Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
2014-01-06 16:22:00
Hilary,
I agree my use of the word Edwardians was a little questionable, but I was a little at a loss to know what to call them, because they were from a mixture of backgrounds - but certainly could not be described as Lancastrian. I think that most would have been loyal to Edward IV and the succession they expected of his son. I agree that the WOTR did not affect the great mass of the population nor did it have the great underlying philosphical issues that were involved in the Civil War.
However, I do not necessarily believe that everyone simply made a judgement about which side would provide them with the greatest benefit and followed that - although I am sure many did. If you follow the career of say Edward Woodville - he may be an out and out villain to Ricardians - but his actions can not be seen as self interest, particularly his sacrifice in the cause of Breton independence.
He did have a family connection with Brittany - Jacquetta's sister was married to the ruling Duke Arthur de Richemont, and was for a time Duchess of Brittany.
I have read a paper by DA Luckett on the Willougbys of Broke. He comes to the conclusion that it is difficult to ascertain why the rebels of 1483 rose up. It would always have been the softer option to keep quiet and get on with your life.
Neither can promises of future advancement from the Tudors be the only explanation. If HT wanted to avoid punishing Richard's followers en masse, then he was limited to a large extent to reinstating what had been lost in the rebellion. He could not promise something to more than one person, because they were together at Vannes and any duplication would have come to light.
As to the prospect of a minority ruler - the Yorkist position is presented as an essentially legitimist view. To suggest that a minor's rule should be avoided is to adopt a contradictory approach.
On the off-topic subject of the Bretons in England, I was in Durham recently and noted the name Richard Poore in the list of Bishops. His career is very interesting and this family de Poher also created Powerscourt in Ireland.
Kind regards
David
From:
Hilary Jones ;
To:
;
Subject:
Re: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent:
Mon, Dec 23, 2013 10:41:31 PM
Hi David/Marie Sorry to be so long in replying - Christmas preparations getting in the way. Couple of things a) was Stillington really so old.? The consensus now seems to be that Hicks's DNB entry is wrong and that he was born in 1420 (his brother Thomas was born in 1424), which would make him
about 56 at the time
of the embassy. And he did go on to serve on a number of Commissions for the next 8 or so years. So was his illness strategic? BTW I'm not saying at all that he went to Brittany. b) you talk of 'Edwardians' David. Were there really that many
folks who were so devoted to Edward that they would risk everything to make sure his sons ruled? Look at the disasters of the last two minority rulers. I feel (and it is just me) that Shakespeare and historians of the 19th and 20th centuries have confused the WOTR with the English Civil War. The latter was about religion, civil liberties, taxation, governance, the divine right of kings . It would have been difficult to have lived through it without having a view. The WOTR was not at all the same. Vehemence was restricted to the few who stood to rule or gain, not the man in the street unless he was unfortunate enough to be called upon to fight. If you had to choose between a twelve
year
old ruled by the Woodvilles or a proven devout warrior who would protect these shores who would you pragmatically choose? Whether or not Richard wanted the job is quite another
question. Kind Regards and a very happy Christmas to all. Hilary
On Monday, 23 December 2013, 17:44, Durose David wrote:
Marie,
I don't think it would be appropriate or logical to infer EW's association with a rebellion because of anything done by her middle-aged son.
In any case, I have not read anything that states that Dorset was actually involved in the rebellion, or even seriously suspected of involvement. Henry had reason not to trust him entirely and he was always treated with caution. It seems he was released after the battle of Stoke and returned to his previous status.
I think his
imprisonment was to keep a
prominent person of whose support Henry was uncertain out of the way while the action took place. Henry seemed to have complete trust in all his companions in Brittany, apart from Dorset. Dorset later accompanied the army in France in 1492.
Henry had treated him in the same way in 1485 - leaving him behind in France until the action was all over.
Kind regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 ;
To: ;
Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent: Wed, Dec 18, 2013 5:01:20 PM
David wrote:
"I don't think EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel affair either. The assumption that she was seems to be based on the fact that two events seem to occur at around the same time."
Marie adds:
Three events - Dorset was committed to the Tower at the
same time.
I agree my use of the word Edwardians was a little questionable, but I was a little at a loss to know what to call them, because they were from a mixture of backgrounds - but certainly could not be described as Lancastrian. I think that most would have been loyal to Edward IV and the succession they expected of his son. I agree that the WOTR did not affect the great mass of the population nor did it have the great underlying philosphical issues that were involved in the Civil War.
