Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
I don't know why you find the word abduction or kidnap so offensive. I was asked for references mentioning the embassy and I provided one, which comes from one of the many very respectable and erudite historical societies that exist all over Brittany.
As for whether or not the event should be considered an abduction, then the question is a little more complex. It would depend on whether Francis had any legal right to detain them at all. As the ambassadors of Louis XI kept pointing out, Jasper was Louis's first cousin Henry his second cousin. They had been offered sanctuary in France after Tewkesbury; their arrival in Brittany had been as a result of a storm and they had committed no offensive or criminal act in Brittany - and so they should be allowed to complete their journey. Of course, it was the threat to allow them continue their journey to France, where Louis may have used them to cause mischief that was what Edward was so keen to prevent.
As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble if he ever even considered it.
Regarding the removal of Jasper and Henry from Suscinio, this was done when rumours circulated that English ambassadors had orders to kill the two if they could not obtain them by persuasion. I know of no actual attempt to do it either.
As regards Warwick, I agree he had a better 'claim' to the throne in the legitimist sense than Henry Tudor, but it was also superior to the claim of Richard - so Richard could have chosen to reverse the attainder.
Sorry to be so long in replying.
Kind regards
David
From:
Douglas Eugene Stamate ;
To:
;
Cc:
Doug Stamate ;
Subject:
Embassy to Brittany
Sent:
Thu, Dec 12, 2013 7:03:23 PM
David wrote:
"I'm afraind I can't influence the title of the
French article - I think they are looking at the events as a whole. You need to
be aware that Francis was rather weak and towards the end of his life ill and
possibly senile. He had a high level wish to retain
independence from France,
but could easily be inlfuenced. There is a view that Edward used the offer of a
good marriage for Henry and the protection of Brittany from France in the
previous year's treaty to persuade Francis' council. It is evident that this was
while Jean du Quelennec was away from court. The prospective marriage is
generally thought to be a sham.
The story has J du Q (who may be a distant cousin
of Henry) remonstrating with the Duke, who then sends Landais to Saint Malo. It
could be (my view) Landais who persuaded Francis to agree to the wishes of the
embassy in the first place. It was an early example of the increasing power of
Landais and the split from the council that would be so damaging in the next
decade"
Doug here:
I quite agree that a reader wouldn't have control
over the title of an articel, however a reader *does* have control over
recognizing whether the title fits the contents which, according to what you've
posted is exactly what has happened. The title, as reported by you, employs a
French verb that translates as either "kidnapped" or "abducted" while the
article, again as reported by you, continually refers to the pleas made to
Francis to *change his mind*; ie, Francis had agreed to the repatriation of HT
and therefore the actions of the English were completely legal. While being
taken into custody may be resented by the person it happens to and may even be
termed by them (or their supporters) as a "kidnapping", if the act is legal then
it's *not* a kidnapping.
Davide wrote:
"Since Vannes and Saint Malo are at opposite ends
of the Duchy, Henry must have spent some time with his 'abductors'. The idea of
his mistaking someone for King is hard to support, since
King was treated very
well by Henry after Bosworth."
Doug here:
Which is yet *another* reason why I don't believe
that Stillington was taken into custody after Bosworth because of any embassy of
which Stillington *is said* to have been a member. While people can be petty
(even "royals"), there's no evidence I've seen, that Oliver King was
particularly Yorkist *or* Lancastrian* - King was merely carrying out a task
given him by EIV. So, other than some unknown personal grievance on HT's part,
there's really no reason for Oliver King *not* to be well-treated after
Bosworth.
To be completely accurate, Stillington wasn't
ill-treated after Bosworth. He was taken into custody, held for several months,
then released. As Stillington was known as the person who had provided the
evidence (from *wherever* he'd gotten it) that TR was based on, and as HT had
received support based on his promise to marry EoY illegitimized by TR, it
certainly doesn't appear out of the ordinary that HT would want to know the
facts behind that document. Having won at Bosworth put HT in a position to go
straight to the source, so to speak.
David wrote:
"Francis had always been afraid Henry or Jasper
would be taken by force, which is why they were moved from the castle Suscino -
which was beautifully situated but next to the sea."
Doug here:
And again, neither Henry nor Jasper *were* taken by
force - they were put into English custody with the agreement of Duke Francis.
To the best of my knowledge, there were *no* attempts - ever - to gain custody
of HT or JT by force on the part of anyone acting under Edward's orders, or
Richard's for that matter.
David wrote:
"As for the dying out of witnesses, I think
in an
earlier post, I mentioned Richard Fox, who actually signed Stillington's arrest
warrant after Bosworth - he was a young man at the time, and his lifetime
overlaps that of Hall."
Doug here:
But what do we have from Richard Fox that states
*why* a warrant for Stillington was issued? Hall has been shown to no completely
reliable in how he, um, "phrased" what he wrote.
David wrote:
I really can't see why Henry's release of
Stillington has any bearing on the truth or otherwise of TR - you can't have it
both ways - if he was imprisoned to keep him quiet, but released so as not to
allow him to speak - this is not consistent."
Doug here:
Who is saying that Stillington was taken into
custody to "keep him quiet"? Certainly not me! My view is that Stillington was
gathered in so that HT could discover whether TR was
based on evidence or a
political ploy to allow Richard to take the throne. Stillington was released
because he'd satisfied HT's desire to learn what TR was based on. Once that had
occurred there was no reason to keep Stillington in custody, nor was there any
need to worry too much about Stillington "talking". After all, it was "spreading
lies injurious to the King's majesty" that had gotten Clarence
executed...
David wrote:
"My understanding was that the Parliament wanted
Stillington brought before it so he could be punished, but Henry said he had
already agreed to pardon him."
Doug here:
My understanding of 15th century English law may be
a bit shaky, but that's just Henry saying he (Henry) didn't want TR discussed -
especially by someone who not only was known as the man who drawn TR up for
Parliament, but also by
someone who'd just been pardoned. A Royal pardon
wouldn't prevent Stillington from giving evidence to Parliament that would have
destroyed the basis for TR, but it also wouldn't have prevented Stillington from
giving evidence *that supported TR as being accurate!"
My belief is that it was the latter that
caused HT to deprecate any further inquiries into TR...
David wrote:
"If Stillington believed the truth of TR, why did
he support a rebellion in favour of Lambert Simnel who claimed to Richard of
Shrewsbury and Warwick, both of whom he must have believed to be excluded from
the succession by TR."
Doug here:
Once again the problem is a lack of information. We
are "told" by Tudor chronclers/historians that Simnel claimed, at different
times, to be both Edward of Warwick and Richard of Shrewsbury, but we have no
extant
statements or proclamations from those supporting that rebellion which
state for whom they were rebelling. IOW, we have the prosecutor's allegations,
but we lack the defense's response.
Again it's only my personal view, but there's
nothing contradictory in Stillington supporting Edward of Warwick, regardless of
what TR contained. Warwick was barred from the throne, not by illegitimacy, but
by an Act of Attainder passed in response to activities of his (Warwick's)
father. Warwick was legitimate, all that stood between him a valid,
legal claim to the throne (much superior to HT's by the way) was a
*political* Act of Parliament that could be, and often had been in other
cases, reversed.
David wrote:
"Henry's destruction of copies of TR is in (my)
view overplayed. It could have been on the wishes of his wife and mother-in-law.
The content of can not have been
unknown. There would be many members of
Richard's Parliament who also appeared in the one that repealed it - and of
course, it was known in France and Brittany as Commynes confirms."
Doug here:
It isn't the destruction of TR that is emphasized
by many, but the manner - unread and with dire penalties attached to its even
being being read prior to being destroyed. Had Henry the evidence to disprove
the slur, enacted into Parliamentary legislation no less!, on his wife and
mother-in-law then why not do so? And sorry, "upsetting" EoY or EW just doesn't
cut it!
