Political networking

Kathryn wrote: "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 Gloucester, 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." Doug here: I would imagine that there are records of legal proceedings, and the "police" actions taken when those failed, either scattered about the country or in London and that's where further information about Richard's activities has been found. If I understand it correctly, at that time in the North of England, a person was more likely to reach for a sword than a writ when it came to defense of self or property. With the result that those with more swords available to them relied on the swords, not law to "settle" disputes. (Whether they also employed the obligatory "I care not a fig for your writ!" and fingers were snapped under the noses of the process server/s, I don't know.) Apparently the legal processes were honored more in the south, athough, as Hilary has pointed out, there still were, um gaps(?) in its overall application! I would think that Edward appointed the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer and allowed *them* to see to the day-to-day running of the country. Doug

Yes Doug. It's a case of looking at the Feet of Fines for various counties (which can be found for free with a bit of digging on the web). It wasn't that people weren't apprehended/reported/had cases brought against them it was that they got away with it - like a pardon or a warning. I hang my head with shame when I confess that my ancient rellie was complicit in steeling a boat from the Dorset/Greys at Henley on Thames :) :) :) H

On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 14:32, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Kathryn wrote: "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 Gloucester, 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." Doug here: I would imagine that there are records of legal proceedings, and the "police" actions taken when those failed, either scattered about the country or in London and that's where further information about Richard's activities has been found. If I understand it correctly, at that time in the North of England, a person was more likely to reach for a sword than a writ when it came to defense of self or property. With the result that those with more swords available to them relied on the swords, not law to "settle" disputes. (Whether they also employed the obligatory "I care not a fig for your writ!" and fingers were snapped under the noses of the process server/s, I don't know.) Apparently the legal processes were honored more in the south, athough, as Hilary has pointed out, there still were, um gaps(?) in its overall application! I would think that Edward appointed the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer and allowed *them* to see to the day-to-day running of the country. Doug