However, I do not necessarily believe that everyone simply made a judgement about which side would provide them with the greatest benefit and followed that - although I am sure many did. If you follow the career of say Edward Woodville - he may be an out and out villain to Ricardians - but his actions can not be seen as self interest, particularly his sacrifice in the cause of Breton independence.
He did have a family connection with Brittany - Jacquetta's sister was married to the ruling Duke Arthur de Richemont, and was for a time Duchess of Brittany.
I have read a paper by DA Luckett on the Willougbys of Broke. He comes to the conclusion that it is difficult to ascertain why the rebels of 1483 rose up. It would always have been the softer option to keep quiet and get on with your life.
Neither can promises of future advancement from the Tudors be the only explanation. If HT wanted to avoid punishing Richard's followers en masse, then he was limited to a large extent to reinstating what had been lost in the rebellion. He could not promise something to more than one person, because they were together at Vannes and any duplication would have come to light.
As to the prospect of a minority ruler - the Yorkist position is presented as an essentially legitimist view. To suggest that a minor's rule should be avoided is to adopt a contradictory approach.
On the off-topic subject of the Bretons in England, I was in Durham recently and noted the name Richard Poore in the list of Bishops. His career is very interesting and this family de Poher also created Powerscourt in Ireland.
Kind regards
David
From:
Hilary Jones ;
To:
;
Subject:
Re: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent:
Mon, Dec 23, 2013 10:41:31 PM
Hi David/Marie Sorry to be so long in replying - Christmas preparations getting in the way. Couple of things a) was Stillington really so old.? The consensus now seems to be that Hicks's DNB entry is wrong and that he was born in 1420 (his brother Thomas was born in 1424), which would make him
about 56 at the time
of the embassy. And he did go on to serve on a number of Commissions for the next 8 or so years. So was his illness strategic? BTW I'm not saying at all that he went to Brittany. b) you talk of 'Edwardians' David. Were there really that many
folks who were so devoted to Edward that they would risk everything to make sure his sons ruled? Look at the disasters of the last two minority rulers. I feel (and it is just me) that Shakespeare and historians of the 19th and 20th centuries have confused the WOTR with the English Civil War. The latter was about religion, civil liberties, taxation, governance, the divine right of kings . It would have been difficult to have lived through it without having a view. The WOTR was not at all the same. Vehemence was restricted to the few who stood to rule or gain, not the man in the street unless he was unfortunate enough to be called upon to fight. If you had to choose between a twelve
year
old ruled by the Woodvilles or a proven devout warrior who would protect these shores who would you pragmatically choose? Whether or not Richard wanted the job is quite another
question. Kind Regards and a very happy Christmas to all. Hilary
On Monday, 23 December 2013, 17:44, Durose David wrote:
Marie,
I don't think it would be appropriate or logical to infer EW's association with a rebellion because of anything done by her middle-aged son.
In any case, I have not read anything that states that Dorset was actually involved in the rebellion, or even seriously suspected of involvement. Henry had reason not to trust him entirely and he was always treated with caution. It seems he was released after the battle of Stoke and returned to his previous status.
I think his
imprisonment was to keep a
prominent person of whose support Henry was uncertain out of the way while the action took place. Henry seemed to have complete trust in all his companions in Brittany, apart from Dorset. Dorset later accompanied the army in France in 1492.
Henry had treated him in the same way in 1485 - leaving him behind in France until the action was all over.
Kind regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 ;
To: ;
Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent: Wed, Dec 18, 2013 5:01:20 PM
David wrote:
"I don't think EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel affair either. The assumption that she was seems to be based on the fact that two events seem to occur at around the same time."
Marie adds:
Three events - Dorset was committed to the Tower at the
same time.
Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany (was Richa
2014-01-06 16:58:01
Hello David, Firstly can I make it clear that I don't honestly think there were any 'villains'. These people, HT, MB, the Woodvilles etc were in a particular place at a particular time and they did what we all do, which is to maximise our opportunities. So I guess, did the majority of the population, including the gentry I do however think that there had been two minorities (Richard II and Henry VI ) where kings had not grown into, shall we say, the ideal medieval warrior and where it could be claimed that England had lost out - particularly the huge losses in France. Edward and the Yorkists had only been on the throne for just over twenty years; they had been a strong
alternative to Henry VI. But now, with Edward's death, there was the same potential weakness. France and Scotland were hovering, the elite nobles were squabbling etc etc. It would have been a brave man, I reckon, who wanted the country ruled by an under-age King ruled by the Woodvilles. BTW I've often wondered what the Woodvilles would have done had they disposed of Richard - he was the only warrior of note that we had - our Anthony although a jouster was a regular coward. I truly don't know about Breton history but I have two French strains in my history - the Boonhams/Bonehams (Bonhommes) who don't seem to have appeared until about the time of Bosworth and in Leics/Maxstoke too, and the Ranews/Rayneaus who seem to have appeared in Cambridge at about the same time and were gingerbread makers!! Regards H.
