Political networking (was BBC Midlands...)

Jonathan wrote: "Yer, one gets the impression that the relationships Richard did develop - eg, Howards, Harringtons, etc - were personal rather than pragmatic, in cintrast to the more usual royal practice of enlightened self-interest (only enlightened, of course, if you were one of the lucky few skimming the cream from the top!). If that reciprocal bond of loyalty wasn't there, you probably felt, if not out in the cold, at the very least uncertain about your future prospects (Northumberland?). Richard's model was highly effective for ruling a principality under an established king, less so for running a country when the central authority is fractured and questioned." Doug here: That last sentence, to me anyway, sums up the problems *all* the later medieval kings of England faced in trying to govern an expanding, in population, industries, "interests", country. However, not to be picky, but I *think* contrasting Richard's seeming reliance on personal relationships to *govern* the North and MB's methods to attain, and retain, *power* (whether local, regional or national) might not be an example of "apple and oranges"? It's quite obvious from reading reports of the day that the respect for the law and, more importantly, it's impartial application to *everyone* didn't yet exist in the North during that time (honored quite often in the breech elsewhere as well, apparently). Therefore, Richard would be forced to use personal relationships to begin the transition from a "might is right" method of governing to one where *even the ruler* was subject to the legal system. I have the impression that's exactly what he did in the North and presume he would also do so when he became Kng. MB, conversely, was aiming, as best I can tell for "influence"; ie, the ability to protect *her* interests and, should her "influence" be great enough, the interests of those connected to her by shared interest/s or legal relationships such as marriages. Perhaps her efforts, and the results of those efforts, could be viewed as being more how a modern political party operates? And, of course, if necessary that "political party" (ie, Lancastrian) *might* be mobilized for purposes other than simply the protection of "interests"... And, again, as Richard was only on the throne for just over 24 months, there wasn't much time for him to adjust his ruling "style". Then there's the matter of the actions of several people (Stanley, Northumberland) which did nothing to give Richard any reason to place greater trust in them. IOW, because Northumberland, for example, was an Earl, therefore *he* should be placed in a position of power, regardless of his competency or loyalty. Perhaps we could call it "Buckingham's disease"? Doug who hopes this goes through!

Spot on Doug! I don't think for a moment MB and Reggie Bray sat down with a spreadsheet and said lets target x family. By default she had access to a huge area of influence (and probably didn't realise that) and she was very good at patronage - looking after her own. What's astonished me as I dug further and further into England of that day was how unruly it was - they were still abducting women, carrying out raids on people's property - even at Henley on Thames! So Richard, who might have been trying hard in the North would have his hands full trying to contain all that. H

On Thursday, 13 February 2014, 14:58, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Jonathan wrote: "Yer, one gets the impression that the relationships Richard did develop - eg, Howards, Harringtons, etc - were personal rather than pragmatic, in cintrast to the more usual royal practice of enlightened self-interest (only enlightened, of course, if you were one of the lucky few skimming the cream from the top!). If that reciprocal bond of loyalty wasn't there, you probably felt, if not out in the cold, at the very least uncertain about your future prospects (Northumberland?). Richard's model was highly effective for ruling a principality under an established king, less so for running a country when the central authority is fractured and questioned." Doug here: That last sentence, to me anyway, sums up the problems *all* the later medieval kings of England faced in trying to govern an expanding, in population, industries, "interests", country. However, not to be picky, but I *think* contrasting Richard's seeming reliance on personal relationships to *govern* the North and MB's methods to attain, and retain, *power* (whether local, regional or national) might not be an example of "apple and oranges"? It's quite obvious from reading reports of the day that the respect for the law and, more importantly, it's impartial application to *everyone* didn't yet exist in the North during that time (honored quite often in the breech elsewhere as well, apparently). Therefore, Richard would be forced to use personal relationships to begin the transition from a "might is right" method of governing to one where *even the ruler* was subject to the legal system. I have the impression that's exactly what he did in the North and presume he would also do so when he became Kng. MB, conversely, was aiming, as best I can tell for "influence"; ie, the ability to protect *her* interests and, should her "influence" be great enough, the interests of those connected to her by shared interest/s or legal relationships such as marriages. Perhaps her efforts, and the results of those efforts, could be viewed as being more how a modern political party operates? And, of course, if necessary that "political party" (ie, Lancastrian) *might* be mobilized for purposes other than simply the protection of "interests"... And, again, as Richard was only on the throne for just over 24 months, there wasn't much time for him to adjust his ruling "style". Then there's the matter of the actions of several people (Stanley, Northumberland) which did nothing to give Richard any reason to place greater trust in them. IOW, because Northumberland, for example, was an Earl, therefore *he* should be placed in a position of power, regardless of his competency or loyalty. Perhaps we could call it "Buckingham's disease"? Doug who hopes this goes through!