As for those who already knew what TR contained,
except for Yorkists willing to rebel against HT, they need only to look at what
had happened to the Duke of Clarence before saying anything "prejudicial" about
HT or his wife.
"Rolling with punches" comes to mind as a
description of the majority those who knew about TR.
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
"<snip> As the ambassadors of Louis XI kept pointing out, Jasper was Louis's first cousin Henry his second cousin."
Carol responds:
Forgive me for nitpicking, but if Jasper was Louis's first cousin (as I'm sure he was given that his mother was a French princess and must therefore have been Edmund and Jasper's aunt), then Henry was Louis's first cousin once removed, not his second cousin. Second cousins are the children of first cousins, so Henry Tudor and the then dauphin, Charles, would have been second cousins.http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bridgett/cousins.htm
Happy New Year to all!
Carol
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Just speculating ( yet again) but has it occurred to anyone that another reason for Louis to support Henry's supposed claim to the English throne was because he and Jasper may have had a better claim to the French throne? I know about Salic Law and all that but a claim to the French throne wouldn't be anymore ridiculous than Henry thinking that he had a claim to the English throne. It didn't stop Henry V. After all Louis had an underage son and maybe he knew that he was ill and wanted to get them out of France as quickly as possible. It probably wouldn't have mattered to Louis who had won Bosworth because if Richard had won Henry and Jasper would probably have been dead anyway, one way or the other. Just speculating!!
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
--- In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just speculating ( yet again) but has it occurred to anyone that another reason for Louis to support Henry's supposed claim to the English throne was because he and Jasper may have had a better claim to the French throne? I know about Salic Law and all that but a claim to the French throne wouldn't be anymore ridiculous than Henry thinking that he had a claim to the English throne. It didn't stop Henry V. After all Louis had an underage son and maybe he knew that he was ill and wanted to get them out of France as quickly as possible. It probably wouldn't have mattered to Louis who had won Bosworth because if Richard had won Henry and Jasper would probably have been dead anyway, one way or the other. Just speculating!!
>
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:54 AM, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Ian,That's really interesting, by all accounts Louis seemed very cunning and may have wanted rid of Henry and Jasper.He probably wasn't too fond of Richard either and so whoever was defeated or killed would be one less worry,threat or problem.
--- In , <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just speculating ( yet again) but has it occurred to anyone that another reason for Louis to support Henry's supposed claim to the English throne was because he and Jasper may have had a better claim to the French throne? I know about Salic Law and all that
but a claim to the French throne wouldn't be anymore ridiculous than Henry thinking that he had a claim to the English throne. It didn't stop Henry V. After all Louis had an underage son and maybe he knew that he was ill and wanted to get them out of France
as quickly as possible. It probably wouldn't have mattered to Louis who had won Bosworth because if Richard had won Henry and Jasper would probably have been dead anyway, one way or the other. Just speculating!!
>
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
David wrote:
"As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble if he ever even considered it."
Marie replies
First of all, happy New Year, everyone.
1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):-
" Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in lour gard.
Et meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota, constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."
The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the records in their custody.
But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do nothing further to him.
My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry Manuel Duke of Beja?
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
On Thursday, 2 January 2014, 16:05, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
David wrote:"As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble if he ever even considered it."
Marie repliesFirst of all, happy New Year, everyone. 1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):- " Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in lour gard. Et meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota, constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the records in their custody. But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do nothing further to him.
My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry Manuel Duke of Beja?
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Hilary wrote:
"Marie, Happy New Year too! Can I ask one of my stupid questions? If TR was so important that it had to be destroyed why is the very explicit gist of it still in the Parliament Rolls? I tend to go with Wilkinson on this - it would have been a great embarrassment to HT if TR was read out in Parliament (which it had to be to be repealed) and a bishop said he couldn't agree. So it was kind of forgotten without proper repeal? But Stillington had to be kept out of the way?"
Marie replies:
I haven't read Wilkinson's latest book. When you say the "very explicit gist of it" is still in the parliament rolls, do you mean in the records of the 1484 parliament or in the Act of Repeal of 1485? My understanding is that it was indeed removed from the Parliament Rolls as stated in the Act of Repeal, and only came to light in the 17th century when William Camden discovered a copy hidden away amongst a collection of private Acts. It has therefore presumably been added back in to the published versions of Richard's parliament. The Act of Repeal does not rehearse the content of TR and makes no mention at all of Edward IV's marriage....
"A bishop said he couldn't agree." I actually forgot to translate the last bit of the entry in the Year Book. After stating that Henry refused to let Stillington appear in parliament, it says in Latin - as I read it - "By the King's insistence, and certain bishops were against him." It is definitely plural (episcopi fuerunt).
Does this mean that the people most concerned to be able to quiz Stillington before repealing TR were those who would have been most knowledgeable and concerned about the canon law issues?
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Marie, you are such a mine of very useful evidence and information. Thank you for letting us share it.
Mary
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Marie wrote:
"I really don't think [the warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists]. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest."
Carol responds:
What we have, I think, is Parliament's pardon of him for " horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292). Possibly, this vaguely worded bill (or whatever the correct term is) echoes the equally vague wording of the arrest warrant. Henry VII, it appears, rather fond of vague generalities, as also indicated in his charges against Richard after Bosworth.
By the way, Marie, thanks for proving once and for all that Henry's Parliament *did* regard Stillington as the author of Titulus Regius and that it did wish him to testify. I agree with you that Henry was nervous about letting him testify. Apparently, he had reason to fear that Stillington's evidence was sound, considering that it had convinced first the Three Estates and then Richard's Parliament, and consequently did not want it presented to his own.
As you say, he seemed less than eager to marry Elizabeth of York (or to crown her). Also, he made quite sure that his claim was not based on hers. Either he feared that she really was not legitimate or he feared that her brothers were alive, in which case, their claim would be stronger than his. Had he been certain that the boys were alive *and* that Titulus Regius was based on lies, he would have no reason to want it not only repealed but all copies burned unread, the last part being entirely contrary to common practice.
Your statement that Henry considered marrying Joanna of Portugal is interesting. I haven't heard that before. What's your source?
Carol
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Maria ejbronte@...
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Marie wrote:
"I really don't think [the warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists]. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest."
Carol responds:
What we have, I think, is Parliament's pardon of him for " horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292). Possibly, this vaguely worded bill (or whatever the correct term is) echoes the equally vague wording of the arrest warrant. Henry VII, it appears, rather fond of vague generalities, as also indicated in his charges against Richard after Bosworth.
By the way, Marie, thanks for proving once and for all that Henry's Parliament *did* regard Stillington as the author of Titulus Regius and that it did wish him to testify. I agree with you that Henry was nervous about letting him testify. Apparently, he had reason to fear that Stillington's evidence was sound, considering that it had convinced first the Three Estates and then Richard's Parliament, and consequently did not want it presented to his own.
As you say, he seemed less than eager to marry Elizabeth of York (or to crown her). Also, he made quite sure that his claim was not based on hers. Either he feared that she really was not legitimate or he feared that her brothers were alive, in which case, their claim would be stronger than his. Had he been certain that the boys were alive *and* that Titulus Regius was based on lies, he would have no reason to want it not only repealed but all copies burned unread, the last part being entirely contrary to common practice.
Your statement that Henry considered marrying Joanna of Portugal is interesting. I haven't heard that before. What's your source?
Carol
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Marie wrote:
"I really don't think [the warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists]. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest."
Carol responded:
What we have, I think, is Parliament's pardon of him for " horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292). Possibly, this vaguely worded bill (or whatever the correct term is) echoes the equally vague wording of the arrest warrant. Henry VII, it appears, rather fond of vague generalities, as also indicated in his charges against Richard after Bosworth.
Marie responds:
What you are quoting, Carol, is James Stanley's petition. Despite claims in some articles, Stillington's pardon does not seem to be in the Parliament Rolls, not so far as I can see.