On Monday, 6 January 2014, 16:22, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
I agree my use of the word Edwardians was a little questionable, but I was a little at a loss to know what to call them, because they were from a mixture of backgrounds - but certainly could not be described as Lancastrian. I think that most would have been loyal to Edward IV and the succession they expected of his son. I agree that the WOTR did not affect the great mass of the population nor did it have the great underlying philosphical issues that were involved in the Civil War.
However, I do not necessarily believe that everyone simply made a judgement about which side would provide them with the greatest benefit and followed that - although I am sure many did. If you follow the career of say Edward Woodville - he may be an out and out villain to Ricardians - but his actions can not be seen as self interest, particularly his sacrifice in the cause of Breton independence.
He did have a family connection with Brittany - Jacquetta's sister was married to the ruling Duke Arthur de Richemont, and was for a time Duchess of Brittany.
I have read a paper by DA Luckett on the Willougbys of Broke. He comes to the conclusion that it is difficult to ascertain why the rebels of 1483 rose up. It would always have been the softer option to keep quiet and get on with your life.
Neither can promises of future advancement from the Tudors be the only explanation. If HT wanted to avoid punishing Richard's followers en masse, then he was limited to a large extent to reinstating what had been lost in the rebellion. He could not promise something to more than one person, because they were together at Vannes and any duplication would have come to light.
As to the prospect of a minority ruler - the Yorkist position is presented as an essentially legitimist view. To suggest that a minor's rule should be avoided is to adopt a contradictory approach.
On the off-topic subject of the Bretons in England, I was in Durham recently and noted the name Richard Poore in the list of Bishops. His career is very interesting and this family de Poher also created Powerscourt in Ireland.
Kind regards
David
From:
Hilary Jones ;
To:
;
Subject:
Re: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent:
Mon, Dec 23, 2013 10:41:31 PM
Hi David/Marie Sorry to be so long in replying - Christmas preparations getting in the way. Couple of things a) was Stillington really so old.? The consensus now seems to be that Hicks's DNB entry is wrong and that he was born in 1420 (his brother Thomas was born in 1424), which would make him
about 56 at the time
of the embassy. And he did go on to serve on a number of Commissions for the next 8 or so years. So was his illness strategic? BTW I'm not saying at all that he went to Brittany. b) you talk of 'Edwardians' David. Were there really that many
folks who were so devoted to Edward that they would risk everything to make sure his sons ruled? Look at the disasters of the last two minority rulers. I feel (and it is just me) that Shakespeare and historians of the 19th and 20th centuries have confused the WOTR with the English Civil War. The latter was about religion, civil liberties, taxation, governance, the divine right of kings . It would have been difficult to have lived through it without having a view. The WOTR was not at all the same. Vehemence was restricted to the few who stood to rule or gain, not the man in the street unless he was unfortunate enough to be called upon to fight. If you had to choose between a twelve
year
old ruled by the Woodvilles or a proven devout warrior who would protect these shores who would you pragmatically choose? Whether or not Richard wanted the job is quite another
question. Kind Regards and a very happy Christmas to all. Hilary
On Monday, 23 December 2013, 17:44, Durose David wrote:
Marie,
I don't think it would be appropriate or logical to infer EW's association with a rebellion because of anything done by her middle-aged son.
In any case, I have not read anything that states that Dorset was actually involved in the rebellion, or even seriously suspected of involvement. Henry had reason not to trust him entirely and he was always treated with caution. It seems he was released after the battle of Stoke and returned to his previous status.
I think his
imprisonment was to keep a
prominent person of whose support Henry was uncertain out of the way while the action took place. Henry seemed to have complete trust in all his companions in Brittany, apart from Dorset. Dorset later accompanied the army in France in 1492.
Henry had treated him in the same way in 1485 - leaving him behind in France until the action was all over.
Kind regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 ;
To: ;
Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent: Wed, Dec 18, 2013 5:01:20 PM
David wrote:
"I don't think EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel affair either. The assumption that she was seems to be based on the fact that two events seem to occur at around the same time."