Hi Doug,
Perhaps Edward should have used some of Richard's ideas to sort the south out. Kathryn x

Kathryn wrote:
"Perhaps Edward should have used some of Richard's ideas to sort the south out." Doug here: I get the impression that Edward was lazy, although "self-indulgent" may better describe him, and just a tad complacent(?). If my assessment is anywhere near being accurate, that'd preclude his spending more time than *absolutely* necessary in governing. After all, he was the King, wasn't he and could arrange matters however he wished? Sort of a medieval version of that Mel Brooks line "It's *good* to be the king!" Doug

Hi Doug,
There has been a post on one of the web pages connected with Richard III and it shows the Fabric Rolls of York Minster,page 210 and it states how bad things were in the North and how Richard ,when he was Duke of Glocester, sorted out everything for everyone.Is this why everyone now seems to say that Richard controlled and maintained order well in the north? Or are there other sources too?
Edward must have been able to maintain rule in the south albeit perhaps not as robustly as Richard. If he was not governing as such who was? Henry VIII had Wolsey and Cromwell for a good twenty years until he had to do it himself.
Kathryn x

Edward was certainly good in maintaining popularity and control in London - which was key. In the Midlands he had Warwick (until 1471), then Clarence and also Hastings. That those people fell from power was a serious miscalculation on the part of the Yorkists (though again I doubt they planned for it; for two of them it was circumstance and for Clarence alone it was Edward's misjudgment). Once they are gone then the old Beauchamp/Lancastrian alliances seem to quickly have crept back in, as did disorder, I've cited before the Sacheverell/Dorset rows that stretched from Leics to Oxon. BTW Clarence until the very end seems to have had a good reputation for law and governance in the Midlands. H

On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 0:52, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi Doug,
There has been a post on one of the web pages connected with Richard III and it shows the Fabric Rolls of York Minster,page 210 and it states how bad things were in the North and how Richard ,when he was Duke of Glocester, sorted out everything for everyone.Is this why everyone now seems to say that Richard controlled and maintained order well in the north? Or are there other sources too?
Edward must have been able to maintain rule in the south albeit perhaps not as robustly as Richard. If he was not governing as such who was? Henry VIII had Wolsey and Cromwell for a good twenty years until he had to do it himself.
Kathryn x

Hi Hilary,
Thanks for this information.It's good to know that there were people helping Edward with the country.A great pity for whatever reasons Warwick and Clarence were no longer around to help maintain good order.I'm very pleased to hear about Clarence, this and his reactions to Isabella's death helps one see him in a more positive light.Looking forward to reading John Ashdown-Hill's book about him.
Kathryn x

So am I, very much H

On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 12:08, "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...> wrote:
Hi Hilary,
Thanks for this information.It's good to know that there were people helping Edward with the country.A great pity for whatever reasons Warwick and Clarence were no longer around to help maintain good order.I'm very pleased to hear about Clarence, this and his reactions to Isabella's death helps one see him in a more positive light.Looking forward to reading John Ashdown-Hill's book about him.
Kathryn x

Me too...I have felt for long time that Clarence has been made out to be far worse than what he actually was and there was a reason behind why he acted at times. The death sentence was very harsh, very harsh indeed. I've read Hicks book on George and now I cannot wait to get hold of JAH's book...I'm hoping that JAH will throw a more kinder light on George too. Save the Clarence one. :0). Eileen

Eileen, you know as a fellow supporter of GC I'm with you. I haven't finished some work I was doing with Marie on the Twynyhos but one thing we stumbled on was that Ankarette was probably the granddaughter of two murderers - certainly of one. It was quite a famous case and the murder was done in the presence of Henry Bolingbroke and they got away with it. Now if that was whispered into the ear of an upset/unhinged Clarence after the death of Isabel one could indeed start to understand his state of mind. There's so much more to find out than Morton could ever have destroyed. H

On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 13:59, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Me too...I have felt for long time that Clarence has been made out to be far worse than what he actually was and there was a reason behind why he acted at times. The death sentence was very harsh, very harsh indeed. I've read Hicks book on George and now I cannot wait to get hold of JAH's book...I'm hoping that JAH will throw a more kinder light on George too. Save the Clarence one. :0). Eileen

We could form a gang...sorry group....:already...0)
Ankarette? Yes a mystery indeed....and I don't have a clue...but...something must have led to George's actions. But what. Why would he have had an innocent woman executed like that...on a whim? because he could? he was sloshed...having a nervous breakdown, lashing out? None of the reasons/explanations that I have come across yet have ever convinced me....I fear we will never know....Eileen

Yes I can just picture someone whispering in a sloshed George's ear 'you surely must have heard about the Lacon case'. And then one would have to ask who did the whispering, and why. H

On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 15:43, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
We could form a gang...sorry group....:already...0)
Ankarette? Yes a mystery indeed....and I don't have a clue...but...something must have led to George's actions. But what. Why would he have had an innocent woman executed like that...on a whim? because he could? he was sloshed...having a nervous breakdown, lashing out? None of the reasons/explanations that I have come across yet have ever convinced me....I fear we will never know....Eileen

There is certainly a lot more to this story than what has come down to us. It's very frustrating.
If George was so sloshed so much of the time how did he manage to sit on his horse so much of the time?
If you could invite three people to dinner from history to question them very closely who would it be?Eileen

Actually don't think George was always sloshed, but does seem to have had some sort of breakdown after Isabel died. There was one case, I can't remember where I read it, where he chastised a fellow Justice for going to sleep at a hearing. A sloshed George would have been asleep as well. In fact it will be interesting to see whether JAH thinks he had the Edward charm and charisma - which would have made him a real threat. Love your other questions. Would need a lot more time to think it through properly but to Cis I would say what on earth went wrong with disciplining your kids? H

On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 16:05, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
There is certainly a lot more to this story than what has come down to us. It's very frustrating.
If George was so sloshed so much of the time how did he manage to sit on his horse so much of the time?
If you could invite three people to dinner from history to question them very closely who would it be?Eileen

Actually probably 99% of the adult population were walking around half inebriated most of the time...with the sprogs all a little tipsy....:0)

True:) But you'd need to see that world through rose or malt-tinted glasses! H

On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 16:58, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Actually probably 99% of the adult population were walking around half inebriated most of the time...with the sprogs all a little tipsy....:0)