Northumberland at Bosworth
Northumberland at Bosworth
2014-03-06 16:18:44
Anne wrote:
"Doug--I completely agree with your assessment that
with a medieval levy-type force, a commander wouldn't have wasted time on any
retreat contingency plan--orderly retreat under fire was difficult even for
modern era armies. If Northumberland was indeed where Jones places him, could he
have been initially rasked to prevent *Tudor* moving towards
London?"
Doug here:
That's a certainly a possibility, although I tend
to think that any guarding of the London Road by Northumberland would have
been done for the purpose of, first, ensuring that if a retreat by
Richard's forces was decided on, it could be carried out safely and, second, to
allow re-inforcements for Richard, if any were on their way, to reach
him.
But, and this is the point so many writers
seem to miss, all the above reasons would disappear once the decision was made
to fight it out. If retreat was neither feasible nor considered, there was no
reason to *continue* guarding the London Road. Attacking without waiting for
re-inforcements - no need to *continue* guarding their approach
route.
If I understand Tudor's position, even prior to the
start of the battle, the invaders had adopted a defensive position with the
flanks guarded by a a thick woods on one side and a marsh on the other.
By doing so, however, Tudor not only reduced
*his* front and made it easier to defend, he also limited his own
manouverability(sp?). Tudor could only retreat *if* he used a substantial
portion of his troops as a rear guard - and they wouldn't be enough to prevent
Richard from launching an attack, breaking through the rear-guard and attacking
the remaining enemy forces *as they retreated*! And that would hold true whether
Tudor was declining battle entirely, trying to move it to another site or, as
you suggest, trying to get between Richard's forces and
London.
Anne wrote:
"The uncertainty about this battle--the exact
location, the number and disposition of forces, and even the timing of
events--makes trying to understand, let alone critique, any unit commander's
action highly speculative. Not that stops us."
Doug here:
Especially if, as in my view, one suspects that
much about the battle *deliberately* wasn't elaborated on at the time because it
didn't fit the narrative of "Tudor, the savior of England." I mean really, what
kind of "savior" has to rely on *someone else* killing the "bad
guy"?
Anne wrote:
"It appears to me that Richard's strategy was to
force battle quickly on ground of his choosing. In the fuedal scheme of things
one of the foundations of 'good lordship' was the ability of the lord to protect
those who swore loyalty to him in turn, and one who was perceived to fail in
this could find his support falling off, resulting in further weakening. And
Richard already had loyalty problems, especially in the south."
Doug here:
That "good lordship" concept also applied
*upwards* as well as downwards. As did loyalty. It would be one thing to just
not show up in support of one's lord with the understood "reason" being that the
men couldn't be gathered together and properly equipped in the time
available and quite a few availed themselves of that strategy.
Then there were those such as the Stanleys,
well-known for *not* taking sides until the last minute. That, um,
"hesitancy", would then give their actions a much greater importance
than an earlier out-and-out declaration of support would have.
Then, finally, there's Northumberland. Other than
his showing up to support Richard, there's, literally, *nothing* known for
certainty about where he was before or during the battle. Or even what his
orders were. And the best reason I can come up with for Northumberland being so
ignored is that his orders from Richard *did* place him a position to provide
support if needed and Northumberland, either through incompetency or treachery
(even a charge of incompetency would have severely
affected Northumberland's reputation and ability to rule in the north),
didn't carry out those orders.
A case of "six one, half a dozen of
another"...
Anne wrote:
"A strategy of harassing a smaller invading force
while waiting for reliable reinforcements may make sense to us, from our
viewpoint of nation states and armies, but evidently Richard's calculus was
quite different. For Tudor--really whoever was in charge--avoiding decisive
battle while demonstrating the ability to harry the countryside might have
gained more supporters."
Doug here:
Again, from my understandig of Bosworth, until
Norfolk's death, Richard's men were winning. Or, at the very least, *not*
losing. It was the death of Norfolk, their commander, that caused the
Yorkists to waver and begin to give way, not a lack of troops. When Richard
entered the battle, he brought with him, *at most* a couple of hundred men.
Another thing that keeps getting "overlooked"(?), is that, until Stanley
intervened, Richard was winning. Remember, it was
with the men already on the field *and* those who accompanied him, that made it
possible for Richard to break throught the invaders' lines and nearly reach
Tudor. All that prevented Richard from reaching Henry was Stanley's assault on
the Yorkist flank/rear.
Anne wrote:
So, in this scenario, if Northumberland was
important to Richard's strategy he certainly failed him tactically. Was he
really in a position to act as a check on a mounted force moving suddenly in an
unexpected direction? Do we have a real basis for thinking that he was intended
to act as a deterrent to Stanley? If so, did events unfold to fast for him to
move? If not, we're left with the question of why Richard took the core of his
army and himself across Stanley's front. Stanley didn't have to defeat the
king's force, only slow it and break it up enough after the front echelon had
passed--who were then isolated. And died to the last man. Obviously Richard
didn't expect Stanley's action, the unanswered question is why? Why this
colossal miscalculation?"
Doug here:
To start from the bottom: I don't think there *was*
a miscalculation, militarily anyway, on Richard's part. Once the decision was
made to fight a battle, there was no need for Northumberland to remain
"guarding" the London Road. However, there *was* a need provide some sort of
counter against Stanley. If, as I believe, Northumberland wasn't needed to
guard the London Road, then the question follows: why weren't Northumberland's
men *also* sent into battle? Crush, literally, the enemy by using overwhelming
force?
I posit that the reason *that* didn't happen is
because Richard, not knowing what Stanley would do, used Northumberlands
men to, um, "repress" any rash moves on Stanley's part. And, this is what I
find amazing, it worked - right up until Richard himself entered the
battle. Then, *and only then*, did Stanley make any move.
Now, if the presence of Northumberland's men had
prevented Stanley from entering the battle *up until that point*, which my
thesis, what had changed? The only change I can note is that Richard was now
among the men fighting...
Because, or so it seems to me, the question that
*should* have been asked for lo these many centuries *isn't* "Why did Richard
make that fatal charge?", but rather "Why did Stanley, who been sitting on the
sidelines, suddenly make *his* charge?"
A final point - *if* Northumberland was too far way
to have any effect on the battle, then why didn't Stanley attack Richard
*before* Richard entered it?
Doug
(who broke your post down to, hopefully, better
answer it. If you prefer me not to, I won't in
future.)
"Doug--I completely agree with your assessment that
with a medieval levy-type force, a commander wouldn't have wasted time on any
retreat contingency plan--orderly retreat under fire was difficult even for
modern era armies. If Northumberland was indeed where Jones places him, could he
have been initially rasked to prevent *Tudor* moving towards
London?"
Doug here:
That's a certainly a possibility, although I tend
to think that any guarding of the London Road by Northumberland would have
been done for the purpose of, first, ensuring that if a retreat by
Richard's forces was decided on, it could be carried out safely and, second, to
allow re-inforcements for Richard, if any were on their way, to reach
him.
But, and this is the point so many writers
seem to miss, all the above reasons would disappear once the decision was made
to fight it out. If retreat was neither feasible nor considered, there was no
reason to *continue* guarding the London Road. Attacking without waiting for
re-inforcements - no need to *continue* guarding their approach
route.
If I understand Tudor's position, even prior to the
start of the battle, the invaders had adopted a defensive position with the
flanks guarded by a a thick woods on one side and a marsh on the other.
By doing so, however, Tudor not only reduced
*his* front and made it easier to defend, he also limited his own
manouverability(sp?). Tudor could only retreat *if* he used a substantial
portion of his troops as a rear guard - and they wouldn't be enough to prevent
Richard from launching an attack, breaking through the rear-guard and attacking
the remaining enemy forces *as they retreated*! And that would hold true whether
Tudor was declining battle entirely, trying to move it to another site or, as
you suggest, trying to get between Richard's forces and
London.
Anne wrote:
"The uncertainty about this battle--the exact
location, the number and disposition of forces, and even the timing of
events--makes trying to understand, let alone critique, any unit commander's
action highly speculative. Not that stops us."
Doug here:
Especially if, as in my view, one suspects that
much about the battle *deliberately* wasn't elaborated on at the time because it
didn't fit the narrative of "Tudor, the savior of England." I mean really, what
kind of "savior" has to rely on *someone else* killing the "bad
guy"?
Anne wrote:
"It appears to me that Richard's strategy was to
force battle quickly on ground of his choosing. In the fuedal scheme of things
one of the foundations of 'good lordship' was the ability of the lord to protect
those who swore loyalty to him in turn, and one who was perceived to fail in
this could find his support falling off, resulting in further weakening. And
Richard already had loyalty problems, especially in the south."
Doug here:
That "good lordship" concept also applied
*upwards* as well as downwards. As did loyalty. It would be one thing to just
not show up in support of one's lord with the understood "reason" being that the
men couldn't be gathered together and properly equipped in the time
available and quite a few availed themselves of that strategy.
Then there were those such as the Stanleys,
well-known for *not* taking sides until the last minute. That, um,
"hesitancy", would then give their actions a much greater importance
than an earlier out-and-out declaration of support would have.
Then, finally, there's Northumberland. Other than
his showing up to support Richard, there's, literally, *nothing* known for
certainty about where he was before or during the battle. Or even what his
orders were. And the best reason I can come up with for Northumberland being so
ignored is that his orders from Richard *did* place him a position to provide
support if needed and Northumberland, either through incompetency or treachery
(even a charge of incompetency would have severely
affected Northumberland's reputation and ability to rule in the north),
didn't carry out those orders.
A case of "six one, half a dozen of
another"...
Anne wrote:
"A strategy of harassing a smaller invading force
while waiting for reliable reinforcements may make sense to us, from our
viewpoint of nation states and armies, but evidently Richard's calculus was
quite different. For Tudor--really whoever was in charge--avoiding decisive
battle while demonstrating the ability to harry the countryside might have
gained more supporters."
Doug here:
Again, from my understandig of Bosworth, until
Norfolk's death, Richard's men were winning. Or, at the very least, *not*
losing. It was the death of Norfolk, their commander, that caused the
Yorkists to waver and begin to give way, not a lack of troops. When Richard
entered the battle, he brought with him, *at most* a couple of hundred men.
Another thing that keeps getting "overlooked"(?), is that, until Stanley
intervened, Richard was winning. Remember, it was
with the men already on the field *and* those who accompanied him, that made it
possible for Richard to break throught the invaders' lines and nearly reach
Tudor. All that prevented Richard from reaching Henry was Stanley's assault on
the Yorkist flank/rear.
Anne wrote:
So, in this scenario, if Northumberland was
important to Richard's strategy he certainly failed him tactically. Was he
really in a position to act as a check on a mounted force moving suddenly in an
unexpected direction? Do we have a real basis for thinking that he was intended
to act as a deterrent to Stanley? If so, did events unfold to fast for him to
move? If not, we're left with the question of why Richard took the core of his
army and himself across Stanley's front. Stanley didn't have to defeat the
king's force, only slow it and break it up enough after the front echelon had
passed--who were then isolated. And died to the last man. Obviously Richard
didn't expect Stanley's action, the unanswered question is why? Why this
colossal miscalculation?"
Doug here:
To start from the bottom: I don't think there *was*
a miscalculation, militarily anyway, on Richard's part. Once the decision was
made to fight a battle, there was no need for Northumberland to remain
"guarding" the London Road. However, there *was* a need provide some sort of
counter against Stanley. If, as I believe, Northumberland wasn't needed to
guard the London Road, then the question follows: why weren't Northumberland's
men *also* sent into battle? Crush, literally, the enemy by using overwhelming
force?
I posit that the reason *that* didn't happen is
because Richard, not knowing what Stanley would do, used Northumberlands
men to, um, "repress" any rash moves on Stanley's part. And, this is what I
find amazing, it worked - right up until Richard himself entered the
battle. Then, *and only then*, did Stanley make any move.
Now, if the presence of Northumberland's men had
prevented Stanley from entering the battle *up until that point*, which my
thesis, what had changed? The only change I can note is that Richard was now
among the men fighting...
Because, or so it seems to me, the question that
*should* have been asked for lo these many centuries *isn't* "Why did Richard
make that fatal charge?", but rather "Why did Stanley, who been sitting on the
sidelines, suddenly make *his* charge?"
A final point - *if* Northumberland was too far way
to have any effect on the battle, then why didn't Stanley attack Richard
*before* Richard entered it?
Doug
(who broke your post down to, hopefully, better
answer it. If you prefer me not to, I won't in
future.)