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Carol asked Marie:
"Your statement that Henry considered marrying Joanna of Portugal is interesting. I haven't heard that before. What's your source?"
Marie replies:
It's from one of Barrie Williams' articles on the Richard and Joanna business in The Ricardian in 1983. I can look up the details if you like. I'm not sure how solid the basis for Williams' statement is (ie whether there is a proper primary source or just the opining of Portuguese historians), but it is certainly the case that negotiations continued for one of Elizabeth's sisters to marry Manuel. There was certainly time for Henry to have made overtures to marry Joanna as he didn't agree to marry Elizabeth until 10th December.
Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
I think the statement that Henry VII intended to marry Joana before Elizabeth is entirely incorrect. Unless I am missing something of course...
I am quick to criticize John Ashdown Hill in some areas, but the work he did on Richard's Portuguese marriage plans and how they were picked up by Henry is excellent. In the Last Days... he uses this to expose the misunderstanding that led to the belief that Richard wished to marry his own niece.
He says that Henry picked up Richard's plans in PART. An embassy was sent to Portugal to follow through with a suitable marriage for one of the daughters of Edward IV.
So Henry was keen to establish a marriage into the Portuguese family, but it did not include himself at that stage. I think Henry did later consider marriage to Joana after the death of Elizabeth.
I am sure JAH is correct in identifying the embassador as Edward Woodville.
That part of JAH's book is well worth reading.
Kind regards
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Mon, Jan 6, 2014 6:28:00 PM
I hadn't heard that bit about Joana of Portugal either. I wonder if it's a confusion with a later desire to marry Juana of Castile (aka "la Loca"), elder sister of Catherine of Aragon. She was widowed of Philip the Handsome in 1506, and Henry had met her briefly when the Hapsburg fleet was tossed onto English soil during the journey of Juana and Philip to Spain after Isabel the Catholic's death. There's correspondence on this between Henry and Fernando. Juana had no desire remarry (incidentally, many of the legends about her are probably as false as the slanders against Richard).
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Marie wrote:
"I really don't think [the warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists]. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest."
Carol responds:
What we have, I think, is Parliament's pardon of him for " horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292). Possibly, this vaguely worded bill (or whatever the correct term is) echoes the equally vague wording of the arrest warrant. Henry VII, it appears, rather fond of vague generalities, as also indicated in his charges against Richard after Bosworth.
By the way, Marie, thanks for proving once and for all that Henry's Parliament *did* regard Stillington as the author of Titulus Regius and that it did wish him to testify. I agree with you that Henry was nervous about letting him testify. Apparently, he had reason to fear that Stillington's evidence was sound, considering that it had convinced first the Three Estates and then Richard's Parliament, and consequently did not want it presented to his own.
As you say, he seemed less than eager to marry Elizabeth of York (or to crown her). Also, he made quite sure that his claim was not based on hers. Either he feared that she really was not legitimate or he feared that her brothers were alive, in which case, their claim would be stronger than his. Had he been certain that the boys were alive *and* that Titulus Regius was based on lies, he would have no reason to want it not only repealed but all copies burned unread, the last part being entirely contrary to common practice.
Your statement that Henry considered marrying Joanna of Portugal is interesting. I haven't heard that before. What's your source?
Carol
Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Hicks also states that Richard had TR read out to the entire garrison of Calais. So there were many people who knew what it said.
Also, in his chapter detailing the way in which propaganda was used against Richard, he says that Richard ordered that libellous placards that had been erected in York, should be taken down and sealed and sent to him unread. So the idea of leaving offensive material unread was not new.
Kind regards.
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 4:28:56 PM
Marie, Happy New Year too! Can I ask one of my stupid questions? If TR was so important that it had to be destroyed why is the very explicit gist of it still in the Parliament Rolls? I tend to go with Wilkinson on this - it would have been a great embarrassment to HT if TR was read out in Parliament (which it had to be to be repealed) and a bishop said he couldn't agree. So it was kind of forgotten without proper repeal? But Stillington had to be kept out of the way? With regard to your reply on his health, perhaps he had some sort of degenerative disease which didn't kill him for some time, and clearly didn't affect his mind. I'm with you though in that I doubt he travelled
far. As I said, I'm honestly no expert on this. H.
On Thursday, 2 January 2014, 16:05, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
David wrote:"As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble
if he ever even considered
it."
Marie repliesFirst of all, happy New Year, everyone. 1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal
significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):-
" Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le
commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard
les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour
ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses
le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux
bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to
consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien
la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens
act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in
lour gard. Et
meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun
deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et
discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver
luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que
il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota,
constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's
command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the
children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed
that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish
to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a
false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your
Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note
well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without
an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the
records in their custody.
But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament
Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he
who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made
the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him
answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do
nothing further to him.
My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for
formal
recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry
Manuel Duke of Beja?
Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
In haste,
Mariaejbronte@...
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Maria,
I think the statement that Henry VII intended to marry Joana before Elizabeth is entirely incorrect. Unless I am missing something of course...
I am quick to criticize John Ashdown Hill in some areas, but the work he did on Richard's Portuguese marriage plans and how they were picked up by Henry is excellent. In the Last Days... he uses this to expose the misunderstanding that led to the belief that Richard wished to marry his own niece.
He says that Henry picked up Richard's plans in PART. An embassy was sent to Portugal to follow through with a suitable marriage for one of the daughters of Edward IV.
So Henry was keen to establish a marriage into the Portuguese family, but it did not include himself at that stage. I think Henry did later consider marriage to Joana after the death of Elizabeth.
I am sure JAH is
correct in identifying the embassador as Edward Woodville.
That part of JAH's book is well worth reading.
Kind regards
From:
Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent:
Mon, Jan 6, 2014 6:28:00 PM
I hadn't heard that bit about Joana of Portugal either. I wonder if it's a confusion with a later desire to marry Juana of Castile (aka "la Loca"), elder sister of Catherine of Aragon. She was widowed of Philip the Handsome in 1506, and Henry had met her briefly when the Hapsburg fleet was tossed onto English soil during the journey of Juana and Philip to Spain after Isabel the Catholic's death. There's correspondence on this between Henry and Fernando. Juana had no desire remarry (incidentally, many of the legends about her are probably as false as the slanders against Richard).
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:00 PM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Marie wrote:
"I really don't think [the warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists]. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest."
Carol responds:
What we have, I think, is Parliament's pardon of him for " horrible and haneous offences ymagined and done' against Henry VII (RotP, 6.292). Possibly, this vaguely worded bill (or whatever the correct term is) echoes the equally vague wording of the arrest warrant. Henry VII, it appears, rather fond of vague generalities, as also indicated in his charges against Richard after Bosworth.
By the way, Marie, thanks for proving once and for all that Henry's Parliament *did* regard Stillington as the author of Titulus Regius and that it did wish him to testify. I agree with you that Henry was nervous about letting him testify. Apparently, he had reason to fear that Stillington's evidence was sound, considering that it had convinced first the Three Estates and then Richard's Parliament, and consequently did not want it presented to his own.
As you say, he seemed less than eager to marry Elizabeth of York (or to crown her). Also, he made quite sure that his claim was not based on hers. Either he feared that she really was not legitimate or he feared that her brothers were alive, in which case, their claim would be stronger than his. Had he been certain that the boys were alive *and* that Titulus Regius was based on lies, he would have no reason to want it not only repealed but all copies burned unread, the last part being entirely contrary to common practice.
Your statement that Henry considered marrying Joanna of Portugal is interesting. I haven't heard that before. What's your source?
Carol
Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 13:26, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary,
Hicks also states that Richard had TR read out to the entire garrison of Calais. So there were many people who knew what it said.
Also, in his chapter detailing the way in which propaganda was used against Richard, he says that Richard ordered that libellous placards that had been erected in York, should be taken down and sealed and sent to him unread. So the idea of leaving offensive material unread was not new.
Kind regards.
