written message that was physically conveyed by the messenger, and the "credence" or verbal message containing the more sensitive information, which the messenger committed to memory; this was sensible but is a pain for us now trying to piece together events. Vergil's account suggests that the English ambassadors' demand for HT as the price of the diplomatic agreement took Francis by surprise, but we now know that by June 1476 the matter had been discussed with Francis' own ambassador in England. So if Vergil is to be relied upon on this point (and that can itself be argued) it would seem that the English ambassadors involved had made their overtures to Francis on the subject of HT's repatriation before June 1476. If this is correct, it does seem to point to Oliver King's embassy. Vergil's account also suggests a considerable time lag between Edward's failure to retrieve HT and his arrest of his brother Clarence (which took place in summer 1477), during which he devoted himself to acquiring and spending money.Thanks for the information on the Breton genealogical links. It's amazing how all these things weave together, isn't it?

Marie,Thank you for the explanation, I was not aware of the appropriate names for the various parts of the embassy's message.Although, the interesting thing about the June 1476 message is that it indicates further interactions that do not show up. If de la Villéon was taking a message to Francis in June. His agreement would have to be conveyed to England, followed by arrangements to complete the deal - deliver the money and pick up Henry. So there seem to be necessary elements missing after June. It is possible that some activity was not recorded until the deal succeeded - and since it eventually failed, the records remain incomplete.There is a similar gap in materials regarding the lead up to Henry's invasion of France in 1492. What had been a plan to invade Brittany and put a Duke friendly to England on the throne changed into
a half hearted invasion of France. The truth was only discovered when original correspondence was found in France many years later. England, Brittany and France all prefered to pretend that the plot of 1492 had never happened. It still is never mentioned in most history books.Although, with respect to the original topic, I have found a couple of further references that indicate Stillington's involvement in the plan, but not his presence on the embassy. It could be that his role was as the "mastermind".Kind regardsDavid

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: Re : RE: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent:
Mon, Dec 30, 2013 3:57:23 PM

 
David wrote:"The June 1476 letter to Francis, seems to be implying that there is some matter concerning Richmond (Henry Tudor) that is not put into writing, but which will be conveyed by word of mouth."Marie replies:With any political or otherwise sensitive correspondence there were usually two arms to a message - the relatively anodyne written message that was physically conveyed by the messenger, and the "credence" or verbal message containing the more sensitive information, which the messenger committed to memory; this was sensible but is a pain for us now trying to piece together events. Vergil's account suggests that the English ambassadors' demand for HT as the price of the diplomatic agreement took Francis by surprise, but we now know that by June 1476 the matter had  been discussed with Francis' own ambassador in England. So if Vergil is to be relied
upon on this point (and that can itself be argued) it would seem that the English ambassadors involved had made their overtures to Francis on the subject of HT's repatriation before June 1476. If this is correct, it does seem to point to Oliver King's embassy.  Vergil's account also suggests a considerable time lag between Edward's failure to retrieve HT and his arrest of his brother Clarence (which took place in summer 1477), during which he devoted himself to acquiring and spending money.Thanks for the information on the Breton genealogical links. It's amazing how all these things weave together, isn't it?

David, Very slightly at a tangent but you might be interested Ian Arthurson's book 'The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy'. It has a wealth of detailed information about international politics, particularly those regions discussed here. It's very dense and has no index and I must admit I've by no means read it from cover to cover. I bought it because it refers to the relationship between Duchess Cecily and Margaret of Burgundy in possible plotting. But I would say it's the best book on international politics of the period I've yet come across. Regards H. On Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 11:42, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Marie,Thank you for the explanation, I was not aware of the appropriate names for the various parts of the embassy's message.Although, the interesting thing about the June 1476 message is that it indicates further interactions that do not show up. If de la Villéon was taking a message to Francis in June. His agreement would have to be conveyed to England, followed by arrangements to complete the deal - deliver the money and pick up Henry. So there seem to be necessary elements missing after June. It is possible that some activity was not recorded until the deal succeeded - and since it eventually failed, the records remain incomplete.There is a similar gap in materials regarding the lead up to Henry's invasion of France in
1492. What had been a plan to invade Brittany and put a Duke friendly to England on the throne changed into
a half hearted invasion of France. The truth was only discovered when original correspondence was found in France many years later. England, Brittany and France all prefered to pretend that the plot of 1492 had never happened. It still is never mentioned in most history books.Although, with respect to the original topic, I have found a couple of further references that indicate Stillington's involvement in the plan, but not his presence on the embassy. It could be that his role was as the "mastermind".Kind regardsDavid