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2014-03-06 16:45:38
Doug..once again...you have made some very goods points here..Eileen
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2014-03-06 17:04:10
Exactly - which proves why I shall never be a military historian :) One thing I would add in response to an earlier post is that, if in 1483 Richard lacked support in the South (and indeed anywhere except the North East and London) so did Edward and the House of York - forget tales of sympathy for little boys! I have now meandered most of the country to respond to David and AJ looking at a few thousand folk (mop my brow!). I'll give you a bit more detail when I have time to 'write it up' but I would have to conclude that it has little to do with Richard and a lot to do with historic familiy interests,networks, loyalties and grudges - what a surprise!! H
On Thursday, 6 March 2014, 16:45, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Doug..once again...you have made some very goods points here..Eileen
On Thursday, 6 March 2014, 16:45, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Doug..once again...you have made some very goods points here..Eileen
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2014-03-06 17:20:01
Thank you, Anne and Doug,for all this information. Kathryn x
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2014-03-06 19:05:31
I would think a lot of those large landowners would not favour a king who supported fairness and equality under the law for the common man.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: RE: Northumberland at Bosworth
Sent:
Thu, Mar 6, 2014 5:01:24 PM
Exactly - which proves why I shall never be a military historian :) One thing I would add in response to an earlier post is that, if in 1483 Richard lacked support in the South (and indeed anywhere except the North East and London) so did Edward and the House of York - forget tales of sympathy for little boys! I have now meandered most of the country to respond to David and AJ looking at a few thousand folk (mop my brow!). I'll give you a bit more detail when I have time to 'write it up' but I would have to conclude that it has little to do with Richard and a lot to do with historic familiy interests,networks, loyalties and grudges - what a surprise!! H
On Thursday, 6 March 2014, 16:45, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Doug..once again...you have made some very goods points here..Eileen
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From:
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: RE: Northumberland at Bosworth
Sent:
Thu, Mar 6, 2014 5:01:24 PM
Exactly - which proves why I shall never be a military historian :) One thing I would add in response to an earlier post is that, if in 1483 Richard lacked support in the South (and indeed anywhere except the North East and London) so did Edward and the House of York - forget tales of sympathy for little boys! I have now meandered most of the country to respond to David and AJ looking at a few thousand folk (mop my brow!). I'll give you a bit more detail when I have time to 'write it up' but I would have to conclude that it has little to do with Richard and a lot to do with historic familiy interests,networks, loyalties and grudges - what a surprise!! H
On Thursday, 6 March 2014, 16:45, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Doug..once again...you have made some very goods points here..Eileen
Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-06 15:49:24
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his 2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one. It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it than me. He knows his battles!So this is my very simplified version of what he says:Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more risk.Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are some good arguments between Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by this point. And it's not unreasonable.Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right. Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's approach and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear.I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis. H(this is also of course based on the cannon and fragments found on the new battlefield)
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-06 20:38:06
Sorry H, but I got as far as you mentioning how Foard has Richard moving troops down Ambien Hill.The battle did not take place on or even near Ambien, so any theory including it is incorrect, and completely outdated by the archeological evidence. And for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of medieval battles, has always been a ridiculous idea!Sorry.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 6 mars 2019 à 16:13, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his 2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one. It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it than me. He knows his battles!So this is my very simplified version of what he says:Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more risk.Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are some good arguments between
Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by this point. And it's not unreasonable.Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right. Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's
approach and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear.I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis. H(this is also of course based on the cannon and fragments found on the new battlefield)
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his 2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one. It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it than me. He knows his battles!So this is my very simplified version of what he says:Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more risk.Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are some good arguments between
Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by this point. And it's not unreasonable.Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right. Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's
approach and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear.I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis. H(this is also of course based on the cannon and fragments found on the new battlefield)
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-07 09:32:42
Sorry, for Stoke Golding in Northumberland's case read Sutton Cheney! H
On Wednesday, 6 March 2019, 16:46:08 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his 2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one. It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it than me. He knows his battles!So this is my very simplified version of what he says:Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more risk.Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are some good arguments between Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by this point. And it's not unreasonable.Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right. Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's approach and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear.I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis. H(this is also of course based on the cannon and fragments found on the new battlefield)
On Wednesday, 6 March 2019, 16:46:08 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his 2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one. It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it than me. He knows his battles!So this is my very simplified version of what he says:Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more risk.Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are some good arguments between Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by this point. And it's not unreasonable.Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right. Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's approach and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear.I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis. H(this is also of course based on the cannon and fragments found on the new battlefield)
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-07 14:31:53
Hi Paul, Judging by the scale of the map, Richard is about 1.5 kms from Ambion Hill, on the plain below next to the River Sense, within sight of Stoke Golding (where the Stanleys were quartered the night before) , Crown Hill and of course right next to Fenn Lane.Please don't trash the book, trash me and my explanation - and I'll forgive you!. This is the latest archaeological evidence. There are pages and pages of maps showing distributions of roundshot etc. He's even measured the spacings between troops for deployment to estimate the true size of the armies. And he doesn't have a partisan axe to grind and it's co-written with the help of Anne Curry.But I could do with someone like Doug to cast an eye - he might just be able to get a bit of it online without paying.It's a very impressive work, using a number of contemporary sources, not just Vergil. Cheers H
On Wednesday, 6 March 2019, 23:01:39 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Sorry H, but I got as far as you mentioning how Foard has Richard moving troops down Ambien Hill.The battle did not take place on or even near Ambien, so any theory including it is incorrect, and completely outdated by the archeological evidence. And for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of medieval battles, has always been a ridiculous idea!Sorry.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 6 mars 2019 à 16:13, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his 2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one. It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it than me. He knows his battles!So this is my very simplified version of what he says:Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more risk.Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are some good arguments between
Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by this point. And it's not unreasonable.Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right. Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's
approach and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear..I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis. H(this is also of course based on the cannon and fragments found on the new battlefield)
On Wednesday, 6 March 2019, 23:01:39 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Sorry H, but I got as far as you mentioning how Foard has Richard moving troops down Ambien Hill.The battle did not take place on or even near Ambien, so any theory including it is incorrect, and completely outdated by the archeological evidence. And for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of medieval battles, has always been a ridiculous idea!Sorry.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 6 mars 2019 à 16:13, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his 2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one. It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it than me. He knows his battles!So this is my very simplified version of what he says:Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more risk.Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are some good arguments between
Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by this point. And it's not unreasonable.Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right. Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's
approach and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear..I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis. H(this is also of course based on the cannon and fragments found on the new battlefield)
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-07 16:54:53
I have to say Hilary I am with Paul on this. I am a bit wary of Foard, not because I think he didn't do a good dig and yes he did discover the shot and the silver boar etc. However, I think it was some of the comments he made when the dig was publicised. He said that where he found the silver boar must have been where Richard had died. I think that he also tried to make out that Michael Jones and Paul Foss were wrong. I think Paul Foss wrote in the Bulletin or the Ricardian to put his version of the battle into context. I spoke to a member of the Executive around the time of the discovery and said that I thought there would have been lots of silver boars on that field but it doesn't mean that the one they found was where Richard died and the Executive member agreed and said it was a fantastic discovery but that more work needed to be done and I agreed. I have just recently read in Peter Hammond's book The Children of Richard III that Richard ordered 13,000 boar badges when Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales.The area where they are building the electric car testing site is now considered to be part of the battle site and that is much nearer to the Fenn Lanes and Watling St and if I remember rightly when all the disagreements were going on it was said that that was where Richard died. I have had an e-mail from R3 Worcestershire and they do not have a copy of the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland but said that they had heard that Tudor wanted to make for London to seize the throne so his route would need blocking so maybe that was what Northumberland was doing but obviously they are not sure what happened. In his book about Merevale and Atherstone John Austin says that Tudor intended to march south from Shrewsbury more or less down Watling St. Austin says the last thing he wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard. Richard would have to ensure that Tudor turned East when he arrived at Watling St presumably because he had decided that this was the best area for the battle. John Austin lives locally and he has provided local oral traditions to support Michael Jones idea that battle was fought between Mythe and Fenny Drayton. Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-07 17:29:06
I walked the site a number of times, and the Fenn Lanes location is squarely in the midst of where the fighting was.Following guidance from the archeological team and my own instincts I found a field that is surprisingly peaceful, thatfor me felt right for where Richard died. None of the battle was fought on Ambien. In fact Hilary, and Mr Foard, there is no evidence Richard ever had troops stationed on Ambien. Had it been so and he could have spread out his army to force Tudor to to fight him there he would have been crazy to give up such a good position on the high ground, But the Fenn Lanes site does how how he was lied up along a rise that Tudor had no way of manoeuvring around.I recall the first time I went there after they opened the visitors centre and had laid out their planned walk using their pet historian's theory that it took place on and around Ambien. I was with a group of Ricardians from the Yorkshire branch, who thought me nuts when I kept saying "No not here." "Stanley there? You are kidding me!" "Tudor there? Richard could have shot him easily if he was that close and so on. On another visit, in 1983, I discovered Peter Foss sitting outside the church in Dadlington selling copies of his theory. Spent a long time talking with him and he walked me about the site. I passed on his details to the Society who then published his work in The Ricardian. He was pretty close in his ideas to what the archeologists would later discover. And like me, he totally poo pooed the idea that any fighting took place on Ambien. I later discovered that the council realising there was money to be made from Richard tried to buy up the farmland around the Fenn Lanes, but couldn't get it, so they bought Ambien instead and asked Danny Williams from Leicester university to write something that made it fit!One boar doesn't make a Richard! I'm certain there is lots more to discover, though looters would have been fast onto the scene after the fighting, taking away anything of value like silver boars.
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...
On 7 Mar 2019, at 17:54, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:I have to say Hilary I am with Paul on this. I am a bit wary of Foard, not because I think he didn't do a good dig and yes he did discover the shot and the silver boar etc. However, I think it was some of the comments he made when the dig was publicised. He said that where he found the silver boar must have been where Richard had died. I think that he also tried to make out that Michael Jones and Paul Foss were wrong. I think Paul Foss wrote in the Bulletin or the Ricardian to put his version of the battle into context. I spoke to a member of the Executive around the time of the discovery and said that I thought there would have been lots of silver boars on that field but it doesn't mean that the one they found was where Richard died and the Executive member agreed and said it was a fantastic discovery but that more work needed to be done and I agreed. I have just recently read in Peter Hammond's book The Children of Richard III that Richard ordered 13,000 boar badges when Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales.The area where they are building the electric car testing site is now considered to be part of the battle site and that is much nearer to the Fenn Lanes and Watling St and if I remember rightly when all the disagreements were going on it was said that that was where Richard died. I have had an e-mail from R3 Worcestershire and they do not have a copy of the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland but said that they had heard that Tudor wanted to make for London to seize the throne so his route would need blocking so maybe that was what Northumberland was doing but obviously they are not sure what happened. In his book about Merevale and Atherstone John Austin says that Tudor intended to march south from Shrewsbury more or less down Watling St. Austin says the last thing he wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard. Richard would have to ensure that Tudor turned East when he arrived at Watling St presumably because he had decided that this was the best area for the battle. John Austin lives locally and he has provided local oral traditions to support Michael Jones idea that battle was fought between Mythe and Fenny Drayton. Mary
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...
On 7 Mar 2019, at 17:54, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:I have to say Hilary I am with Paul on this. I am a bit wary of Foard, not because I think he didn't do a good dig and yes he did discover the shot and the silver boar etc. However, I think it was some of the comments he made when the dig was publicised. He said that where he found the silver boar must have been where Richard had died. I think that he also tried to make out that Michael Jones and Paul Foss were wrong. I think Paul Foss wrote in the Bulletin or the Ricardian to put his version of the battle into context. I spoke to a member of the Executive around the time of the discovery and said that I thought there would have been lots of silver boars on that field but it doesn't mean that the one they found was where Richard died and the Executive member agreed and said it was a fantastic discovery but that more work needed to be done and I agreed. I have just recently read in Peter Hammond's book The Children of Richard III that Richard ordered 13,000 boar badges when Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales.The area where they are building the electric car testing site is now considered to be part of the battle site and that is much nearer to the Fenn Lanes and Watling St and if I remember rightly when all the disagreements were going on it was said that that was where Richard died. I have had an e-mail from R3 Worcestershire and they do not have a copy of the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland but said that they had heard that Tudor wanted to make for London to seize the throne so his route would need blocking so maybe that was what Northumberland was doing but obviously they are not sure what happened. In his book about Merevale and Atherstone John Austin says that Tudor intended to march south from Shrewsbury more or less down Watling St. Austin says the last thing he wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard. Richard would have to ensure that Tudor turned East when he arrived at Watling St presumably because he had decided that this was the best area for the battle. John Austin lives locally and he has provided local oral traditions to support Michael Jones idea that battle was fought between Mythe and Fenny Drayton. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Boswort
2019-03-07 17:29:54
Hilary,
Thank you very much for
the summary! Foard's definitely going to get mentioned the next time I'm at the
book store!
I had to refresh my
memory re Oudenarde and, yes, Oxford's reported tactics do resemble
Marlborough's at that battle. In the latter case, while Marlborogh and Prince
Eugene were concentrating the attention of the French commander, the Duke of
Vendome, on them and their troops, Dutch and other Allied cavalry units attacked
the French right from the flank and rear. Substitute Sir William for those Dutch
cavalry and there you are!
Doug
Hilary wrote:
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his
2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one.
It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it
than me. He knows his battles!
So this is my very simplified
version of what he says:
Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of
the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a
narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more
thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more
risk.
Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved
his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are
some good arguments between Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that
successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is
discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by
this point. And it's not unreasonable.
Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had
overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer
to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.
Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on
either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right.
Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his
troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing
him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this
was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?
Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking
him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme
left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to
attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford
had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because
it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible
for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.
On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but
to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed
since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk
Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's
account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's approach
and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear.
I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated
assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had
the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.
Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Thank you very much for
the summary! Foard's definitely going to get mentioned the next time I'm at the
book store!
I had to refresh my
memory re Oudenarde and, yes, Oxford's reported tactics do resemble
Marlborough's at that battle. In the latter case, while Marlborogh and Prince
Eugene were concentrating the attention of the French commander, the Duke of
Vendome, on them and their troops, Dutch and other Allied cavalry units attacked
the French right from the flank and rear. Substitute Sir William for those Dutch
cavalry and there you are!
Doug
Hilary wrote:
I have now read Glen Foard's interpretation of the battle as per his
2013 book. Doug I would recommend your raiding your piggy-bank for this one.
It's not cheap, but cheaper on Kindle. And you would get a lot more out of it
than me. He knows his battles!
So this is my very simplified
version of what he says:
Firstly, as always, it was the terrain that determined the outcome of
the battle. The troops at Towton, where some 28000 fought, were forced into a
narrow deep channel. Richard's battlefield was wide,so he spread his troops more
thinly and there were only about 2000 of them. Therefore they were at more
risk.
Secondly, prominence was now being given to artillery so Richard moved
his army lower down the other side of Ambien Hill, nearer the stream. There are
some good arguments between Foard and the late Robert Hardy about the fact that
successful bowmen would have needed to have a better vantage point but this is
discarded because Foard believes that artillery was expected to carry the day by
this point. And it's not unreasonable.
Thirdly, Richard had experienced Barnet where Lancastrian artillery had
overshot the Yorkist targets so again he had moved nearer, and as such, nearer
to the stream and Marsh which were to split the battlefield.
Oxford and Norfolk's vanguards were positioned opposite one another on
either side of the stream on the edge of the marsh and to Richard's right.
Convention was that they should fight facing one another but Oxford bent his
troops around the side of the marsh and attacked Norfolk from the side, forcing
him to flee towards Dadlington, where he was cornered and died. Apparently this
was a tactic adopted by Marlborough at Oudenarde?
Thomas Stanley was to Richard's left. HT sent messages to him asking
him to desert Richard but Stanley refused. William Stanley was on the extreme
left edge of the marsh, below his brother, just standing by for the order to
attack. Northumberland was to Norfolk's north, near Stoke Golding. Once Oxford
had chased Norfolk, Northumberland could not go to his or Richard's aid because
it meant crossing the marsh. He is exonerated. His position made it impossible
for him to help and he was nowhere near the A5.
On seeing Norfolk's vanguard in deep trouble, Richard had no option but
to try to save the day. That was the warfare convention of the time, indeed
since Hastings. So when HT's position was exposed by his troops chasing Norfolk
Richard made his charge and his horse slipped in the marsh, making Vergil's
account (and indeed most of it) pretty accurate. On seeing Richard's approach
and likely trouble WS joined in for HT and attacked from the rear.
I'm sure if you the book you can make a much more sophisticated
assessment. However, it is interesting that even Vergil said that Richard had
the most faith in his northern troops - and that included Percy.
Hope this helps and is not too bad an analysis.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-08 04:46:42
Hilary,
Not
to worry, I don't know how many times I had to replace one name with the
other!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Sorry,
for Stoke Golding in Northumberland's case read Sutton Cheney!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Not
to worry, I don't know how many times I had to replace one name with the
other!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Sorry,
for Stoke Golding in Northumberland's case read Sutton Cheney!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-08 05:24:15
Mary,
Just
two things. First, I seriously doubt those 13,000 badges were silver,
so it's likely the owner of that particular badge was, if not Richard, then
perhaps one of those who entered the battle with him. The second concerns
Northumberland blocking the road to London. If Northumberland had been in a
position to block an advance down Watling Street by Tudor, then Tudor's only
hope would have been to turn aside and try to maneuver around
Northumberland.
FWIW,
it appears to me as if Tudor, probably advised by Oxford, turned to face
Richard, not because Northumberland was blocking their way to London, but
because if they continued down Watling Street, that would place Richard in their
rear. And, if my memory serves me correctly, there were troops assembling in
Nottingham and it was to unite with those troops that led to Richard being
advised to take his troops to Leicester. The idea being, I imagine, to unite the
two forces and head after Tudor. I don't know who Richard had left in charge in
London, but if Tudor had continued towards that city via Watling Street, he'd
end up on the north side of London with his only hope being that of surprising a
gate and gaining entrance. Otherwise, Tudor'd be trapped between the walls of
London on one side and Richard with all his troops on the other, resulting in a
battle on Moorfields or Smithfields where Tudor would be cut to
shreds.
Pity
that isn't what happened...
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
have to say Hilary I am with Paul on this. I am a bit wary of Foard, not because
I think he didn't do a good dig and yes he did discover the shot and the silver
boar etc. However, I think it was some of the comments he made when the dig was
publicised. He said that where he found the silver boar must have been where
Richard had died. I think that he also tried to make out that Michael Jones and
Paul Foss were wrong. I think Paul Foss wrote in the Bulletin or the Ricardian
to put his version of the battle into context. I spoke to a member of the
Executive around the time of the discovery and said that I thought there would
have been lots of silver boars on that field but it doesn't mean that the one
they found was where Richard died and the Executive member agreed and said it
was a fantastic discovery but that more work needed to be done and I agreed. I
have just recently read in Peter Hammond's book The Children of Richard III that
Richard ordered 13,000 boar badges whe n Edward of Middleham was invested as
Prince of Wales.
The area where they are building the electric car testing site is now
considered to be part of the battle site and that is much nearer to the Fenn
Lanes and Watling St and if I remember rightly when all the disagreements were
going on it was said that that was where Richard died.
I have had an e-mail from R3 Worcestershire and they do not have a copy of
the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland but said that they
had heard that Tudor wanted to make for London to seize the throne so his route
would need blocking so maybe that was what Northumberland was doing but
obviously they are not sure what happened. In his book about Merevale and
Atherstone John Austin says that Tudor intended to march south from
Shrewsbury more or less down Watling St. Austin says the last thing he
wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard. Richard would have to
ensure that Tudor turned East when he arrived at Watling St presumably because
he had decided that this was the best area for the battle. John Austin lives
locally and he has provided local oral traditions to support Michael Jones idea
that battle was fought between Mythe and Fenny Drayton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Just
two things. First, I seriously doubt those 13,000 badges were silver,
so it's likely the owner of that particular badge was, if not Richard, then
perhaps one of those who entered the battle with him. The second concerns
Northumberland blocking the road to London. If Northumberland had been in a
position to block an advance down Watling Street by Tudor, then Tudor's only
hope would have been to turn aside and try to maneuver around
Northumberland.
FWIW,
it appears to me as if Tudor, probably advised by Oxford, turned to face
Richard, not because Northumberland was blocking their way to London, but
because if they continued down Watling Street, that would place Richard in their
rear. And, if my memory serves me correctly, there were troops assembling in
Nottingham and it was to unite with those troops that led to Richard being
advised to take his troops to Leicester. The idea being, I imagine, to unite the
two forces and head after Tudor. I don't know who Richard had left in charge in
London, but if Tudor had continued towards that city via Watling Street, he'd
end up on the north side of London with his only hope being that of surprising a
gate and gaining entrance. Otherwise, Tudor'd be trapped between the walls of
London on one side and Richard with all his troops on the other, resulting in a
battle on Moorfields or Smithfields where Tudor would be cut to
shreds.
Pity
that isn't what happened...
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
have to say Hilary I am with Paul on this. I am a bit wary of Foard, not because
I think he didn't do a good dig and yes he did discover the shot and the silver
boar etc. However, I think it was some of the comments he made when the dig was
publicised. He said that where he found the silver boar must have been where
Richard had died. I think that he also tried to make out that Michael Jones and
Paul Foss were wrong. I think Paul Foss wrote in the Bulletin or the Ricardian
to put his version of the battle into context. I spoke to a member of the
Executive around the time of the discovery and said that I thought there would
have been lots of silver boars on that field but it doesn't mean that the one
they found was where Richard died and the Executive member agreed and said it
was a fantastic discovery but that more work needed to be done and I agreed. I
have just recently read in Peter Hammond's book The Children of Richard III that
Richard ordered 13,000 boar badges whe n Edward of Middleham was invested as
Prince of Wales.
The area where they are building the electric car testing site is now
considered to be part of the battle site and that is much nearer to the Fenn
Lanes and Watling St and if I remember rightly when all the disagreements were
going on it was said that that was where Richard died.
I have had an e-mail from R3 Worcestershire and they do not have a copy of
the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland but said that they
had heard that Tudor wanted to make for London to seize the throne so his route
would need blocking so maybe that was what Northumberland was doing but
obviously they are not sure what happened. In his book about Merevale and
Atherstone John Austin says that Tudor intended to march south from
Shrewsbury more or less down Watling St. Austin says the last thing he
wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard. Richard would have to
ensure that Tudor turned East when he arrived at Watling St presumably because
he had decided that this was the best area for the battle. John Austin lives
locally and he has provided local oral traditions to support Michael Jones idea
that battle was fought between Mythe and Fenny Drayton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-08 11:03:50
Hi I'm plunging in again! Firstly the book itself is 220 pages of A3 with two columns on each page. It logs and maps every single artifact and weapon found on the dig and of course in the case of artillery, the range from whence it could have been fired. There are numerous maps showing the interpretation of what happened where and, as far as other interpretation goes, I reckon most of the source discussion is by Anne Curry. The main sources are Vergil, Molinet (who had no geographical knowledge), de Valera and Croyland - all suspect we know, but it is possible to draw common threads. We also know from Thomas Penn that HT didn't have a particularly good relationship with his 'historians' - Vergil and Andre were always at each other's throats.I can see where there are bits in the interpretation, particularly those that said Richard was deserted by many, that are pure Tudor propaganda, but I think we have to blame Curry for that because Foard is primarily a battlefield guy. It doesn't really matter to him about who was in the right; it's purely about strategy and tactics, that's pretty clear in his imagining of the battle. And the maps he uses for the positions of the armies are those of Foss.I don't think publicity has served this well, well certainly from your point of view. Take the boar badge. It's famous but it was one a number of high grade artifacts such as horse harnesses, sword hilts, which were found in only one place on the battlefield; and that's the Marsh. Also the whole thing is a hypothesis based on archaeology and known battle tactics; he doesn't say he's got everything right. I really do think it needs someone like Doug to read it - and it may take him some time...BTW it's de Valera who says Thomas Stanley was there, but no-one seems to know whether he did anything. I think it was probably like Blore Heath and he just sat there. H
On Friday, 8 March 2019, 05:24:18 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Just
two things. First, I seriously doubt those 13,000 badges were silver,
so it's likely the owner of that particular badge was, if not Richard, then
perhaps one of those who entered the battle with him. The second concerns
Northumberland blocking the road to London. If Northumberland had been in a
position to block an advance down Watling Street by Tudor, then Tudor's only
hope would have been to turn aside and try to maneuver around
Northumberland.
FWIW,
it appears to me as if Tudor, probably advised by Oxford, turned to face
Richard, not because Northumberland was blocking their way to London, but
because if they continued down Watling Street, that would place Richard in their
rear. And, if my memory serves me correctly, there were troops assembling in
Nottingham and it was to unite with those troops that led to Richard being
advised to take his troops to Leicester. The idea being, I imagine, to unite the
two forces and head after Tudor. I don't know who Richard had left in charge in
London, but if Tudor had continued towards that city via Watling Street, he'd
end up on the north side of London with his only hope being that of surprising a
gate and gaining entrance. Otherwise, Tudor'd be trapped between the walls of
London on one side and Richard with all his troops on the other, resulting in a
battle on Moorfields or Smithfields where Tudor would be cut to
shreds.
Pity
that isn't what happened...
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
have to say Hilary I am with Paul on this. I am a bit wary of Foard, not because
I think he didn't do a good dig and yes he did discover the shot and the silver
boar etc. However, I think it was some of the comments he made when the dig was
publicised. He said that where he found the silver boar must have been where
Richard had died. I think that he also tried to make out that Michael Jones and
Paul Foss were wrong. I think Paul Foss wrote in the Bulletin or the Ricardian
to put his version of the battle into context. I spoke to a member of the
Executive around the time of the discovery and said that I thought there would
have been lots of silver boars on that field but it doesn't mean that the one
they found was where Richard died and the Executive member agreed and said it
was a fantastic discovery but that more work needed to be done and I agreed.. I
have just recently read in Peter Hammond's book The Children of Richard III that
Richard ordered 13,000 boar badges whe n Edward of Middleham was invested as
Prince of Wales.
The area where they are building the electric car testing site is now
considered to be part of the battle site and that is much nearer to the Fenn
Lanes and Watling St and if I remember rightly when all the disagreements were
going on it was said that that was where Richard died.