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 4:28:56 PM
Marie, Happy New Year too! Can I ask one of my stupid questions? If TR was so important that it had to be destroyed why is the very explicit gist of it still in the Parliament Rolls? I tend to go with Wilkinson on this - it would have been a great embarrassment to HT if TR was read out in Parliament (which it had to be to be repealed) and a bishop said he couldn't agree. So it was kind of forgotten without proper repeal? But Stillington had to be kept out of the way? With regard to your reply on his health, perhaps he had some sort of degenerative disease which didn't kill him for some time, and clearly didn't affect his mind. I'm with you though in that I doubt he travelled far. As I said, I'm honestly no expert on this. H.
On Thursday, 2 January 2014, 16:05, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
David wrote:"As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble if he ever even considered it."
Marie repliesFirst of all, happy New Year, everyone. 1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):- " Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in lour gard. Et meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota, constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the records in their custody. But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do nothing further to him.
My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry Manuel Duke of Beja?
Re : RE: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Thanks for this very complete answer. I think that I have read the passage you quote before. It does confirm that Stillington was responsible for the making of the bill. But, again unless I am missing something, the provision of proof is something that is assumed.
I can not fault your translation at all. But your preamble states the reason why the lords were unhappy was that they wanted Stillington to satisfy them that he was lying. That is not contained in the text.
It could be that they wanted him to answer for his actions - they may have been unhappy at the breach of procedure. They may have wanted to punish him. The latter would correspond with Henry's response.
As regards Stillington's arrest warrant - I have not seen the original, but have definitely seen a transcription of it with the signature 'Fox'. If I find out where it was I will point it out.
I think I have answered the point regarding the Portuguese marriage separately to Maria.
Kind regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 4:05:07 PM
David wrote:
"As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble
if he ever even considered it."
Marie replies
First of all, happy New Year, everyone.
1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):-
" Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in lour gard.
Et meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota, constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."
The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the records in their custody.
But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do nothing further to him.
My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry Manuel Duke of Beja?
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
What you are quoting, Carol, is James Stanley's petition. Despite claims in some articles, Stillington's pardon does not seem to be in the Parliament Rolls, not so far as I can see.
Carol responds:
Who is James Stanley? A son of Lord Thomas Stanley or his brother Sir William? And what is his petition? All I can find is the phrase I quoted and the citation, (RotP, 6.292). Thanks for any information you can provide.
Carol
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany
Carol wrote:
Who is James Stanley? A son of Lord Thomas Stanley or his brother Sir William? And what is his petition? All I can find is the phrase I quoted and the citation, (RotP, 6.292). Thanks for any information you can provide.
Marie replies:
Sorry about the bold grey font. Yahoo gets weirder. James Stanley was Thomas Lord Stanley's lanky clerical son; later rose to be Bishop of Ely, more dint of by family connections than talent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stanley_(bishop)
---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Marie wrote:
What you are quoting, Carol, is James Stanley's petition. Despite claims in some articles, Stillington's pardon does not seem to be in the Parliament Rolls, not so far as I can see.
Carol responds:
Who is James Stanley? A son of Lord Thomas Stanley or his brother Sir William? And what is his petition? All I can find is the phrase I quoted and the citation, (RotP, 6.292). Thanks for any information you can provide.
Carol
Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Britta
Thanks for the link to the book on Warbeck, I shall put it on my list.
Someone bought me Hicks's Richard III for Christmas. I have not finished it yet, but I don't know what all the fuss was about on the forum. He seems to be quite fair, and goes to great lengths to explain the effects of propaganda.
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 out aloud for them. So Richard has TR read out to the garrison of Calais and has placards removed without being read out.
So not reading out an offending document was simply a way of preventing the dissemination of rumours by word of mouth.
I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory regarding TR. The question that who the people might be who would fear a 'Woodville' Edward V, while regarding Richard as a weakening of the Yorkists. With Lancastrians exterminated and no Tudor faction yet...
Regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Wed, Jan 8, 2014 1:42:59 PM
Hi David, You are brave to quote Hicks on here - he makes Charles Ross look like a liberal :). The point I was getting at was that if the essence of TR was enshrined in the Parliament Rolls (and not actually repealed) why did HT go to such extraordinary lengths to make sure that the originals of the Act itself were destroyed? There is a naughty part of me which wonders whether the pre-contract itself was not an invention by those who didn't want a Woodville-controlled heir. They knew what manner of man Richard was and if confronted by all this as a sworn testimony, he would have to do the right/noble thing. So Richard a plotter, no; but others, I'm not sure. It's a marvellous way of destabilising the Yorkist
monarchy, leaving only one legitimate heir (with a sickly son) and tensions in the camp so to speak. Regards H
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 13:26, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary,
Hicks also states that Richard had TR read out to the entire garrison of Calais. So there were many people who knew what it said.
Also, in his chapter detailing the way in which propaganda was used against Richard, he says that Richard ordered that libellous placards that had been erected in York, should be taken down and sealed and sent to him unread. So the idea of leaving offensive material unread was not new.
Kind regards.
David
From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent:
Thu, Jan 2, 2014 4:28:56 PM
Marie, Happy New Year too! Can I ask one of my stupid questions? If TR was so important that it had to be destroyed why is the very explicit gist of it still in the Parliament Rolls? I tend to go with Wilkinson on this - it would have been a great embarrassment to HT if TR was read out in Parliament (which it had to be to be repealed) and a bishop said he couldn't agree. So it was kind of forgotten without proper repeal? But Stillington had to be kept out of the way? With regard to your reply on his health, perhaps he had some sort of degenerative disease which didn't kill him for some time, and clearly didn't affect his mind. I'm with you though in that I doubt he travelled
far. As I said, I'm honestly no expert on this. H.
On Thursday, 2 January 2014, 16:05, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
David wrote:"As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble
if he ever even considered
it."
Marie repliesFirst of all, happy New Year, everyone. 1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal
significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):-
" Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le
commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard
les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour
ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses
le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux
bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to
consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien
la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens
act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in
lour gard. Et
meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun
deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et
discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver
luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que
il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota,
constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's
command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the
children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed
that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish
to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a
false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your
Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note
well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without
an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the
records in their custody.
But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament
Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he
who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made
the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him
answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do
nothing further to him.
My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for
formal
recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry
Manuel Duke of Beja?
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Br
On Monday, 13 January 2014, 12:22, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary,
Thanks for the link to the book on Warbeck, I shall put it on my list.
Someone bought me Hicks's Richard III for Christmas. I have not finished it yet, but I don't know what all the fuss was about on the forum. He seems to be quite fair, and goes to great lengths to explain the effects of propaganda.
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 out aloud for them. So Richard has TR read out to the garrison of Calais and has placards removed without being read out.
So not reading out an offending document was simply a way of preventing the dissemination of rumours by word of mouth.
I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory regarding TR. The question that who the people might be who would fear a 'Woodville' Edward V, while regarding Richard as a weakening of the Yorkists. With Lancastrians exterminated and no Tudor faction yet...
Regards
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Wed, Jan 8, 2014 1:42:59 PM
Hi David, You are brave to quote Hicks on here - he makes Charles Ross look like a liberal :). The point I was getting at was that if the essence of TR was enshrined in the Parliament Rolls (and not actually repealed) why did HT go to such extraordinary lengths to make sure that the originals of the Act itself were destroyed? There is a naughty part of me which wonders whether the pre-contract itself was not an invention by those who didn't want a Woodville-controlled heir. They knew what manner of man Richard was and if confronted by all this as a sworn testimony, he would have to do the right/noble thing. So Richard a plotter, no; but others, I'm not sure. It's a marvellous way of destabilising the Yorkist monarchy, leaving only one legitimate heir (with a sickly son) and tensions in the camp so to speak. Regards H
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 13:26, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary,
Hicks also states that Richard had TR read out to the entire garrison of Calais. So there were many people who knew what it said.