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: Re : RE: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent:
Mon, Dec 30, 2013 3:57:23 PM

David wrote:"The June 1476 letter to Francis, seems to be implying that there is some matter concerning Richmond (Henry Tudor) that is not put into writing, but which will be conveyed by word of mouth."Marie replies:With any political or otherwise sensitive correspondence there were usually two arms to a message - the relatively anodyne written message that was physically conveyed by the messenger, and the "credence" or verbal message containing the more sensitive information, which the messenger committed to memory; this was sensible but is a pain for us now trying to piece together events. Vergil's account suggests that the English ambassadors' demand for HT as the price of the diplomatic agreement took Francis by surprise, but we now know that by June 1476 the matter had been discussed with Francis' own ambassador in England. So if Vergil is to be relied
upon on this point (and that can itself be argued) it would seem that the English ambassadors involved had made their overtures to Francis on the subject of HT's repatriation before June 1476. If this is correct, it does seem to point to Oliver King's embassy. Vergil's account also suggests a considerable time lag between Edward's failure to retrieve HT and his arrest of his brother Clarence (which took place in summer 1477), during which he devoted himself to acquiring and spending money.Thanks for the information on the Breton genealogical links. It's amazing how all these things weave together, isn't it?

Marie, I'm all behind and can't find my previous other post about TR but I was referring to the Parliament Rolls of Richard's 1484 Parliament which sets out support fro his kingship and refers to the Butler marriage and EIV's clandestine marriage to EW etc and loose morals. I know the rolls are on separate membranes, but was this one suppressed or hidden? It's just that when Buck found TR all this seems to have come as a new revelation. Once again sorry about the order H On , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote: David, Very slightly at a tangent but you might be interested Ian Arthurson's book 'The Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy'. It has a wealth of detailed information about international politics, particularly those regions discussed here. It's very dense and has no index and I must admit I've by no means read it from cover to cover. I bought it because it refers to the relationship between Duchess Cecily and Margaret of Burgundy in possible plotting. But I would say it's the best book on international politics of the period
I've yet come across. Regards H. On Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 11:42, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Marie,Thank you for the explanation, I was not aware of the appropriate names for the various parts of the embassy's message.Although, the interesting thing about the June 1476 message is that it indicates further interactions that do not show up. If de la Villéon was taking a message to Francis in June. His agreement would have to be conveyed to England, followed by arrangements to complete the deal - deliver the money and pick up Henry. So there seem to be necessary elements missing after June. It is possible that some activity was not recorded until the deal succeeded - and since it eventually failed, the records remain incomplete.There is a similar gap in materials regarding the lead up to Henry's invasion of France in
1492. What had been a plan to invade Brittany and put a Duke friendly to England on the throne changed into
a half hearted invasion of France. The truth was only discovered when original correspondence was found in France many years later. England, Brittany and France all prefered to pretend that the plot of 1492 had never happened. It still is never mentioned in most history books.Although, with respect to the original topic, I have found a couple of further references that indicate Stillington's involvement in the plan, but not his presence on the embassy. It could be that his role was as the "mastermind".Kind regardsDavid

From:
mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
RE: Re : RE: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent:
Mon, Dec 30, 2013 3:57:23 PM

David wrote:"The June 1476 letter to Francis, seems to be implying that there is some matter concerning Richmond (Henry Tudor) that is not put into writing, but which will be conveyed by word of mouth."Marie replies:With any political or otherwise sensitive correspondence there were usually two arms to a message - the relatively anodyne written message that was physically conveyed by the messenger, and the "credence" or verbal message containing the more sensitive information, which the messenger committed to memory; this was sensible but is a pain for us now trying to piece together events. Vergil's account suggests that the English ambassadors' demand for HT as the price of the diplomatic agreement took Francis by surprise, but we now know that by June 1476 the matter had been discussed with Francis' own ambassador in England. So if Vergil is to be relied
upon on this point (and that can itself be argued) it would seem that the English ambassadors involved had made their overtures to Francis on the subject of HT's repatriation before June 1476. If this is correct, it does seem to point to Oliver King's embassy. Vergil's account also suggests a considerable time lag between Edward's failure to retrieve HT and his arrest of his brother Clarence (which took place in summer 1477), during which he devoted himself to acquiring and spending money.Thanks for the information on the Breton genealogical links. It's amazing how all these things weave together, isn't it?