I have had an e-mail from R3 Worcestershire and they do not have a copy of
the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland but said that they
had heard that Tudor wanted to make for London to seize the throne so his route
would need blocking so maybe that was what Northumberland was doing but
obviously they are not sure what happened. In his book about Merevale and
Atherstone John Austin says that Tudor intended to march south from
Shrewsbury more or less down Watling St. Austin says the last thing he
wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard. Richard would have to
ensure that Tudor turned East when he arrived at Watling St presumably because
he had decided that this was the best area for the battle. John Austin lives
locally and he has provided local oral traditions to support Michael Jones idea
that battle was fought between Mythe and Fenny Drayton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 8 March 2019, 05:24:18 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Just
two things. First, I seriously doubt those 13,000 badges were silver,
so it's likely the owner of that particular badge was, if not Richard, then
perhaps one of those who entered the battle with him. The second concerns
Northumberland blocking the road to London. If Northumberland had been in a
position to block an advance down Watling Street by Tudor, then Tudor's only
hope would have been to turn aside and try to maneuver around
Northumberland.
FWIW,
it appears to me as if Tudor, probably advised by Oxford, turned to face
Richard, not because Northumberland was blocking their way to London, but
because if they continued down Watling Street, that would place Richard in their
rear. And, if my memory serves me correctly, there were troops assembling in
Nottingham and it was to unite with those troops that led to Richard being
advised to take his troops to Leicester. The idea being, I imagine, to unite the
two forces and head after Tudor. I don't know who Richard had left in charge in
London, but if Tudor had continued towards that city via Watling Street, he'd
end up on the north side of London with his only hope being that of surprising a
gate and gaining entrance. Otherwise, Tudor'd be trapped between the walls of
London on one side and Richard with all his troops on the other, resulting in a
battle on Moorfields or Smithfields where Tudor would be cut to
shreds.
Pity
that isn't what happened...
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
have to say Hilary I am with Paul on this. I am a bit wary of Foard, not because
I think he didn't do a good dig and yes he did discover the shot and the silver
boar etc. However, I think it was some of the comments he made when the dig was
publicised. He said that where he found the silver boar must have been where
Richard had died. I think that he also tried to make out that Michael Jones and
Paul Foss were wrong. I think Paul Foss wrote in the Bulletin or the Ricardian
to put his version of the battle into context. I spoke to a member of the
Executive around the time of the discovery and said that I thought there would
have been lots of silver boars on that field but it doesn't mean that the one
they found was where Richard died and the Executive member agreed and said it
was a fantastic discovery but that more work needed to be done and I agreed.. I
have just recently read in Peter Hammond's book The Children of Richard III that
Richard ordered 13,000 boar badges whe n Edward of Middleham was invested as
Prince of Wales.
The area where they are building the electric car testing site is now
considered to be part of the battle site and that is much nearer to the Fenn
Lanes and Watling St and if I remember rightly when all the disagreements were
going on it was said that that was where Richard died.
I have had an e-mail from R3 Worcestershire and they do not have a copy of
the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland but said that they
had heard that Tudor wanted to make for London to seize the throne so his route
would need blocking so maybe that was what Northumberland was doing but
obviously they are not sure what happened. In his book about Merevale and
Atherstone John Austin says that Tudor intended to march south from
Shrewsbury more or less down Watling St. Austin says the last thing he
wanted to do was to search out and attack Richard. Richard would have to
ensure that Tudor turned East when he arrived at Watling St presumably because
he had decided that this was the best area for the battle. John Austin lives
locally and he has provided local oral traditions to support Michael Jones idea
that battle was fought between Mythe and Fenny Drayton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-09 02:54:32
Hilary,
I just ordered Ingram's book as well as Foard's, but I'm not certain when they'll arrive. You were right about the cost of the Foard book, but I gave myself an early birthday present. I figure between the two of them I should be able to get a much better grasp of the topography and that should make it easier to understand who was where.
BTW, the only problem those common threads may represent is that they could possibly be exactly the same thread, followed consecutively by each author. Maybe I'm just cynical...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Hi I'm plunging in again! Firstly the book itself is 220 pages of A3 with two columns on each page. It logs and maps every single artifact and weapon found on the dig and of course in the case of artillery, the range from whence it could have been fired. There are numerous maps showing the interpretation of what happened where and, as far as other interpretation goes, I reckon most of the source discussion is by Anne Curry. The main sources are Vergil, Molinet (who had no geographical knowledge), de Valera and Croyland - all suspect we know, but it is possible to draw common threads. We also know from Thomas Penn that HT didn't have a particularly good relationship with his 'historians' - Vergil and Andre were always at each other's throats.
I can see where there are bits in the interpretation, particularly those that said Richard was deserted by many, that are pure Tudor propaganda, but I think we have to blame Curry for that because Foard is primarily a battlefield guy. It doesn't really matter to him about who was in the right; it's purely about strategy and tactics, that's pretty clear in his imagining of the battle. And the maps he uses for the positions of the armies are those of Foss.
I don't think publicity has served this well, well certainly from your point of view. Take the boar badge. It's famous but it was one a number of high grade artifacts such as horse harnesses, sword hilts, which were found in only one place on the battlefield; and that's the Marsh. Also the whole thing is a hypothesis based on archaeology and known battle tactics; he doesn't say he's got everything right. I really do think it needs someone like Doug to read it - and it may take him some time...
BTW it's de Valera who says Thomas Stanley was there, but no-one seems to know whether he did anything. I think it was probably like Blore Heath and he just sat there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I just ordered Ingram's book as well as Foard's, but I'm not certain when they'll arrive. You were right about the cost of the Foard book, but I gave myself an early birthday present. I figure between the two of them I should be able to get a much better grasp of the topography and that should make it easier to understand who was where.
BTW, the only problem those common threads may represent is that they could possibly be exactly the same thread, followed consecutively by each author. Maybe I'm just cynical...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Hi I'm plunging in again! Firstly the book itself is 220 pages of A3 with two columns on each page. It logs and maps every single artifact and weapon found on the dig and of course in the case of artillery, the range from whence it could have been fired. There are numerous maps showing the interpretation of what happened where and, as far as other interpretation goes, I reckon most of the source discussion is by Anne Curry. The main sources are Vergil, Molinet (who had no geographical knowledge), de Valera and Croyland - all suspect we know, but it is possible to draw common threads. We also know from Thomas Penn that HT didn't have a particularly good relationship with his 'historians' - Vergil and Andre were always at each other's throats.
I can see where there are bits in the interpretation, particularly those that said Richard was deserted by many, that are pure Tudor propaganda, but I think we have to blame Curry for that because Foard is primarily a battlefield guy. It doesn't really matter to him about who was in the right; it's purely about strategy and tactics, that's pretty clear in his imagining of the battle. And the maps he uses for the positions of the armies are those of Foss.
I don't think publicity has served this well, well certainly from your point of view. Take the boar badge. It's famous but it was one a number of high grade artifacts such as horse harnesses, sword hilts, which were found in only one place on the battlefield; and that's the Marsh. Also the whole thing is a hypothesis based on archaeology and known battle tactics; he doesn't say he's got everything right. I really do think it needs someone like Doug to read it - and it may take him some time...
BTW it's de Valera who says Thomas Stanley was there, but no-one seems to know whether he did anything. I think it was probably like Blore Heath and he just sat there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-09 04:12:59
I look forward to your conclusions, and as always,I am so impressed by the knowledge and doggedness of each of you finding and questioning, the gospels according to.......
On Mar 8, 2019, at 8:54 PM, 'Doug Stamate'
destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I just ordered Ingram's book as well as Foard's, but I'm not certain when they'll arrive. You were right about the cost of the Foard book, but I gave myself an early birthday present. I figure between the two of them I should be able to get a much better grasp
of the topography and that should make it easier to understand who was where.
BTW, the only problem those common threads may represent is that they could possibly be exactly the same thread, followed consecutively by each author. Maybe I'm just cynical...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Hi I'm plunging in again! Firstly the book itself is 220 pages of A3 with two columns on each page. It logs and maps every single artifact and weapon found on the dig and of course in the case of artillery, the range from whence it could have been fired. There
are numerous maps showing the interpretation of what happened where and, as far as other interpretation goes, I reckon most of the source discussion is by Anne Curry. The main sources are Vergil, Molinet (who had no geographical knowledge), de Valera and Croyland
- all suspect we know, but it is possible to draw common threads. We also know from Thomas Penn that HT didn't have a particularly good relationship with his 'historians' - Vergil and Andre were always at each other's throats.
I can see where there are bits in the interpretation, particularly those that said Richard was deserted by many, that are pure Tudor propaganda, but I think we have to blame Curry for that because Foard is primarily a battlefield guy. It doesn't really matter
to him about who was in the right; it's purely about strategy and tactics, that's pretty clear in his imagining of the battle. And the maps he uses for the positions of the armies are those of Foss.
I don't think publicity has served this well, well certainly from your point of view. Take the boar badge. It's famous but it was one a number of high grade artifacts such as horse harnesses, sword hilts, which were found in only one place on the battlefield;
and that's the Marsh. Also the whole thing is a hypothesis based on archaeology and known battle tactics; he doesn't say he's got everything right. I really do think it needs someone like Doug to read it - and it may take him some time...
BTW it's de Valera who says Thomas Stanley was there, but no-one seems to know whether he did anything. I think it was probably like Blore Heath and he just sat there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Mar 8, 2019, at 8:54 PM, 'Doug Stamate'
destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I just ordered Ingram's book as well as Foard's, but I'm not certain when they'll arrive. You were right about the cost of the Foard book, but I gave myself an early birthday present. I figure between the two of them I should be able to get a much better grasp
of the topography and that should make it easier to understand who was where.
BTW, the only problem those common threads may represent is that they could possibly be exactly the same thread, followed consecutively by each author. Maybe I'm just cynical...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Hi I'm plunging in again! Firstly the book itself is 220 pages of A3 with two columns on each page. It logs and maps every single artifact and weapon found on the dig and of course in the case of artillery, the range from whence it could have been fired. There
are numerous maps showing the interpretation of what happened where and, as far as other interpretation goes, I reckon most of the source discussion is by Anne Curry. The main sources are Vergil, Molinet (who had no geographical knowledge), de Valera and Croyland
- all suspect we know, but it is possible to draw common threads. We also know from Thomas Penn that HT didn't have a particularly good relationship with his 'historians' - Vergil and Andre were always at each other's throats.
I can see where there are bits in the interpretation, particularly those that said Richard was deserted by many, that are pure Tudor propaganda, but I think we have to blame Curry for that because Foard is primarily a battlefield guy. It doesn't really matter
to him about who was in the right; it's purely about strategy and tactics, that's pretty clear in his imagining of the battle. And the maps he uses for the positions of the armies are those of Foss.
I don't think publicity has served this well, well certainly from your point of view. Take the boar badge. It's famous but it was one a number of high grade artifacts such as horse harnesses, sword hilts, which were found in only one place on the battlefield;
and that's the Marsh. Also the whole thing is a hypothesis based on archaeology and known battle tactics; he doesn't say he's got everything right. I really do think it needs someone like Doug to read it - and it may take him some time...
BTW it's de Valera who says Thomas Stanley was there, but no-one seems to know whether he did anything. I think it was probably like Blore Heath and he just sat there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-09 04:57:06
Pamela,
I
have no idea when the books will arrive, so you have plenty of time to stock up
on popcorn...
Doug
Pamela
wrote:
I
look forward to your conclusions, and as always,I am so impressed by the
knowledge and doggedness of each of you finding and questioning, the gospels
according to.......
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
have no idea when the books will arrive, so you have plenty of time to stock up
on popcorn...
Doug
Pamela
wrote:
I
look forward to your conclusions, and as always,I am so impressed by the
knowledge and doggedness of each of you finding and questioning, the gospels
according to.......
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-11 11:01:31
How does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce :) :) H
On Saturday, 9 March 2019, 04:57:39 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Pamela,
I
have no idea when the books will arrive, so you have plenty of time to stock up
on popcorn...
Doug
Pamela
wrote:
I
look forward to your conclusions, and as always,I am so impressed by the
knowledge and doggedness of each of you finding and questioning, the gospels
according to.......
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 9 March 2019, 04:57:39 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Pamela,
I
have no idea when the books will arrive, so you have plenty of time to stock up
on popcorn...
Doug
Pamela
wrote:
I
look forward to your conclusions, and as always,I am so impressed by the
knowledge and doggedness of each of you finding and questioning, the gospels
according to.......
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-11 13:53:55
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-11 15:14:38
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-13 11:17:27
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s. That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking.Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-14 11:45:42
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s. That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking.Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s. That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking.Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-03-14 12:28:00
Hilary,
The
use of alien to describe that Peter Cosyn of London simply meant he wasn't a
native of London, doesn't it?
Or
do we need to make certain our passports are in order?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King
after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton
(which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath
& Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington
and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well.
And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became
Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT.
There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the
early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'.
The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to
connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious
establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand
until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.
Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
The
use of alien to describe that Peter Cosyn of London simply meant he wasn't a
native of London, doesn't it?