Also, in his chapter detailing the way in which propaganda was used against Richard, he says that Richard ordered that libellous placards that had been erected in York, should be taken down and sealed and sent to him unread. So the idea of leaving offensive material unread was not new.
Kind regards.
David
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 4:28:56 PM
Marie, Happy New Year too! Can I ask one of my stupid questions? If TR was so important that it had to be destroyed why is the very explicit gist of it still in the Parliament Rolls? I tend to go with Wilkinson on this - it would have been a great embarrassment to HT if TR was read out in Parliament (which it had to be to be repealed) and a bishop said he couldn't agree. So it was kind of forgotten without proper repeal? But Stillington had to be kept out of the way? With regard to your reply on his health, perhaps he had some sort of degenerative disease which didn't kill him for some time, and clearly didn't affect his mind. I'm with you though in that I doubt he travelled far. As I said, I'm honestly no expert on this. H.
On Thursday, 2 January 2014, 16:05, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
David wrote:"As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble if he ever even considered it."
Marie repliesFirst of all, happy New Year, everyone. 1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):- " Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in lour gard. Et meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota, constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the records in their custody. But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do nothing further to him.
My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry Manuel Duke of Beja?
Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Britta
Castng aside the contradictions for now...what I find annoying is his unswerving belief that Richard had his nephews murdered. The bottom line is no one knows...we do not know for certain that he did not have them murdered...we can only form our own judgement by what we do know of Richard as to whether this action seems one he would be capable of, However no doubts remain on Prof Hicks part who calls Richard 'the wickedest of English kings and uncles' page 175. He bases his conclusion on this matter because 'that the princes were not included in the deal between EW and Richard to provide respectively for her daughters proves that the two princes were dead. Had they been alive no deal would have been possible..' page 168 ..and furthermore 'no 15thc security system could have concealed them indefinitely if alive',,,all of which is highly arguable...then goes on to say that 'if Richard killed the princes he had three aims. First of all to destroy them, secondly & imperatively he had to publicise their deaths. Plots would continue otherwise...' Of course we all know Richard did no such thing...how very daft of him, Richard, considering according to the Prof this was one of h primary aims...
He makes the quite dotty statement that 'the evidence is circumstantial thus far, but it points to only one conclusion..that Richard had the princes killed'....
Re the bones...',,,the bones that were dug up in the Tower in 1674 identified as those of the princes and confirmed as such in the 30s by the best medical opinion of the day, cannot convince those who do not wish to believe....' page 176. Need I go on...
I just feel any decent historian should not be quite so biased...and damning...It's a shame really.
Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
> Â
> Re Hicks, I agree, some of his detail is very good. It's when he pushes it that step too far. I haven't read his RIII, but I have his Anne Neville and George of Clarence. Now the George book is not bad, and some of the Anne book isn't either, but then he crashes in on the under age incest thing and this actually invalidates a lot of very good other arguments, like the fact that compared with other women of her time Anne is almost, but not quite, invisible, and that is interesting in itself.
> Â
> I take and accept your point about the TRÂ thing and think it's very valid in relation to Calais. What I was getting at elsewhere is why HT went to such trouble to suppress knowledge of it when it's all there for posterity in the Parliament Rolls.
> Â
> Re my TR theory, which I know will be regarded by many as way out, I just believe that, by nature, we are selfish (or if you want the full quote read Thomas Hobbes). If I were a mercer, a sheep breeder, a bishop, you name it, I'd want a strong king. I wouldn't want any more wars marauding over my land or upsetting my trade relations. I'd want security provided by a strong king and the only candidate would be Richard. Which is what we chose when we chose Henry Bolingbroke; a proven leader who could sort things out. But Richard is a man brought up to believe in truth and honour; so what would you concoct to make him take the job? It could be a Morton/Beaufort concoction to weaken a Yorkist throne, or it could be that they backed it because they saw a win win? Either Richard indeed becomes that strong monarch and his reign might become stable enough to let Henry back, or it would cause so much dissention among the Yorkist ranks that it would provide an
> opportunity for a new faction backed by the French.?
> Â
> I truly don't know. I don't trust Stillington; this is a spiteful man who complains to the Pope when someone upsets him, and when he still holds a relatively junior office (I'm talking about the 1450s). So would King Edward, who was a good enough judge of character to realise that Buckingham was a pain, honestly trust Stillington with so huge a secret? I'm with Marie that Stillington was probably used just to draft TR. So who did witness the pre-contract and why don't we know a lot more about it? Sorry JAH! Regards H.
>
>
>
> On Monday, 13 January 2014, 12:22, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi Hilary,
> Thanks for the link to the book on Warbeck, I shall put it on my list.
>
> Someone bought me Hicks's Richard III for Christmas. I have not finished it yet, but I don't know what all the fuss was about on the forum. He seems to be quite fair, and goes to great lengths to explain the effects of propaganda.
>
> 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 out aloud for them. So Richard has TR read out to the garrison of Calais and has placards removed without being read out.
>
> So not reading out an offending document was simply a way of preventing the dissemination of rumours by word of mouth.
>
> I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory regarding
> TR. The question that who the people might be who would fear a 'Woodville' Edward V, while regarding Richard as a weakening of the Yorkists. With Lancastrians exterminated and no Tudor faction yet...
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
> Sent: Wed, Jan 8, 2014 1:42:59 PM
>
>
> Â
> Hi David, You are brave to quote Hicks on here - he makes Charles Ross look like a liberal :). The point I was getting at was that if the essence of TR was enshrined in the Parliament Rolls (and not actually repealed) why did HT go to such extraordinary lengths to make sure that the originals of the Act itself were destroyed?
> Â
> There is a naughty part of me which wonders whether the pre-contract itself was not an invention by those who didn't want a Woodville-controlled heir. They knew what manner of man Richard was and if confronted by all this as a sworn testimony, he would have to do the right/noble thing. So Richard a plotter, no; but  others, I'm not sure. It's a marvellous way of destabilising the Yorkist monarchy, leaving only one legitimate heir (with a sickly son) and tensions in the camp so to speak.  Regards H
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 13:26, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Hicks also states that Richard had TR read out to the entire garrison of Calais. So there were many people who knew what it said.
>
> Also, in his chapter detailing the way in which propaganda was used against Richard, he says that Richard ordered that libellous placards that had been erected in York, should be taken down and sealed and sent to him unread. So the idea of leaving offensive material unread was not new.
>
> Kind regards.
> David
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
> Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 4:28:56 PM
>
>
> Â
> Marie, Happy New Year too! Can I ask one of my stupid questions? If TR was so important that it had to be destroyed why is the very explicit gist of it still in the Parliament Rolls? I tend to go with Wilkinson on this - it would have been a great embarrassment to HT if TR was read out in Parliament (which it had to be to be repealed) and a bishop said he couldn't agree. So it was kind of forgotten without proper repeal? But Stillington had to be kept out of the way?
> Â
> With regard to your reply on his health, perhaps he had some sort of degenerative disease which didn't kill him for some time, and clearly didn't affect his mind. I'm with you though in that I doubt he travelled far.Â
> Â
> As I said, I'm honestly no expert on this. H. Â
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 2 January 2014, 16:05, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Â
> David wrote:
> "As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
> I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble
> if he ever even considered
> it."
>
> Marie replies
> First of all, happy New Year, everyone.
> 1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):-
> " Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le
> commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard
> les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour
> ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses
> le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux
> bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to
> consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien
> la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens
> act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in
> lour gard.â€
> “Et
> meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun
> deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et
> discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver
> luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que
> il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota,
> constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."
> The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
>
>
> All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King’s
> command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the
> children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed
> that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish
> to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a
> false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: ‘Pleaseth it your
> Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc’, without further rehearsal. ....Note
> well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without
> an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the
> records in their custody.