Marie adds:
Three events - Dorset was committed to the Tower at the
same time.
On Monday, 6 January 2014, 16:22, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Hilary,
I agree my use of the word Edwardians was a little questionable, but I was a little at a loss to know what to call them, because they were from a mixture of backgrounds - but certainly could not be described as Lancastrian. I think that most would have been loyal to Edward IV and the succession they expected of his son. I agree that the WOTR did not affect the great mass of the population nor did it have the great underlying philosphical issues that were involved in the Civil War.
However, I do not necessarily believe that everyone simply made a judgement about which side would provide them with the greatest benefit and followed that - although I am sure many did. If you follow the career of say Edward Woodville - he may be an out and out villain to Ricardians - but his actions can not be seen as self interest, particularly his sacrifice in the cause of Breton independence.
He did have a family connection with Brittany - Jacquetta's sister was married to the ruling Duke Arthur de Richemont, and was for a time Duchess of Brittany.
I have read a paper by DA Luckett on the Willougbys of Broke. He comes to the conclusion that it is difficult to ascertain why the rebels of 1483 rose up. It would always have been the softer option to keep quiet and get on with your life.
Neither can promises of future advancement from the Tudors be the only explanation. If HT wanted to avoid punishing Richard's followers en masse, then he was limited to a large extent to reinstating what had been lost in the rebellion. He could not promise something to more than one person, because they were together at Vannes and any duplication would have come to light.
As to the prospect of a minority ruler - the Yorkist position is presented as an essentially legitimist view. To suggest that a minor's rule should be avoided is to adopt a contradictory approach.
On the off-topic subject of the Bretons in England, I was in Durham recently and noted the name Richard Poore in the list of Bishops. His career is very interesting and this family de Poher also created Powerscourt in Ireland.
Kind regards
David
From:
Hilary Jones ;
To:
;
Subject:
Re: Re : RE: Re : Re: Re : Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent:
Mon, Dec 23, 2013 10:41:31 PM
Hi David/Marie Sorry to be so long in replying - Christmas preparations getting in the way. Couple of things a) was Stillington really so old.? The consensus now seems to be that Hicks's DNB entry is wrong and that he was born in 1420 (his brother Thomas was born in 1424), which would make him
about 56 at the time
of the embassy. And he did go on to serve on a number of Commissions for the next 8 or so years. So was his illness strategic? BTW I'm not saying at all that he went to Brittany. b) you talk of 'Edwardians' David. Were there really that many
folks who were so devoted to Edward that they would risk everything to make sure his sons ruled? Look at the disasters of the last two minority rulers. I feel (and it is just me) that Shakespeare and historians of the 19th and 20th centuries have confused the WOTR with the English Civil War. The latter was about religion, civil liberties, taxation, governance, the divine right of kings . It would have been difficult to have lived through it without having a view. The WOTR was not at all the same. Vehemence was restricted to the few who stood to rule or gain, not the man in the street unless he was unfortunate enough to be called upon to fight. If you had to choose between a twelve
year
old ruled by the Woodvilles or a proven devout warrior who would protect these shores who would you pragmatically choose? Whether or not Richard wanted the job is quite another
question. Kind Regards and a very happy Christmas to all. Hilary
On Monday, 23 December 2013, 17:44, Durose David wrote:
Marie,
I don't think it would be appropriate or logical to infer EW's association with a rebellion because of anything done by her middle-aged son.
In any case, I have not read anything that states that Dorset was actually involved in the rebellion, or even seriously suspected of involvement. Henry had reason not to trust him entirely and he was always treated with caution. It seems he was released after the battle of Stoke and returned to his previous status.
I think his
imprisonment was to keep a
prominent person of whose support Henry was uncertain out of the way while the action took place. Henry seemed to have complete trust in all his companions in Brittany, apart from Dorset. Dorset later accompanied the army in France in 1492.
Henry had treated him in the same way in 1485 - leaving him behind in France until the action was all over.
Kind regards
David
From: mariewalsh2003 ;
To: ;
Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : [Richard III Society Forum] Embassy to Brittany (was Richard)
Sent: Wed, Dec 18, 2013 5:01:20 PM
David wrote:
"I don't think EW was involved in the Lambert Simnel affair either. The assumption that she was seems to be based on the fact that two events seem to occur at around the same time."
Marie adds:
Three events - Dorset was committed to the Tower at the
same time.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.