Or
do we need to make certain our passports are in order?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King
after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton
(which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath
& Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington
and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well.
And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became
Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT.
There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the
early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'.
The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to
connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious
establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand
until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.
Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-03-14 15:44:38
Doug the other person who was with him had a 'foreign' name :) :) I'll dig it out. Just don't mention passports at the moment! H
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 12:59:38 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
The
use of alien to describe that Peter Cosyn of London simply meant he wasn't a
native of London, doesn't it?
Or
do we need to make certain our passports are in order?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King
after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton
(which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath
& Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington
and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well..
And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became
Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT.
There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the
early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'.
The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to
connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious
establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand
until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.
Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 12:59:38 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
The
use of alien to describe that Peter Cosyn of London simply meant he wasn't a
native of London, doesn't it?
Or
do we need to make certain our passports are in order?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King
after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton
(which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath
& Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington
and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well..
And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became
Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT.
There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the
early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'.
The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to
connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious
establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand
until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.
Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-14 21:10:29
Hilary,
Trust me to put my foot in it!
Hilary wrote:
}Doug the other person who was with him had a 'foreign' name :) :) I'll dig it out. Just don't mention passports at the moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Trust me to put my foot in it!
Hilary wrote:
}Doug the other person who was with him had a 'foreign' name :) :) I'll dig it out. Just don't mention passports at the moment!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-15 13:27:34
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.. That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking.Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.. That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking.Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-15 14:21:00
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-15 17:34:56
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-18 10:15:27
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you.. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s..... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you.. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s..... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-18 10:44:15
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s...... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s...... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-19 10:31:09
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you.... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s....... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you.... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s....... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-19 10:36:46
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you..... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s........ That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you..... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s........ That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-19 12:26:54
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you...... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s......... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you...... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s......... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-19 14:49:33
Hi the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a wife at the moment.Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :) HBTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with their variations.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you....... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.......... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you....... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.......... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-19 14:54:24
You might just get this without paying! HStirnetStirnet
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you....... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.......... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you....... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s.......... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-20 09:56:52
The Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it
strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in
our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or
is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and
property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John
Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the
Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a
wife at the moment.Yes Henry
Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11
June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a
very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching
her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person
:) :) HHi Hilary, Thanks for the Stirnet link. Would Elizabeth Talbot be counted as Lancastrian because of her family of origin or Yorkist from the marriage of Anne Mowbray to Richard of Shrewsbury? I can't imagine her as being too fond of Edward and may have felt pressured into consenting Anne's marriage. Even so, marriage to the royal spare was an excellent prospect for Anne. She would be at least a Royal Duchess and if Edward V died without heirs she would have been Queen. I have always thought found this particular marriage somewhat bizarre, not just because of the children's ages, but because Edward might need young Richard for a foreign alliance later on. Was this Edward trying to make amends for what happened with Eleanor?The idea about Margaret Beaufort sweeping up Yorkist orphans is an interesting one. However, I don't think she benefited from Elizabeth Brackenbury, unless she had some say in her wardship. As far as I know, there was an association between MB, Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn in the early 1500s, but I'm not sure how close they were. I wonder who had the wardship of Joan Brackenbury and arranged her marriage, but whoever her mother was may be the link to that. MB did take charge of the royal children after Bosworth, and it has struck me as unusual that Katherine Plantagenet ended up buried in a church full of Stanleys. The Herberts had a house near St. James Garlickhythe, but if I remember rightly the Stanleys had a stronger association with it, and I would have thought it more likely for her to be buried at Raglan. My suspicion is that she never lived with William Herbert who was hedging his bets with Tudor, and after Bosworth she was sent with the others to MB and died in her care.I'm still wondering whether to get Premium BHOL. Otherwise, the Parliament Rolls are at the library so I will take a look when I go.Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 16:22:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a wife at the moment.Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :) HBTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with their variations.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you........ H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s........... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in
our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or
is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and
property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John
Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the
Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a
wife at the moment.Yes Henry
Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11
June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a
very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching
her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person
:) :) HHi Hilary, Thanks for the Stirnet link. Would Elizabeth Talbot be counted as Lancastrian because of her family of origin or Yorkist from the marriage of Anne Mowbray to Richard of Shrewsbury? I can't imagine her as being too fond of Edward and may have felt pressured into consenting Anne's marriage. Even so, marriage to the royal spare was an excellent prospect for Anne. She would be at least a Royal Duchess and if Edward V died without heirs she would have been Queen. I have always thought found this particular marriage somewhat bizarre, not just because of the children's ages, but because Edward might need young Richard for a foreign alliance later on. Was this Edward trying to make amends for what happened with Eleanor?The idea about Margaret Beaufort sweeping up Yorkist orphans is an interesting one. However, I don't think she benefited from Elizabeth Brackenbury, unless she had some say in her wardship. As far as I know, there was an association between MB, Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn in the early 1500s, but I'm not sure how close they were. I wonder who had the wardship of Joan Brackenbury and arranged her marriage, but whoever her mother was may be the link to that. MB did take charge of the royal children after Bosworth, and it has struck me as unusual that Katherine Plantagenet ended up buried in a church full of Stanleys. The Herberts had a house near St. James Garlickhythe, but if I remember rightly the Stanleys had a stronger association with it, and I would have thought it more likely for her to be buried at Raglan. My suspicion is that she never lived with William Herbert who was hedging his bets with Tudor, and after Bosworth she was sent with the others to MB and died in her care.I'm still wondering whether to get Premium BHOL. Otherwise, the Parliament Rolls are at the library so I will take a look when I go.Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 16:22:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a wife at the moment.Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :) HBTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with their variations.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you........ H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s........... That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-20 10:16:06
Re the Parliament Rolls I'll see if I can copy and paste; sometimes you can with BHOL sometimes you can't.Certainly ET's brothers did well under Tudor and if I recall it correctly, she wasn't overjoyed at the Mowbray marriage. She saw it as a backhanded way of Edward getting hold of the Mowbray lands. I think it's one of those examples that Ross gives where Edward acts more like a member of the nobility than a king.I did have a thought about MB's sponsorship of so many waifs and strays. Perhaps she really didn't know what had happened to the princes but if she had the confidence of those who had some involvement or were relations she stood a chance that something might surface; that someone might contact them?It's another way of spying whilst convincing yourself you're doing good works. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 09:56:57 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
The Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it
strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in
our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or
is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and
property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John
Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the
Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a
wife at the moment.Yes Henry
Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11
June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a
very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching
her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person
:) :) HHi Hilary, Thanks for the Stirnet link. Would Elizabeth Talbot be counted as Lancastrian because of her family of origin or Yorkist from the marriage of Anne Mowbray to Richard of Shrewsbury? I can't imagine her as being too fond of Edward and may have felt pressured into consenting Anne's marriage. Even so, marriage to the royal spare was an excellent prospect for Anne. She would be at least a Royal Duchess and if Edward V died without heirs she would have been Queen. I have always thought found this particular marriage somewhat bizarre, not just because of the children's ages, but because Edward might need young Richard for a foreign alliance later on. Was this Edward trying to make amends for what happened with Eleanor?The idea about Margaret Beaufort sweeping up Yorkist orphans is an interesting one. However, I don't think she benefited from Elizabeth Brackenbury, unless she had some say in her wardship. As far as I know, there was an association between MB, Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn in the early 1500s, but I'm not sure how close they were. I wonder who had the wardship of Joan Brackenbury and arranged her marriage, but whoever her mother was may be the link to that. MB did take charge of the royal children after Bosworth, and it has struck me as unusual that Katherine Plantagenet ended up buried in a church full of Stanleys. The Herberts had a house near St. James Garlickhythe, but if I remember rightly the Stanleys had a stronger association with it, and I would have thought it more likely for her to be buried at Raglan. My suspicion is that she never lived with William Herbert who was hedging his bets with Tudor, and after Bosworth she was sent with the others to MB and died in her care.I'm still wondering whether to get Premium BHOL. Otherwise, the Parliament Rolls are at the library so I will take a look when I go.Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 16:22:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a wife at the moment.Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :) HBTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with their variations.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you......... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s............ That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 09:56:57 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
The Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it
strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in
our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or
is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and
property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John
Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the
Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a
wife at the moment.Yes Henry
Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11
June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a
very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching
her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person