> But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament
> Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he
> who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made
> the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him
> answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do
> nothing further to him.
>
> My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
>
> 2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
>
> 3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry Manuel Duke of Beja?Â
>
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Br
For Hicks, or any historian, to say categorically that Richard definitely murdered the Princes is ridiculous. There is so much out there that might suggest that they did survive and until something is proved one way or the other I will just say I don't know.
Loyaulte me lie
Mary
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Br
"<snip> Someone bought me Hicks's Richard III for Christmas. I have not finished it yet, but I don't know what all the fuss was about on the forum. He seems to be quite fair, and goes to great lengths to explain the effects of propaganda. <snip>"
Carol responds:
Some of the objections to Hicks come from his so-called biography of Anne Neville, in which he presents Richard as a "serial incestor," and his mistaken views regarding the papal dispensations, which he seems unwilling to retract. I can't remember his book on Richard though I know I've read it. Hicks was a student of Charles Ross and undoubtedly influenced by Ross's moderate traditionalist views. Ross, for example, speaks of Richard's "well-known wish to marry his niece" and states that the "pre-contract story" will not "stand up to serious scrutiny." If Hicks echoes Ross here, most Eicardians would disagree with him. The primary objection to Hicks (and Ross) is, of course, the view that Richard murdered his nephews. And Hick, IIRC, depicts Richard as inordinately ambitious, a view that most Ricardians would also dispute. If you'll forgive my saying so so, it's possible that you see Hicks as "objective" because his views reflect your own. Sadly, most historians claim to be objective but few if any succeed in achieving that goal. In Richard's case, most give too much credence to Croyland and Mancini, not to mention Vergil, with the result that they see Richard as a typical medieval monarch who probably murdered his nephews while conceding that he wasn't the monster that Shakespeare depicted.
Talking on the phone during this whole post so it may be incoherent.
Carol
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Br
On Jan 13, 2014, at 2:04 PM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
For Hicks, or any historian, to say categorically that Richard definitely murdered the Princes is ridiculous. There is so much out there that might suggest that they did survive and until something is proved one way or the other I will just say I don't know.
Loyaulte me lie
Mary
Titulus Regius (Was: Embassy to Brittany)
"I take and accept your point about the TR thing and think it's very valid in relation to Calais. What I was getting at elsewhere is why HT went to such trouble to suppress knowledge of it when it's all there for posterity in the Parliament Rolls."
Carol responds:
Are you sure about that? No copy of Titulus Regius was found until the Stuart era, but a copy would not have been needed if the original had been preserved and was publicly available--or, at least, available to all members of Parliament.
According to Wikipedia--apologies for the source--the original was also destroyed. To quote the TR article:
"A law report from [Henry VII's] reign states:
'...that the said Bill, Act and Record, be anulled and utterly destroyed, and that it be ordained by the same Authority, that the same Act and Record be taken out of the Roll of Parliament, and be cancelled and brent ['burned'], and be put in perpetual oblivion.'"Another article, "It Is Only by Chance that Titulus Regius Survived," http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm, says the same thing: " One of the first acts of Henry VII's Parliament in November 1485 was to repeal Richard's Act of Settlement unread; orders were passed down to have it deleted from the Statute book, and all copies were to be destroyed under pain of punishment.
In other words, it clearly was *not* "there for all posterity in the Parliament Rolls." Henry wanted not only all copies but the original itself destroyed so that it would be "for ever out of remembrance and also forgot," to quote the Parliament Roll itself. It would be ironic and illogical to preserve a bill that Parliament (and the king) wanted forgotten!
Carol
Re: Titulus Regius (Was: Embassy to Brittany)
On Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 2:31, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
"I take and accept your point about the TR thing and think it's very valid in relation to Calais. What I was getting at elsewhere is why HT went to such trouble to suppress knowledge of it when it's all there for posterity in the Parliament Rolls."
Carol responds:
Are you sure about that? No copy of Titulus Regius was found until the Stuart era, but a copy would not have been needed if the original had been preserved and was publicly available--or, at least, available to all members of Parliament.
According to Wikipedia--apologies for the source--the original was also destroyed. To quote the TR article:
"A law report from [Henry VII's] reign states: '...that the said Bill, Act and Record, be anulled and utterly destroyed, and that it be ordained by the same Authority, that the same Act and Record be taken out of the Roll of Parliament, and be cancelled and brent ['burned'], and be put in perpetual oblivion.'"
Another article, "It Is Only by Chance that Titulus Regius Survived," http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm, says the same thing: " One of the first acts of Henry VII's Parliament in November 1485 was to repeal Richard's Act of Settlement unread; orders were passed down to have it deleted from the Statute book, and all copies were to be destroyed under pain of punishment.
In other words, it clearly was *not* "there for all posterity in the Parliament Rolls." Henry wanted not only all copies but the original itself destroyed so that it would be "for ever out of remembrance and also forgot," to quote the Parliament Roll itself. It would be ironic and illogical to preserve a bill that Parliament (and the king) wanted forgotten!
Carol
Re: Titulus Regius (Was: Embassy to Brittany)
"Carol I'm not saying that TR was there in the Parliament Rolls I'm saying that the gist of TR was in the 1484 Parliament Rolls - ER's bastardy caused by EIV's earlier contract with another woman which invalidated his marriage to EW and his poor morals etc. It was there because Parliament were affirming their support for Richard's accession . It's too long to quote here but you can view it online. <snip>"
Carol responds:
Can you cut and paste? If not, please provide a link. Thanks,
Carol
Re: Titulus Regius (Was: Embassy to Brittany)
Hilary wrote:
Marie responds:As far as I'm aware, the gist of TR is only in TR, which is only in the Parliament Rolls online because it has been added back in. It was found in the early 17thC hidden away amongst some piles of private bills, and who knows how it had escaped attention until then. The gist definitely wasn't available till then because the details caused a constitutional storm, disproving James I's claim that parliament had never had a role to play in determining the royal succession.
Re: Titulus Regius (Was: Embassy to Brittany)
I knew we could rely on you, Marie.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Titulus Regius (Was: Embassy to Brittany)
Sent: Tue, Jan 14, 2014 7:30:23 PM
Hilary wrote:
Marie responds:As far as I'm aware, the gist of TR is only in TR, which is only in the Parliament Rolls online because it has been added back in. It was found in the early 17thC hidden away amongst some piles of private bills, and who knows how it had escaped attention until then. The gist definitely wasn't available till then because the details caused a constitutional storm, disproving James I's claim that parliament had never had a role to play in determining the royal succession.
Re: Titulus Regius (Was: Embassy to Brittany)
On Tuesday, 14 January 2014, 19:30, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
"Carol I'm not saying that TR was there in the Parliament Rolls I'm saying that the gist of TR was in the 1484 Parliament Rolls - ER's bastardy caused by EIV's earlier contract with another woman which invalidated his marriage to EW and his poor morals etc. It was there because Parliament were affirming their support for Richard's accession . It's too long to quote here but you can view it online. <snip
Marie responds:As far as I'm aware, the gist of TR is only in TR, which is only in the Parliament Rolls online because it has been added back in. It was found in the early 17thC hidden away amongst some piles of private bills, and who knows how it had escaped attention until then. The gist definitely wasn't available till then because the details caused a constitutional storm, disproving James I's claim that parliament had never had a role to play in determining the royal succession.
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Br
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 13 January 2014, 19:21
Subject: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
Like Hilary I enjoyed Hicks' Clarence book...possibly because he doesn't, if I recall, focus on Richard too much. As for his Anne Neville book see Stephen and Hilary's comments. Yes some of his details are very good...but his Edward V book contains so many contradictions it is quite baffling. Why can he not see this...he is a Prof after all. he does tend to let himself down.
