Jean Molinet's chronicle

I thought I'd start a new topic as the subject changes...
In the 'My lord of Salisbury' thread, nico11238 wrote:"Who does Molinet suggest found the bodies? Was it in the reign of Richard or Henry Tudor? Does he suggest how they died or when?"
Well, the thing about Molinet's chronicle is that the chronology is all over the place, and Molinet contradicts himself in several places. (He also thinks Richard, Duke of York was called 'George', and once calls Edward V 'Pierre'...) Molinet would seem to be saying that the boys were killed before Richard's coronation, but the chronology really doesn't make any sense, and the whole chapter(s) read like an assortment of diverse bits of gossip Molinet has heard and written down without bothering to double-check whether the bits and bobs fit together or not. As for who and how, he writes:
'They were imprisoned for approximately five weeks; and the Duke Richard had them killed and extinguished by the captain of the Tower. (Ed: literal translation - presumably he means the Constable.)'Some say they were shoved into a large stall, and enclosed therein without any food or drink. Others say they were smothered between two mattresses, as they were sleeping in the same chamber. And when the time of the execution came, Pierre, the first-born, was asleep, and the younger one awoke, perceived the threat, and cried out: "My brother, wake up, they have come to kill us!" And then he said to the intruders: "Why are you killing my brother? Kill me and let him live!" And so, one after the other were they executed and extinguished, and their corpses removed to some secret place; later they were recovered, and after the death of King Richard they received a royal funeral.'
The next sentence is causing me trouble because of one word: 'mecreu'. I *assume* it's related to 'croire', and indeed 'believed (to have...)' would make sense in the context, but then so would 'accused of' - I can't be 100% sure as I can't find that word anywhere, so my translation isn't finished yet! But the text says:
'On that same day arrived at the Tower of London the Duke of Buckingham, who was *mecreu* of having extinguished and killed these aforementioned children, for the reason that he pretended to have a right to the crown; and the lord of Hastings, great chamberlain of England, captain of Calais, and nourisher* of the aforementioned children, was decapitated on a block, for he was suspected of intending to betray the King in the aforementioned Tower.'
Quite cryptic, that. And I couldn't yet come up with a good translation for the word 'nourrisseur' in that context. Later, Molinet says:
'Because of the murder of his two nephews, and other heinous and execrable deeds, the princes and noblemen of England, especially those of the church, rose against him and displayed the banner of Saint Gilbert, the bishop; and many barons and knights who were assembled together to leave for France, put themselves at risk in order to find the bodies of these two children, being as they were of blood royal. And after they were found, they were honourably buried in the church of Blackfriars in London; and after this was done, they entered the royal palace and held the Duke Richard captive; but he spoke so sweetly and promised such beautiful gifts, that he escaped from the hands of his enemies.'
Then it goes on to say Richard was crowned... in 1482.
I can post the complete translation of those chapters online once I'm finished. Despite being a rather bizarre account of Richard's reign, I find it quite interesting, considering that it was written by a contemporary. And it's quite hilarious in places, containing gems such as: 'He reigned with great cruelty, plundering the churches.' Ah yes, Richard III... that notorious church-plunderer. ;)
Pansy

Thanks Pansy, confusing but fascinating! I'm looking forward to reading the complete chapters when you finish. Nico

Pansy wrote:
"In the 'My lord of Salisbury' thread, nico11238 wrote:"Who does Molinet suggest found the bodies? Was it in the reign of Richard or Henry Tudor? Does he suggest how they died or when?"
"Well, the thing about Molinet's chronicle is that the chronology is all over the place, and Molinet contradicts himself in several places. (He also thinks Richard, Duke of York was called 'George', and once calls Edward V 'Pierre'...) Molinet would seem to be saying that the boys were killed before Richard's coronation, but the chronology really doesn't make any sense, and the whole chapter(s) read like an assortment of diverse bits of gossip Molinet has heard and written down without bothering to double-check whether the bits and bobs fit together or not. [snip]"

Carol responds:
Thanks very much for this post. The scrambled chronology alone is enough to discredit Molinet, whose value apparently lies in recording what people in Europe were hearing at the time. What is the date of his "chronicle"? And how nice to know that Richard was captured but sweet-talked/bribed his captors into setting him free (and, evidently, letting him reign!) What rubbish! Did Molinet actually influence anyone (chroniclers or historians)? It's clear that we can't believe a word he says.

Carol

Carol wrote:"Thanks very much for this post. The scrambled chronology alone is enough to discredit Molinet, whose value apparently lies in recording what people in Europe were hearing at the time. What is the date of his "chronicle"? And how nice to know that Richard was captured but sweet-talked/bribed his captors into setting him free (and, evidently, letting him reign!) What rubbish! Did Molinet actually influence anyone (chroniclers or historians)? It's clear that we can't believe a word he says."

Jean Molinet was a friend and protégé to the official Burgundian chronicler Georges Chastellain, who died in 1475, when Molinet took over his work. Molinet was the continuator from 1475 to his death in 1504. The second chapter dealing with the end of Richard's reign (and the beginning of Henry's) ends with the birth of Arthur, so it would had to have been written in late 1486 at the earliest. But he doesn't call Arthur the Prince of Wales so I assume it was written before 1490.
Molinet's chronicle may be a mess, but it does have some very interesting things about it. His account of Bosworth is surprisingly detailed and it makes me think he had better sources for that than his other information...
What makes the chronicle interesting is the question, who was Molinet writing for? The thing is, he wasn't just any random chronicler, but an *official* historiographer: but to whom exactly? Certainly not to Margaret of York, and presumably not to anyone close to her either! His name was, at least later, closely associated with Margaret of Austria, but she was obviously a child at the time, and around this time she was obviously under the supervision of Anne of Beaujeu. Did Molinet's chronicle have the Anne of Beaujeu seal of approval?
Pansy

Pansy wrote:
"[snip] Molinet's chronicle may be a mess, but it does have some very interesting things about it. His account of Bosworth is surprisingly detailed and it makes me think he had better sources for that than his other information...
"What makes the chronicle interesting is the question, who was Molinet writing for? The thing is, he wasn't just any random chronicler, but an *official* historiographer: but to whom exactly? Certainly not to Margaret of York, and presumably not to anyone close to her either! His name was, at least later, closely associated with Margaret of Austria, but she was obviously a child at the time, and around this time she was obviously under the supervision of Anne of Beaujeu. Did Molinet's chronicle have the Anne of Beaujeu seal of approval?"

Carol responds:
It sounds to me as if you have the makings of an article for the Ricardian (or the Bulletin) here. Anne of Beaujeu would make perfect sense as a patron for Molinet given his version of events and her evident desire to make Richard and England look bad (we French are loyal to our child king, unlike those English barbarians!) The similarity between France's situation under the child king Charles VIII and England's under Edward V has often been pointed out, as has the contrast between Anne of Beujeau's regency and Richard's Protectorate, which ended with his becoming king--which would make very effective anti-English propaganda, especially once the murder rumor surfaced in France. (I can't remember the name of her chancellor or the exact date of his speech--late 1484 or early 1485, I think.) Was Molinet in France at that time or in correspondence with the French?

And, on a side note, what must Margaret of York have thought when these rumors surfaced in Burgundy? No wonder she was so ready to gather Richard's former supporters to attack the Tudor usurper.

Carol

Pansy