:) :) HHi Hilary, Thanks for the Stirnet link. Would Elizabeth Talbot be counted as Lancastrian because of her family of origin or Yorkist from the marriage of Anne Mowbray to Richard of Shrewsbury? I can't imagine her as being too fond of Edward and may have felt pressured into consenting Anne's marriage. Even so, marriage to the royal spare was an excellent prospect for Anne. She would be at least a Royal Duchess and if Edward V died without heirs she would have been Queen. I have always thought found this particular marriage somewhat bizarre, not just because of the children's ages, but because Edward might need young Richard for a foreign alliance later on. Was this Edward trying to make amends for what happened with Eleanor?The idea about Margaret Beaufort sweeping up Yorkist orphans is an interesting one. However, I don't think she benefited from Elizabeth Brackenbury, unless she had some say in her wardship. As far as I know, there was an association between MB, Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn in the early 1500s, but I'm not sure how close they were. I wonder who had the wardship of Joan Brackenbury and arranged her marriage, but whoever her mother was may be the link to that. MB did take charge of the royal children after Bosworth, and it has struck me as unusual that Katherine Plantagenet ended up buried in a church full of Stanleys. The Herberts had a house near St. James Garlickhythe, but if I remember rightly the Stanleys had a stronger association with it, and I would have thought it more likely for her to be buried at Raglan. My suspicion is that she never lived with William Herbert who was hedging his bets with Tudor, and after Bosworth she was sent with the others to MB and died in her care.I'm still wondering whether to get Premium BHOL. Otherwise, the Parliament Rolls are at the library so I will take a look when I go.Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 16:22:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a wife at the moment.Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :) HBTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with their variations.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you......... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s............ That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-20 10:35:03
Success! I said it was long! Sorry folksFor John Forster, esquire.63. Item, quedam alia peticio exhibita fuit prefato domino regi in eodem parliamento per communitates regni Anglie in parliamento predicto existentes, ex parte Johannis Forsterarmigeri, in hec verba:63.[68.] Item, another petition was presented to the aforesaid lord king in the same parliament by the commons of the realm of England being in the aforesaid parliament, on behalf of John Forster, esquire, in these words:To the right wyse and discrete comens in this present parliament assembled; in moste humble wyse sheweth unto your discrete wysdomes John Forster esquier: that where he, the Saturday, the .xiiij. th day of June, the first yere of the reigne of Edward late king of Englond the < .v. th , > sodenly was takene at Weldehall in the countie of Hertf' by the servauntes and commaundement of Richard late in dede and not of right king of Englond the third, thanne taking on hym self to be protector of Englond, and frome thens with force and armes riottously was < conveyed > unto the Towre of London, and there kepte and imprisoned as a prisoner in irons and feteris by the space of .xl. wekys and more, havyng no mete neither drynke for his sustynaunce fro the seid Saturday of his first bryngyng to the Towre till the Monday thane next folowyng; wherby the seid John Forster was like to have perisshed, saving by Godys preservacioun. And moreover, the seid John Forster was dayly duryng the seid .xl. wekys manaced and thretened to be beheded, atteynted of high treasoun and also to forfaite and lese all his landes and goodes, inless thane he wold pay unto the seid late king in money and juelx to the value of a .m. marke. And also, the same John, and other with hym, to be boundene unto the seid late in deede and not of right King Richard the third, by their obligacions in a .m. marc, with condicioun; the tenure wherof ensueth:To the most wise and discreet commons assembled in this present parliament; John Forster, esquire, most humbly shows to your discreet wisdoms that where he, on Saturday 14 June in the first year of the reign of Edward V, late king of England [1483], was suddenly seized at Welde Hall in the county of Hertford by the servants and at the commandment of Richard III, late in deed and not by right king of England, then taking it upon himself to be protector of England, and with force and arms was riotously conveyed from there to the Tower of London, and kept and imprisoned there as a prisoner in irons and fetters for over forty weeks, having no meat or drink for his sustenance from the said Saturday of his arrival at the Tower until the following Monday, whereby the said John Forster was likely to have perished, except by God's preservation. And moreover, the said John Forster during the said forty weeks was daily menaced and threatened with beheading, attainder for high treason and also the forfeiture and loss of all his lands and goods, unless he paid the said late king money and jewels to the value of 1,000 marks. And also, the same John, and others with him, were bound in 1,000 marks to the said Richard III late in deed and not by right king, by their obligations, with a condition, the tenor of which follows:Noverint universi per presentes, nos Johannem Forsterarmigerum, et Henricum Burton, priorem domus et ecclesie Beate Marie de Overey in Suthwerk in comitatu Surr', teneri et firmiter obligari, excellentissimo domino nostro Ricardo Dei gracia, regi Anglie et Francie et domino Hibernie, in mille marcis legalis monete Anglie, solvendis eidem domino nostro regi, aut suo certo attornato, in festo Pentecoste proximo futuro post datam presencium; ad quam quidem solucionem bene et fideliter faciendam, obligamus nos et utrumque nostrum per se pro toto et in solido, executores et successores nostros, per presentes, sigillis nostris sigillatas. Datas nono die mensis Marcii, anno regni dicti domini regis primo.Know all men by the presents that we, John Forster, esquire, and Henry Burton, prior of the house and church of St Mary Overie in Southwark in the county of Surrey, are held and firmly bound to our most excellent lord Richard, by the grace of God king of England and France and lord of Ireland, in 1,000 marks of lawful English money, to be paid to our same lord king, or to his certain attorney, at Whitsun next after the date of the presents; to make which payment well and faithfully, we bind ourselves and each of us for the whole sum, and our executors and successors by the presents, sealed with our seals. Given on 9 March in the first year of the reign of the said lord king [1484].The condicioun of this obligacioun is suche that if the within boundene John Forster make or cause to be made ane estate suche as he hath, or eny other to his use, of and in the maner of Mawdelyns with thappurtenaunces within the countie of Hertf', and aswell delyver or cause to be delyvered such evidences as he hath, or eny other to his use, concernyng the seid maner, unto oure sovereigne lord the king within named, and to his heires, or to suche persone or persones as oure seid sovereigne lord will appoynt and name, and to their heires in this be half, the seid feast of Whytsonday within wretyne; that thene this < present obligacioun > stonde voide and be had for nought, and elles to abyde in full streygh and vertue. Whiche .m. marc in money and juelx by the seid John Forster was content and payed to the same late King Richard, and the seid obligacioun, for greate manasse aforeseid, was made, sealed [col. b] and delyvered; the seid John Forster, heryng of the cruell and rigorous disposicioun shewed in < þe behalfe > of the seid late King Richard, caused his feoffees and also hym self, by thadvyce of the counceill of the seid late King Richard, to make estate of the seid maner of Mawdelyns, aswell by dede as by fyne, unto certayne persones named by the seid King Richard, whose names and astate of the said maner, in the dede and fyne, wherof the tenoure pursueth, by specified.The condition of this obligation is such that if the within-bound John Forster makes or causes to be made an estate such as he, or anyone else to his use, has of and in the manor of Maudeleyns with the appurtenances in the county of Hertford, and also delivers or causes to be delivered such evidences as he or anyone else to his use has concerning the said manor, to our above-named sovereign lord the king and his heirs, or to such person or persons as our said sovereign lord will appoint and name, and to their heirs in this behalf, at the said Whitsun; that then this present obligation shall stand void and be taken as nothing, but otherwise shall remain in full strength and virtue. Which 1,000 marks in money and jewels was contented and paid to the same late King Richard by the said John Forster, and the said obligation, because of the aforesaid great threat, was made, sealed [col. b] and delivered; the said John Forster, hearing of the cruel and rigorous disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard, caused his feoffees and also himself, by the advice of the council of the said late King Richard, to make estate of the said manor of Maudeleyns, by deed as well as by fine, to certain persons named by the said King Richard, whose names and estate of the said manor are specified in the deed and fine, the tenor of which follows:Sciant presentes et futuri quod nos Thomas Holbache et Editha uxor mea tradidimus, dimisimus et liberavimus, et hac presenti carta nostra confirmavimus, Roberto Brakenbury armigero pro corpore domini regis, Thome Barowe clerico rotulorum dicti domini regis in cancellaria sua, Morgano Kydwelly generali attornato dicti domini regis, Thome Fowler armigero pro corpore domini regis, et Ricardo Beston, manerium de Mawdelyn cum membris et aliis suis pertinenciis in comitatu Hertf', ac omnia terras, tenementa, redditus, reversiones et servicia, prata, pascuas, pasturas, molendinum, curiam et perquisitiones curie predicto manerio qualitercumque pertinentes sive spectantes, cum omnibus suis pertinenciis in eodem comitatu; quod quidem manerium predictum cum pertinenciis, ego prefatus Thomas Holbache nuper recuperavi per breve de recto, in curia domini Edwardi nuper regis Anglie quarti, apud Westm', versus Willelmum Alyngton et Johannam uxorem ejus, Willelmum Tayllard et Elizabetham uxorem ejus, et Henricum Langley. Tradidimus eciam, dimisimus, liberavimus, et hac presenti carta nostra confirmavimus, prefatis Roberto Brakenbury, Thome Barowe, Morgano Kydwelly, Thome Fowler et Ricardo Beeston sexaginta acras terre vocatas Hokerigge, cum omnibus suis pertinenciis in parochia de Chesham in comitatu Buk'; habendum et tenendum predictum manerium, cum membris et aliis suis pertinenciis in comitatu Hertford, ac omnia alia terras, tenementa, redditus, reversiones et servicia, prata, pascuas, pasturas, molendinum, curiam et perquisiciones curie dicto manerio qualitercumque pertinentes sive spectantes, cum omnibus suis pertinenciis in eodem comitatu; necnon predictas sexaginta acras vocatas Hokerigge, cum omnibus suis pertinenciis in parochia de Chesham in comitatu Buk' predicto, prefato Roberto Brakenbury, Thome Barowe, Morgano Kydwelly, Thome Foweler et Ricardo Beeston, heredibus et assignatis suis, ad usum et proficuum ipsius Roberti Brakenbury et heredum suorum, de capitalibus dominis feodi illius, per servicia inde debita et de jure consueta imperpetuum. In cujus rei testimonium, huic presenti carte nostre sigilla nostra apposuimus. Datam apud Mawdelyn predictum, vicesimo octavo die mensis Maii, anno regni regis Ricardi tercii post conquestum primo.Know men present and future that we, Thomas Holbache and Edith my wife, have given, demised and handed over and by this our present charter confirmed to Robert Brackenbury, esquire for the lord king's body, Thomas Barowe, clerk of the said lord king's rolls in his chancery, Morgan Kidwelly, attorney general of the said lord king, Thomas Fowler, esquire for the lord king's body, and Richard Beeston, the manor of Maudeleyns with its members and other appurtenances in the county of Hertford, and all the lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services, meadows, fields, pastures, mills, courts and profits of court pertaining or belonging in any way to the aforesaid manor with all its appurtenances in the same county; which aforesaid manor with the appurtenances, I, the aforesaid Thomas Holbache, lately recovered by a writ of right in the court of lord Edward IV, late king of England, against William Alington and Joan his wife, William Tayllard and Elizabeth his wife, and Henry Langley. We have also given, demised, handed over and by this our present charter confirmed to the aforesaid Robert Brackenbury, Thomas Barowe, Morgan Kidwelly, Thomas Fowler and Richard Beeston sixty acres of land called Hawridge with all its appurtenances in the parish of Chesham in the county of Buckingham; to have and hold the aforesaid manor with its members and other appurtenances in the county of Hertford, and all other lands, tenements, rents, reversions and services, meadows, fields, pastures, mills, the court and profits of court appertaining or belonging in any way to the said manor with all its appurtenances in the same county, and also the aforesaid sixty acres called Hawridge with all its appurtenances in the parish of Chesham in the aforesaid county of Buckingham, to the aforesaid Robert Brackenbury, Thomas Barowe, Morgan Kidwelly, Thomas Fowler and Richard Beeston, their heirs and assigns, to the use and profit of the same Robert Brackenbury and his heirs, of the chief lord of that fee, by the customary services rightfully due from it forever. In witness of which we have set our seal to this our present charter. Given at Maudeleyns aforesaid on 28 May in the first year of the reign of King Richard the third since the conquest [1484].
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:21:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Re the Parliament Rolls I'll see if I can copy and paste; sometimes you can with BHOL sometimes you can't.Certainly ET's brothers did well under Tudor and if I recall it correctly, she wasn't overjoyed at the Mowbray marriage. She saw it as a backhanded way of Edward getting hold of the Mowbray lands. I think it's one of those examples that Ross gives where Edward acts more like a member of the nobility than a king.I did have a thought about MB's sponsorship of so many waifs and strays. Perhaps she really didn't know what had happened to the princes but if she had the confidence of those who had some involvement or were relations she stood a chance that something might surface; that someone might contact them?It's another way of spying whilst convincing yourself you're doing good works. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 09:56:57 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
The Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it
strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in
our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or
is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and
property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John
Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the
Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a
wife at the moment.Yes Henry
Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11
June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a
very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching
her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person
:) :) HHi Hilary, Thanks for the Stirnet link. Would Elizabeth Talbot be counted as Lancastrian because of her family of origin or Yorkist from the marriage of Anne Mowbray to Richard of Shrewsbury? I can't imagine her as being too fond of Edward and may have felt pressured into consenting Anne's marriage. Even so, marriage to the royal spare was an excellent prospect for Anne. She would be at least a Royal Duchess and if Edward V died without heirs she would have been Queen. I have always thought found this particular marriage somewhat bizarre, not just because of the children's ages, but because Edward might need young Richard for a foreign alliance later on. Was this Edward trying to make amends for what happened with Eleanor?The idea about Margaret Beaufort sweeping up Yorkist orphans is an interesting one. However, I don't think she benefited from Elizabeth Brackenbury, unless she had some say in her wardship. As far as I know, there was an association between MB, Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn in the early 1500s, but I'm not sure how close they were. I wonder who had the wardship of Joan Brackenbury and arranged her marriage, but whoever her mother was may be the link to that. MB did take charge of the royal children after Bosworth, and it has struck me as unusual that Katherine Plantagenet ended up buried in a church full of Stanleys. The Herberts had a house near St. James Garlickhythe, but if I remember rightly the Stanleys had a stronger association with it, and I would have thought it more likely for her to be buried at Raglan. My suspicion is that she never lived with William Herbert who was hedging his bets with Tudor, and after Bosworth she was sent with the others to MB and died in her care.I'm still wondering whether to get Premium BHOL. Otherwise, the Parliament Rolls are at the library so I will take a look when I go.Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 16:22:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a wife at the moment.Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :) HBTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with their variations.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you.......... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s............. That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:21:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Re the Parliament Rolls I'll see if I can copy and paste; sometimes you can with BHOL sometimes you can't.Certainly ET's brothers did well under Tudor and if I recall it correctly, she wasn't overjoyed at the Mowbray marriage. She saw it as a backhanded way of Edward getting hold of the Mowbray lands. I think it's one of those examples that Ross gives where Edward acts more like a member of the nobility than a king.I did have a thought about MB's sponsorship of so many waifs and strays. Perhaps she really didn't know what had happened to the princes but if she had the confidence of those who had some involvement or were relations she stood a chance that something might surface; that someone might contact them?It's another way of spying whilst convincing yourself you're doing good works. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 09:56:57 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
The Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it
strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in
our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or
is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and
property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John
Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the
Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a
wife at the moment.Yes Henry
Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11
June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a
very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching
her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person
:) :) HHi Hilary, Thanks for the Stirnet link. Would Elizabeth Talbot be counted as Lancastrian because of her family of origin or Yorkist from the marriage of Anne Mowbray to Richard of Shrewsbury? I can't imagine her as being too fond of Edward and may have felt pressured into consenting Anne's marriage. Even so, marriage to the royal spare was an excellent prospect for Anne. She would be at least a Royal Duchess and if Edward V died without heirs she would have been Queen. I have always thought found this particular marriage somewhat bizarre, not just because of the children's ages, but because Edward might need young Richard for a foreign alliance later on. Was this Edward trying to make amends for what happened with Eleanor?The idea about Margaret Beaufort sweeping up Yorkist orphans is an interesting one. However, I don't think she benefited from Elizabeth Brackenbury, unless she had some say in her wardship. As far as I know, there was an association between MB, Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn in the early 1500s, but I'm not sure how close they were. I wonder who had the wardship of Joan Brackenbury and arranged her marriage, but whoever her mother was may be the link to that. MB did take charge of the royal children after Bosworth, and it has struck me as unusual that Katherine Plantagenet ended up buried in a church full of Stanleys. The Herberts had a house near St. James Garlickhythe, but if I remember rightly the Stanleys had a stronger association with it, and I would have thought it more likely for her to be buried at Raglan. My suspicion is that she never lived with William Herbert who was hedging his bets with Tudor, and after Bosworth she was sent with the others to MB and died in her care.I'm still wondering whether to get Premium BHOL. Otherwise, the Parliament Rolls are at the library so I will take a look when I go.Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 16:22:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive and I don't have a wife at the moment.Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :) HBTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with their variations.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I just had a look at the will. I assume that Elizabeth Brackenbury and the Elizabeth Talbot were friends. Elizabeth was buried at the minories in Aldgate, where ET lived for many years. I think she was buried there too along with her daughter Anne Mowbray. Cosyn was her chaplain, so she may have befriended him if she lived at the minories or spent time there. The other two people mentioned, Robert Southwell and Edmund Genny/Jenney were from prominent families in Norfolk and Suffolk. I don't know what her exact connection is with them, but since they are from East Anglia she may have known them through Elizabeth Talbot and Cosyn. She must have been particularly close to them because the inherit the residue of her estate. She doesn't name her sister (Joan Penne), but I don't know if she is alive at the time. It is difficult to find much on Branckenbury's family. From the records which say that he started in Richard's service in 1476, I would assume they are about the same age, but I can't be sure. Is there any record of Brackenbury's wife? Since Brackenbury died in 1485, I assume that Elizabeth is in her 20s or 30s, considerably younger than Elizabeth Talbot, but perhaps a friend of Anne Mowbray. I had a look around for Henry Burton. He is in the Cambridge alumni, but not much detail, just a reference to St. Mary Overy, but no indication of his origins. Is the Parliament Roll that mentions him and Forster available online?Nico
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:37:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
BTW I think the commentator has confused the Howard Norfolks with ET. H
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 10:31:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico (and others) take a look at this page 233/4:Testamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the .... : York (England), York (Province), James Raine , John William Clay , Surtees Society : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet ArchiveTestamenta eboracensia or wills registered at York: illustrative of the ...Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...What are Thomas Cosyn and Elizabeth Talbot (and by default MB) doing looking after Brackenbury's daughter? H(As usual found when looking for something completely different)
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:48:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary for finding that. I will take a look a the parliament roll and look around if there is see anything more on Henry and the other Burtons. I wonder if they are related.Nico
On Monday, 18 March 2019, 10:15:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Here we go Nico, my we've all been working hard it took ages to find!'(Nico as well) BTW I've just looked at the Parliament Roll and the lengthy entry for Forster. Also arrested with him, as you probably know Marie, was Henry Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey. He's been quite illusive to chase and I thought at first he might have been related to Henry Barton/Burton, Lord Mayor of London. But the latter left no children and his heir was his brother Thomas.And then all this talk about Bosworth made me return to the Sheriff of Rutland who boasted of showing HT the place to fight. He was one Richard Burton. Now I know it's a common name but it would be interesting indeed if the two were related. Incidentally our Prior was the member of the same brotherhood as Dean Worsley of St Pauls, who was indicated in the Perkin Warbeck affair - and let off. Another hare :) ' H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 17:35:02 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Hilary, I think Yahoo may have deleted it as I can't find it here. There have been so many messages recently, but of course that is a good thing. Have a good weekend, Nico
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 14:21:05 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Will do. I'll have to look back for it. It was in a note addressed firstly to Marie, probably the last one I sent to her if that helps?I agree with all the rest. BTW I think there may be a link between Morton and Stillington going back to fourteenth century York. I'm looking at it at the moment and will come back to you.......... H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:27:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the
sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers
sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI
and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother
Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were
connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're
clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop
of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There
is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which
family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in
the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as
an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so
I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was
a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road
at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there
than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? Thanks for that info Hilary,If related at all, I think that the relationship between Norfolk and London Cosyns was distant and they probably didn't know each other, which would put Thomas Cosyn outside the London trade circle the King, Cosyn and Beaumont were part of, along with Pecche and ultimately Brampton. The Beckington - Stillington link is interesting too, and Richard Nykke. According to his Cambridge record, he was Archdeacon of Wells too. He succeeded William Nykke; is that his brother? All these people connect through the Bath and Wells diocese. The younger ones did well under HT. If King was involved in espionage, could Bath and Wells have been the epicentre (sort of like Cambridge in the 1930s)? HT is always said to have had this sophisticated spy network, but I have always wondered who they were and who controlled them. By the way, do you know where Oliver King was during the readeption? Did he stay in England or go with Edward? As you mentioned, he was accomplished in French and may have been an asset to Louis and and later was an envoy to Brittany. I think his role in a lot of things may have been underestimated. He was obscure before the readeption, then became very prominent in 1470s. Brampton appears on the scene at about the same time. Were people like Brampton, along with people like King and Pecche with their London trade connections instrumental in financing Edward's return? If so, Edward was more deeply in their debt than we realize.I did see message about Prior Burton and John Forster a few days ago, but can't seem to find it now. I hope Yahoo hasn't deleted it. Could you resend it?Nico
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 11:45:49 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, Oliver is named in the London letterbooks as one of the sons of John King after his father's demise. No doubt the drapers sponsored his studies at Eton (which was of course founded by Henry VI and Bishop Beckington, Bishop of Bath & Wells) He had a brother Alexander who was a priest as well. Stillington and Beckington were connected - Beckington had a Prebendary in York as well. And, if we're clutching at straws, Stillington's nephew, Richard Nykke, became Bishop of Norwich in 1501. He was also Dean of the Chapel Royal to HT. There is a Thomas Cosyn who is a priest at Wells in about 1413. From which family I know not. I've traced the London Cosyns back to Peter Cosyn in the early 14th century, Sheriff of London, and described in one deed as an 'alien'. The Cosyns of King's Lynn were also around at that time, so I've still to connect. You're right about St Clement Danes though it was a prestigious establishment. And remember Stillington was up the road at St Martin le Grand until Bosworth. I think he spent more time there than in Bath.Did you pick up my note about Prior Burton and John Forster? H
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 11:17:30 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,From Thomas Cosyn's Cambridge record, it only mentions posts in East Anglia, (Norfolk and Cambridgeshire), so I would guess that he is from that area. I can't find anything on his background that connects him to the London Cosyn family, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I haven't seen anything that specifically shows that his path crossed with Stillington's at any time, but it isn't impossible either. Alumni Cantabridgiences isn't as detailed as its Oxford equivalent. Thomas Beaumont's entry gave so much more detail on someone who was relatively junior. William Cosyn's entry is sparse too, but I did notice that he and Beaumont both rectors of St. Clement Dane's in the 1490s............. That is a prestigious church for someone with little experience, and I suspect Oliver King was a mentor to both of them. King's entry doesn't give any details of his origins other than he was born in London and was an Eton scholar, but he was most likely the son of a city merchant (probably the family of John King the draper of Colman Street d.1339). I will keep looking..Nico
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 15:20:47 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
:) :) H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
It's
worse than when I was in the Navy and had to prepare a presentation!
Doug
Who
doesn't even have a decent chair from which to issue any ex cathedra
pronouncements! Do have some wine, though...
Hilary
wrote:
How
does it feel to be like the Pope, Doug - we're all waiting for you to pronounce
:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-20 10:46:19
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-20 22:08:37
Hi, Thanks Hilary for posting the parliament roll. I will take more detailed look at it tomorrow.Mary, what is the theory about MB and Edward of Middleham? How she say how she thought the murder could have been done? Nico
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-21 09:22:24
Think there's a bit more Nico; that was all I could manage in one go. Off to York for a couple of days but will send you the rest when I get back. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 22:08:46 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Thanks Hilary for posting the parliament roll. I will take more detailed look at it tomorrow.Mary, what is the theory about MB and Edward of Middleham? How she say how she thought the murder could have been done? Nico
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups..com> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 22:08:46 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Thanks Hilary for posting the parliament roll. I will take more detailed look at it tomorrow.Mary, what is the theory about MB and Edward of Middleham? How she say how she thought the murder could have been done? Nico
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups..com> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-21 10:23:38
Hi Hilary,Until I read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the link. The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as 'hearing of the cruel and rigorous disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits in.Here is an article of about Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/I hope you enjoy your visit to York - one of my favourite places.Nico
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 09:22:31 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Think there's a bit more Nico; that was all I could manage in one go. Off to York for a couple of days but will send you the rest when I get back. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 22:08:46 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Thanks Hilary for posting the parliament roll. I will take more detailed look at it tomorrow.Mary, what is the theory about MB and Edward of Middleham? How she say how she thought the murder could have been done? Nico
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups...com> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 09:22:31 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Think there's a bit more Nico; that was all I could manage in one go. Off to York for a couple of days but will send you the rest when I get back. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 22:08:46 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Thanks Hilary for posting the parliament roll. I will take more detailed look at it tomorrow.Mary, what is the theory about MB and Edward of Middleham? How she say how she thought the murder could have been done? Nico
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups...com> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-21 14:02:46
Hilary,
I
don't know if you noticed it, but the time-line is very interesting.
10
June 1483 in a letter to York Richard requests men, saying they are needed
because EW and her adherents are plotting to kill him and
Buckingham.
11
June 1483 Forster, EW's money manager and Burton are arrested and placed in
the Tower.
13
June 1483 the Council meeting that resulted in Hastings' execution on charges
of treason.
Well,
I found it interesting, anyway...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that
Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless
it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the
sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for
Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants
eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive
and I don't have a wife at the moment.
Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John
Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL
it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her
appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :)
H
BTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with
their variations.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
don't know if you noticed it, but the time-line is very interesting.
10
June 1483 in a letter to York Richard requests men, saying they are needed
because EW and her adherents are plotting to kill him and
Buckingham.
11
June 1483 Forster, EW's money manager and Burton are arrested and placed in
the Tower.
13
June 1483 the Council meeting that resulted in Hastings' execution on charges
of treason.
Well,
I found it interesting, anyway...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
the Brackenburys are reputedly from Denton in Durham so I find it strange that
Elizabeth Talbot from a Lancastrian family would take in our Elizabeth? Unless
it was to do with Sir Robert's previous office; or is it just MB on the
sidelines sweeping up the Yorkist orphans and property ? I have one daughter for
Joan and John Penne who married John Lucas of Halden Kent and the descendants
eventually married into the Spencer family. Brackenbury himself is very elusive
and I don't have a wife at the moment.