Castng aside the contradictions for now...what I find annoying is his unswerving belief that Richard had his nephews murdered. The bottom line is no one knows...we do not know for certain that he did not have them murdered...we can only form our own judgement by what we do know of Richard as to whether this action seems one he would be capable of, However no doubts remain on Prof Hicks part who calls Richard 'the wickedest of English kings and uncles' page 175. He bases his conclusion on this matter because 'that the princes were not included in the deal between EW and Richard to provide respectively for her daughters proves that the two princes were dead. Had they been alive no deal would have been possible..' page 168 ..and furthermore 'no 15thc security system could have concealed them indefinitely if alive',,,all of which is highly arguable...then goes on to say that 'if Richard killed the princes he had three aims. First of all to destroy them, secondly & imperatively he had to publicise their deaths. Plots would continue otherwise...' Of course we all know Richard did no such thing...how very daft of him, Richard, considering according to the Prof this was one of h primary aims...
He makes the quite dotty statement that 'the evidence is circumstantial thus far, but it points to only one conclusion..that Richard had the princes killed'....
Re the bones...',,,the bones that were dug up in the Tower in 1674 identified as those of the princes and confirmed as such in the 30s by the best medical opinion of the day, cannot convince those who do not wish to believe....' page 176. Need I go on...
I just feel any decent historian should not be quite so biased...and damning...It's a shame really.
Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Re Hicks, I agree, some of his detail is very good. It's when he pushes it that step too far. I haven't read his RIII, but I have his Anne Neville and George of Clarence. Now the George book is not bad, and some of the Anne book isn't either, but then he crashes in on the under age incest thing and this actually invalidates a lot of very good other arguments, like the fact that compared with other women of her time Anne is almost, but not quite, invisible, and that is interesting in itself.
>
> I take and accept your point about the TR thing and think it's very valid in relation to Calais. What I was getting at elsewhere is why HT went to such trouble to suppress knowledge of it when it's all there for posterity in the Parliament Rolls.
>
> Re my TR theory, which I know will be regarded by many as way out, I just believe that, by nature, we are selfish (or if you want the full quote read Thomas Hobbes). If I were a mercer, a sheep breeder, a bishop, you name it, I'd want a strong king. I wouldn't want any more wars marauding over my land or upsetting my trade relations. I'd want security provided by a strong king and the only candidate would be Richard. Which is what we chose when we chose Henry Bolingbroke; a proven leader who could sort things out. But Richard is a man brought up to believe in truth and honour; so what would you concoct to make him take the job? It could be a Morton/Beaufort concoction to weaken a Yorkist throne, or it could be that they backed it because they saw a win win? Either Richard indeed becomes that strong monarch and his reign might become stable enough to let Henry back, or it would cause so much dissention among the Yorkist ranks that it would provide an
> opportunity for a new faction backed by the French.?
>
> I truly don't know. I don't trust Stillington; this is a spiteful man who complains to the Pope when someone upsets him, and when he still holds a relatively junior office (I'm talking about the 1450s). So would King Edward, who was a good enough judge of character to realise that Buckingham was a pain, honestly trust Stillington with so huge a secret? I'm with Marie that Stillington was probably used just to draft TR. So who did witness the pre-contract and why don't we know a lot more about it? Sorry JAH! Regards H.
>
>
>
> On Monday, 13 January 2014, 12:22, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Hilary,
> Thanks for the link to the book on Warbeck, I shall put it on my list.
>
> Someone bought me Hicks's Richard III for Christmas. I have not finished it yet, but I don't know what all the fuss was about on the forum. He seems to be quite fair, and goes to great lengths to explain the effects of propaganda.
>
> 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 out aloud for them. So Richard has TR read out to the garrison of Calais and has placards removed without being read out.
>
> So not reading out an offending document was simply a way of preventing the dissemination of rumours by word of mouth.
>
> I am intrigued by your conspiracy theory regarding
> TR. The question that who the people might be who would fear a 'Woodville' Edward V, while regarding Richard as a weakening of the Yorkists. With Lancastrians exterminated and no Tudor faction yet...
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
> Sent: Wed, Jan 8, 2014 1:42:59 PM
>
>
>
> Hi David, You are brave to quote Hicks on here - he makes Charles Ross look like a liberal :). The point I was getting at was that if the essence of TR was enshrined in the Parliament Rolls (and not actually repealed) why did HT go to such extraordinary lengths to make sure that the originals of the Act itself were destroyed?
>
> There is a naughty part of me which wonders whether the pre-contract itself was not an invention by those who didn't want a Woodville-controlled heir. They knew what manner of man Richard was and if confronted by all this as a sworn testimony, he would have to do the right/noble thing. So Richard a plotter, no; but others, I'm not sure. It's a marvellous way of destabilising the Yorkist monarchy, leaving only one legitimate heir (with a sickly son) and tensions in the camp so to speak. Regards H
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 13:26, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Hicks also states that Richard had TR read out to the entire garrison of Calais. So there were many people who knew what it said.
>
> Also, in his chapter detailing the way in which propaganda was used against Richard, he says that Richard ordered that libellous placards that had been erected in York, should be taken down and sealed and sent to him unread. So the idea of leaving offensive material unread was not new.
>
> Kind regards.
> David
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
> To: <>;
> Subject: Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany
> Sent: Thu, Jan 2, 2014 4:28:56 PM
>
>
>
> Marie, Happy New Year too! Can I ask one of my stupid questions? If TR was so important that it had to be destroyed why is the very explicit gist of it still in the Parliament Rolls? I tend to go with Wilkinson on this - it would have been a great embarrassment to HT if TR was read out in Parliament (which it had to be to be repealed) and a bishop said he couldn't agree. So it was kind of forgotten without proper repeal? But Stillington had to be kept out of the way?
>
> With regard to your reply on his health, perhaps he had some sort of degenerative disease which didn't kill him for some time, and clearly didn't affect his mind. I'm with you though in that I doubt he travelled far.
>
> As I said, I'm honestly no expert on this. H.
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 2 January 2014, 16:05, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> David wrote:
> "As to the reason for Stillington's arrest, I don't think that we actually do 'know' that it was he who provided evidence to support the accusations in TR. I think the only link to this is provided by Commynes's reference. Or are there further contemporary references? We do know for certain that Stillington was arrested because the warrant still exists. But the wording is very vague - I think from memory it says something like many grievous acts against our wellbeing.
> I don't see any reason why HT would have been prompted to have an investigation into the truth of TR or for that matter, the fate of the Princes either. He had been amongst exiles and at the French court where TR was taken to be a pretext, and had sworn an oath to legitimize and marry Elizabeth, so any questioning of the position would have been to doubt his companions in exile and could only have led to trouble
> if he ever even considered
> it."
>
> Marie replies
> First of all, happy New Year, everyone.
> 1) David, as Doug has already pointed out, your first statement is not correct. We do have contemporary - and very official - evidence that Stillington was responsible for the Act bastardising Edward IV's children. The Year Book, or summary of matters of legal significance - for the first year of Henry VII's reign, records that many of the lords were unhappy at repealing TR unless Stillington either retracted the claims made in the Act or appeared in the lords in order that they could question him and satisfy themselves that he had been lying There is more than one version of this record available for free online, but this is the one from Robert Henry's' History of Great Britain' (pp. 409-410, notes 15 & 17):-
> " Touts les justice in l'Exchequer chambre, par le
> commandemcnt le roi, communerent pour le reversal del' bil et act, qui bastard
> les enfants le roi E. IV. et Eliz. fa femme. Et pristeront sa direcsion pour
> ceo, que le bill et l'act fuit cy, faux et slandereux, q'ills ne voill reherses
> le matter ne leffect de la matre mes tant solement que Ric. fist un faux et seditioux
> bill, a estre mis a luy, qui commence sic, pleaseth it Your Highness to
> consider these articles ensuing, &c. sans pl. rehersal. ... Nota icy bien
> la policy. Nota enseient q'ill ne puissoient estre pris hors del record sens
> act del parliament pour l'indemnite et jeopardie d'eux q'avoient les records in
> lour gard.
> Et
> meme le jour le bill fuit leu en parliament chambre, mes fuit mouve per ascun
> deux que fer., bon ordre que cestuy que fist ceo faux bill reformera ceo, et
> discient que le evesque de B.... fist le bill, et les seigniors vouloient aver
> luy in le parliament chambre a aver luy respondre a ceo. Et le roy disait, que
> il avoit luy pardonner et pour ceo il ne voului plus fait a luy ; quod nota,
> constantia regis. Et quidam episcopi fuerunt contra ipsum."
> The hiatuses are only where Henry inserted his own summary of the French. David, I realise I don't need to translate the French for you, but for the benefit of members who can't follow it, this is a rough translation (please feel free to offer corrections or improvements):
>
>
> All the Justices, in the Exchequer Chamber by the King's
> command, discussed the reversal of the Bill and Act that bastardises the
> children of King E. IV and Elizabeth his wife. And they directed
> that the Bill and the Act were so false and slanderous that they would not wish
> to rehearse the matter or the effect of the matter, but only that Ric. caused a
> false and seditious bill to be put to him, which begins thus: Pleaseth it your
> Highness to consider these articles ensuing, etc', without further rehearsal. ....Note
> well this policy. Note also that it may not be removed from the records without
> an Act of Parliament, for the indemnity and jeopardy of those who have the
> records in their custody.
> But on the very day that the Bill [for the repeal] was read in the Parliament
> Chamber, it was moved by some of them that, for the thing to be done in good order, he
> who made this false Bill should reform it, and said that the Bishop of B. made
> the Bill, and the lords would have him in the Parliament Chamber to have him
> answer thereupon. And the king said that he had pardoned him and thus he would do
> nothing further to him.
>
> My own reading of this is that Henry's preferred option would have been simply to remove the Act from the records without going through Parliament, but the Justices advised him that this would not be possible because it would leave the keepers of the Rolls open to later charges of negligence or theft. So they came up with a compromise solution whereby the Act would be formally repealed but without the customary reading. Henry appears to have been very nervous of allowing Stillington to be questioned on the subject.
>
> 2) The warrant for Stillington's arrest still exists. I really don't think it does. Our evidence for his arrest comes from the York House Books as he was brought into the city immediately after he had been taken. The non-specific crimes you refer to come, I think, from James Stanley's petition to the Nov. 1485 parliament for formal recognition of his new post of Dean of St Martin's, which Stillington had held until his arrest.
>
> 3) It is not my reading of events that Henry was keen to make good his promise to marry Elizabeth. He had a perfectly valid dispensation but made no move to marry her until pressed to do so by parliament. The heralds had initially assumed the marriage would precede the coronation, and were making plans for a double coronation, and there is no reason why this could not have happened had Henry so desired. Whether there had really been a solemn oath is debatable - certainly an odd thing to do since it takes the consent of both parties to make a marriage. Did you know that according to Portuguese records Henry initially tried to put himself forward as a husband for Joanna of Portugal, whose hand had been sought by Richard III as part of a double marriage alliance whereby Elizabeth would marry Manuel Duke of Beja?
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Britta
Not having read anything by Hicks I might be speaking out of turn.Anyhow here's my opinion......I cannot believe any one would write or believe that Richard would have had incestuous relationships(guessing)with Anne and Elizabeth of York. I am sure there are many scholars within the society who would think differently to Professor Hicks.
On a happier note best wishes Carol on your visit.I hope you and your family have a lovely time.
Kathryn x
--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> David Durose wrote:
>
> "<snip> Someone bought me Hicks's Richard III for Christmas. I have not finished it yet, but I don't know what all the fuss was about on the forum. He seems to be quite fair, and goes to great lengths to explain the effects of propaganda. <snip>"
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Some of the objections to Hicks come from his so-called biography of Anne Neville, in which he presents Richard as a "serial incestor," and his mistaken views regarding the papal dispensations, which he seems unwilling to retract. I can't remember his book on Richard though I know I've read it. Hicks was a student of Charles Ross and undoubtedly influenced by Ross's moderate traditionalist views. Ross, for example, speaks of Richard's "well-known wish to marry his niece" and states that the "pre-contract story" will not "stand up to serious scrutiny." If Hicks echoes Ross here, most Eicardians would disagree with him. The primary objection to Hicks (and Ross) is, of course, the view that Richard murdered his nephews. And Hick, IIRC, depicts Richard as inordinately ambitious, a view that most Ricardians would also dispute. If you'll forgive my saying so so, it's possible that you see Hicks as "objective" because his views reflect your own. Sadly, most historians claim to be objective but few if any succeed in achieving that goal. In Richard's case, most give too much credence to Croyland and Mancini, not to mention Vergil, with the result that they see Richard as a typical medieval monarch who probably murdered his nephews while conceding that he wasn't the monster that Shakespeare depicted.
>
> Talking on the phone during this whole post so it may be incoherent.
>
> Carol
>
Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Britta
I'm sorry but I haven't replied to your post very well.I totally agree with you that Richard is perceived quite often as the medieval monarch who murdered his nephews and wasn't as bad as Shakespeare portrayed him(if Shakespeare really meant it was a portrait of Richard and wasn't using him as a disguise to portray someone else).I find it inconceivable that Richard would have murdered the boys.He either got them away to safety or someone else was responsible.I hope it is proved that he eventually got them to safety.Other posts especially one by Hilary say that the rumours about the boys deaths started in the Midlands where MB had many connections.How would they have known unless they were involved or where just stirring up trouble for various reasons with which they were not satisfied? Mostly that they weren't going to get their own way with Richard.
Shakespeare seems to have presented Richard II in a poor light to that of Bolingbroke.Richard II seems to have been trying to break the power of the nobility so that he himself would have ultimate rule.His court would probably have rivalled that of the future Burgundy if he had succeeded........
So sad that both he and Richard 111 lost their beloved Annes.
Many thanks to everyone who is working so hard to restore Richard's character and honour as well as our knowledge of his times.
Continuing to wish you,Carol,all the very best on your visit to England.
Kathryn x
--- In , "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
>
> Hi David and Carol,
> Not having read anything by Hicks I might be speaking out of turn.Anyhow here's my opinion......I cannot believe any one would write or believe that Richard would have had incestuous relationships(guessing)with Anne and Elizabeth of York. I am sure there are many scholars within the society who would think differently to Professor Hicks.
>
> On a happier note best wishes Carol on your visit.I hope you and your family have a lovely time.
>
> Kathryn x
>
> --- In , <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > David Durose wrote:
> >
> > "<snip> Someone bought me Hicks's Richard III for Christmas. I have not finished it yet, but I don't know what all the fuss was about on the forum. He seems to be quite fair, and goes to great lengths to explain the effects of propaganda. <snip>"
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Some of the objections to Hicks come from his so-called biography of Anne Neville, in which he presents Richard as a "serial incestor," and his mistaken views regarding the papal dispensations, which he seems unwilling to retract. I can't remember his book on Richard though I know I've read it. Hicks was a student of Charles Ross and undoubtedly influenced by Ross's moderate traditionalist views. Ross, for example, speaks of Richard's "well-known wish to marry his niece" and states that the "pre-contract story" will not "stand up to serious scrutiny." If Hicks echoes Ross here, most Eicardians would disagree with him. The primary objection to Hicks (and Ross) is, of course, the view that Richard murdered his nephews. And Hick, IIRC, depicts Richard as inordinately ambitious, a view that most Ricardians would also dispute. If you'll forgive my saying so so, it's possible that you see Hicks as "objective" because his views reflect your own. Sadly, most historians claim to be objective but few if any succeed in achieving that goal. In Richard's case, most give too much credence to Croyland and Mancini, not to mention Vergil, with the result that they see Richard as a typical medieval monarch who probably murdered his nephews while conceding that he wasn't the monster that Shakespeare depicted.
> >
> > Talking on the phone during this whole post so it may be incoherent.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