Yes Henry Burton is put in the Tower after being arrested with John
Forster on 11 June 1483 (think it's 11 not 12 without looking). If you have BHOL
it's a very lengthy appeal to HT; same time that Anne Beauchamp is launching her
appeal. That woman is so persistent; reminds me of a current person :) :)
H
BTW I'm sorry if I get current placenames wrong; I spend so much time with
their variations.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-21 16:40:06
Nico, Jenny thought it could be possible for MB to have had E of M killed because Anne Idley was head of his nursery. Anne's husband, Peter Idley was in the household of H6 but apparently had connections to MB. There was a report in the Bulletin of her speech to the Triennial Conference a few years ago. It chimed with me because I gave a talk at a R3 Branch meeting which suggested that it was odd that, all the people who stood in the way of HT gaining the throne, were dead within two and a half years of Edward's death. Incidentally since then I have read somewhere that Richard gave Anne Idley a generous annuity which doesn't seem as if she had killed his son but I suppose we will never know one way or the other because I doubt if there would ever be any credible evidence.I will look up the report and post the date that it was in the Bulletin as my computer skills are not up to posting it on here. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-21 17:24:46
Odd that all the people who stood in the way of HT gaining the throne we're dead within two and a half years of Edward's death.Sorry have to disagree strongly with this. Firstly we don't know the fate of the sons of Edward. Then there was the entire De La Pole clan, and even Buckingham's son had a better claim! Lincoln was front runner after Richard's death, lucky to last as long as he did, though joining if not leading the rebellion that saw his end, was no doubt him reading the writing on the wall as to the fate of anyone with more royal blood than Tudor. But lots of royal blood stronger and thicker than the grandson of the servant!PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 21 mars 2019 à 17:35, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :
Nico, Jenny thought it could be possible for MB to have had E of M killed because Anne Idley was head of his nursery. Anne's husband, Peter Idley was in the household of H6 but apparently had connections to MB. There was a report in the Bulletin of her speech to the Triennial Conference a few years ago. It chimed with me because I gave a talk at a R3 Branch meeting which suggested that it was odd that, all the people who stood in the way of HT gaining the throne, were dead within two and a half years of Edward's death. Incidentally since then I have read somewhere that Richard gave Anne Idley a generous annuity which doesn't seem as if she had killed his son but I suppose we will never know one way or the other because I doubt if there would ever be any credible evidence.I will look up the report and post the date that it was in the Bulletin as my computer skills are not up to posting it on here. Mary
Nico, Jenny thought it could be possible for MB to have had E of M killed because Anne Idley was head of his nursery. Anne's husband, Peter Idley was in the household of H6 but apparently had connections to MB. There was a report in the Bulletin of her speech to the Triennial Conference a few years ago. It chimed with me because I gave a talk at a R3 Branch meeting which suggested that it was odd that, all the people who stood in the way of HT gaining the throne, were dead within two and a half years of Edward's death. Incidentally since then I have read somewhere that Richard gave Anne Idley a generous annuity which doesn't seem as if she had killed his son but I suppose we will never know one way or the other because I doubt if there would ever be any credible evidence.I will look up the report and post the date that it was in the Bulletin as my computer skills are not up to posting it on here. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-21 22:07:19
Nico it is in the December 2009 Bulletin page 31 and the title is Margaret Beaufort's list. I will read it again. If you google Jenny Powys Lybbe, Ann Idley Triennial Conference it should come up.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-23 00:53:41
Thanks Mary for the Jennie Powys-Lybbe article. I used to think the MB was a serious candidate for prime suspect in the Princes disappearance, but now I can't see her as a murderer of children. She was certainly ambitious and had some unattractive qualities, but there isn't any evidence that suggests that she had it in her to do something as evil as that. The histrionic confessions to Fisher sound like something was troubling her conscience, but my feeling is that it was more likely that she had caused some misfortune to someone (or perhaps more than one person), but the consequences had been much greater than she intended. I think Katherine Plantagenet and Edward of Middleham was most likely tragic victims of the many illnesses that routinely claimed lives prematurely at that time, but would probably be curable now. If she arranged EofM's murder, she would have had to get someone to poison him or cause an accident, but despite Richard and Anne's shock and intense grief, there was never any suggestion of murder. As Paul mentioned, there were other Yorkist heirs beyond the people on the list. I can't see any motive for murdering Katherine; she may have married, but her children would only be illegitimate grandchildren of a former King. HT had just as ropy a connection to the throne, but he was King by conquest, and people at the time saw that as a signal of Divine intent. Also, HT didn't discourage EofY's sisters, the de la Poles, Margaret Pole or Anne St. Leger from marrying and having their own children. Looking after Yorkist orphans was definately in MB's interest, as she could keep an eye on them. John of Gloucester seems to have been associated with her, as his annuity was paid from her estates at Kingston Lacy, but I don't think she did anything more sinister than observe them.Writers like Philippa Gregory have this idea that MB was always plotting for HT to be King, but this doesn't seem likely because there was so little chance of it before Edward died. Even during Buckingham's rebellion she was only accused of sending HT money. From recent discussions, I am wondering if MB pushed the idea of HT as King at all. It may been his own ambition inspired by French rumours about the Princes being dead. Jasper was also in a better position to encourage him too.NicoI canBefore 1483, unlikely she had Kingly ambitions for HT. Did she really have them at all? Could the idea have been HT's, perhaps prompted by rumours in France that the Princes were dead
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 22:07:45 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico it is in the December 2009 Bulletin page 31 and the title is Margaret Beaufort's list. I will read it again. If you google Jenny Powys Lybbe, Ann Idley Triennial Conference it should come up.Mary
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 22:07:45 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico it is in the December 2009 Bulletin page 31 and the title is Margaret Beaufort's list. I will read it again. If you google Jenny Powys Lybbe, Ann Idley Triennial Conference it should come up.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-23 09:17:50
I have re-read the Jenny Powys Lybbe article again and I think it is a bit tongue in cheek. I wrote an answer to Paul's post but it seems to have disappeared. I agree with his point about the other Plantagenets surviving. With regard to Anne Idley I have since read that Richard gave her an annuity and I doubt that he would have done that if there had been any suspicion of her killing E of M. I read that after Tewkesbury MB always considered HT to be the Lancastrian heir, however, as it was some years ago, I cannot remember exactly where I read it. I thought that it was in Charles Oman's "Warwick the Kingmaker" but I have checked and it was not. I also checked out other books that I read around the same time but I couldn't find it. MB was definitely plotting something during 1483 -1485. I think that Richard was probably too lenient with her after the Buckingham rebellion and that she probably carried on plotting even after being placed in Stanley's custody with Reginald Bray carrying out her orders. Maybe it was just to bring HT home and that she and EW were using one another for their own ends. I don't think that she was a particularly good person but then she was probably badly affected by becoming pregnant at twelve years old. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-23 10:20:42
I have always read that MB channeled all her efforts into bringing HT home and getting him back his lands and titles. This was what she was working at throughout Edward's reign. There has also been much doubt cast upon there ever being an agreement between EW and MB about a marriage arrangement for Henry and Elizabeth of York. With Richard's spy network active and his popularity in the country as a whole it would have been extremely dangerous for her, and for her husband too, who now had a lot to lose his becoming Constable after Buckingham's rebellion.In many ways I feel her reputation was exaggerated later to add to the Tudor myth. She was without a doubt plotting at the time of Hastings plot, but the fact she was in such an important position at Richards coronation makes me think her involvement not that great, or else Richard was being more than stupidly forgiving in order to keep her husband on side. And Stanley being so close to Richard at that time and during his reign, even with the diplomatic illness around Bosworth time, may explain Henry's attitude to him, only making him an Earl and letting him fade into the background as nothing but his mothers husband.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 23 mars 2019 à 10:00, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :
I have re-read the Jenny Powys Lybbe article again and I think it is a bit tongue in cheek. I wrote an answer to Paul's post but it seems to have disappeared. I agree with his point about the other Plantagenets surviving. With regard to Anne Idley I have since read that Richard gave her an annuity and I doubt that he would have done that if there had been any suspicion of her killing E of M. I read that after Tewkesbury MB always considered HT to be the Lancastrian heir, however, as it was some years ago, I cannot remember exactly where I read it. I thought that it was in Charles Oman's "Warwick the Kingmaker" but I have checked and it was not. I also checked out other books that I read around the same time but I couldn't find it. MB was definitely plotting something during 1483 -1485. I think that Richard was probably too lenient with her after the Buckingham rebellion and that she probably carried on plotting even after being placed in Stanley's custody with Reginald Bray carrying out her orders. Maybe it was just to bring HT home and that she and EW were using one another for their own ends. I don't think that she was a particularly good person but then she was probably badly affected by becoming pregnant at twelve years old. Mary
I have re-read the Jenny Powys Lybbe article again and I think it is a bit tongue in cheek. I wrote an answer to Paul's post but it seems to have disappeared. I agree with his point about the other Plantagenets surviving. With regard to Anne Idley I have since read that Richard gave her an annuity and I doubt that he would have done that if there had been any suspicion of her killing E of M. I read that after Tewkesbury MB always considered HT to be the Lancastrian heir, however, as it was some years ago, I cannot remember exactly where I read it. I thought that it was in Charles Oman's "Warwick the Kingmaker" but I have checked and it was not. I also checked out other books that I read around the same time but I couldn't find it. MB was definitely plotting something during 1483 -1485. I think that Richard was probably too lenient with her after the Buckingham rebellion and that she probably carried on plotting even after being placed in Stanley's custody with Reginald Bray carrying out her orders. Maybe it was just to bring HT home and that she and EW were using one another for their own ends. I don't think that she was a particularly good person but then she was probably badly affected by becoming pregnant at twelve years old. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-23 12:56:37
Having just returned from York I can't agree more with all of this.For a start I agree with the psychological assessment of MB. I think she was a woman who earnestly wanted to do good, even if at times she had to convince herself that what she was doing was for the best. There's no way I see her as any sort of murderer but I could see her as someone who thought they had inadvertently brought about the death of someone else - and Richard was an anointed king and the son of her friend Cis.But there's also the shear practicality of killing EOM. To do this she'd have to have a 'plant' in Yorkshire. Now that might have been harder than you'd think. York and North Yorkshire (in particular) is a closed community. I mentioned a couple of years' ago that York is under invasion by academics trying to turn it into an extension of Oxbridge, and fashionitas trying to make it the Knightsbridge of the North. It's worked for neither of them. They rattle around on their bikes or in their designer outfits, bemoaning the fact that they have to visit the same restaurant twice in a month. And the locals ignore them, as they've always ignored the tourists (except to make money of course). In the end they give up and go back whence they came; as one woman I spoke to said she couldn't wait to get back to Chelsea. This being said as we stood in the shadow of one of the most glorious buildings in Europe.Richard knew this even then. Which is why I think he left EOM at Middleham. He wanted his son, like himself, to be accepted as a Yorkshireman. That's why he sent EOY and Warwick to Sheriff Hutton, because they'd be well looked after there. And why also I reckon Northumberland would never betray him. Because he and Northumberland understood one another far better than any Londoner, or Welshman, ever would. But for people like PG, MB the fanatical makes a really good story. H (who is catching up 'backwards')
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 00:53:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Mary for the Jennie Powys-Lybbe article. I used to think the MB was a serious candidate for prime suspect in the Princes disappearance, but now I can't see her as a murderer of children. She was certainly ambitious and had some unattractive qualities, but there isn't any evidence that suggests that she had it in her to do something as evil as that. The histrionic confessions to Fisher sound like something was troubling her conscience, but my feeling is that it was more likely that she had caused some misfortune to someone (or perhaps more than one person), but the consequences had been much greater than she intended. I think Katherine Plantagenet and Edward of Middleham was most likely tragic victims of the many illnesses that routinely claimed lives prematurely at that time, but would probably be curable now. If she arranged EofM's murder, she would have had to get someone to poison him or cause an accident, but despite Richard and Anne's shock and intense grief, there was never any suggestion of murder. As Paul mentioned, there were other Yorkist heirs beyond the people on the list. I can't see any motive for murdering Katherine; she may have married, but her children would only be illegitimate grandchildren of a former King. HT had just as ropy a connection to the throne, but he was King by conquest, and people at the time saw that as a signal of Divine intent. Also, HT didn't discourage EofY's sisters, the de la Poles, Margaret Pole or Anne St. Leger from marrying and having their own children. Looking after Yorkist orphans was definately in MB's interest, as she could keep an eye on them. John of Gloucester seems to have been associated with her, as his annuity was paid from her estates at Kingston Lacy, but I don't think she did anything more sinister than observe them.Writers like Philippa Gregory have this idea that MB was always plotting for HT to be King, but this doesn't seem likely because there was so little chance of it before Edward died. Even during Buckingham's rebellion she was only accused of sending HT money. From recent discussions, I am wondering if MB pushed the idea of HT as King at all. It may been his own ambition inspired by French rumours about the Princes being dead. Jasper was also in a better position to encourage him too.NicoI canBefore 1483, unlikely she had Kingly ambitions for HT. Did she really have them at all? Could the idea have been HT's, perhaps prompted by rumours in France that the Princes were dead
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 22:07:45 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico it is in the December 2009 Bulletin page 31 and the title is Margaret Beaufort's list. I will read it again. If you google Jenny Powys Lybbe, Ann Idley Triennial Conference it should come up.Mary
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 00:53:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Thanks Mary for the Jennie Powys-Lybbe article. I used to think the MB was a serious candidate for prime suspect in the Princes disappearance, but now I can't see her as a murderer of children. She was certainly ambitious and had some unattractive qualities, but there isn't any evidence that suggests that she had it in her to do something as evil as that. The histrionic confessions to Fisher sound like something was troubling her conscience, but my feeling is that it was more likely that she had caused some misfortune to someone (or perhaps more than one person), but the consequences had been much greater than she intended. I think Katherine Plantagenet and Edward of Middleham was most likely tragic victims of the many illnesses that routinely claimed lives prematurely at that time, but would probably be curable now. If she arranged EofM's murder, she would have had to get someone to poison him or cause an accident, but despite Richard and Anne's shock and intense grief, there was never any suggestion of murder. As Paul mentioned, there were other Yorkist heirs beyond the people on the list. I can't see any motive for murdering Katherine; she may have married, but her children would only be illegitimate grandchildren of a former King. HT had just as ropy a connection to the throne, but he was King by conquest, and people at the time saw that as a signal of Divine intent. Also, HT didn't discourage EofY's sisters, the de la Poles, Margaret Pole or Anne St. Leger from marrying and having their own children. Looking after Yorkist orphans was definately in MB's interest, as she could keep an eye on them. John of Gloucester seems to have been associated with her, as his annuity was paid from her estates at Kingston Lacy, but I don't think she did anything more sinister than observe them.Writers like Philippa Gregory have this idea that MB was always plotting for HT to be King, but this doesn't seem likely because there was so little chance of it before Edward died. Even during Buckingham's rebellion she was only accused of sending HT money. From recent discussions, I am wondering if MB pushed the idea of HT as King at all. It may been his own ambition inspired by French rumours about the Princes being dead. Jasper was also in a better position to encourage him too.NicoI canBefore 1483, unlikely she had Kingly ambitions for HT. Did she really have them at all? Could the idea have been HT's, perhaps prompted by rumours in France that the Princes were dead
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 22:07:45 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico it is in the December 2009 Bulletin page 31 and the title is Margaret Beaufort's list. I will read it again. If you google Jenny Powys Lybbe, Ann Idley Triennial Conference it should come up.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-23 13:52:04
Nico
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released. The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released. The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-23 14:05:46
Hi it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the dates are very significant again.I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk. Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help from York are a significant coup.So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on. Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in fact on Richard's side?Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored. I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon. H
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 13:52:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released.. The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 13:52:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released.. The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-23 14:58:19
Hi Nico, I've just found this. You had been 'spammed' - what is Yahoo doing?My very lucky grandson (though he doesn't think so) goes to the Minster School there, so he's in the shadow of the great place every day and does his nativity play there.What I find extraordinary about Forster's claim is that he's accusing Richard of extortion when Richard as king was the first one to address the justice system and the accused's loss of property as a result of arrest. A bit more HT propaganda in whoever wrote the Rolls?I think you may have missed Marie's comments about the St Albans Abbey link between Hastings and Forster and the manor of Maudelyns? And of course after Forster's fall it was passed to, amongst others, Brackenbury. There's still a lot we have to find out. H
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 10:23:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,Until I read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the link. The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as 'hearing of the cruel and rigorous disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits in.Here is an article of about Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/I hope you enjoy your visit to York - one of my favourite places.Nico
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 09:22:31 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Think there's a bit more Nico; that was all I could manage in one go. Off to York for a couple of days but will send you the rest when I get back. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 22:08:46 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Thanks Hilary for posting the parliament roll. I will take more detailed look at it tomorrow.Mary, what is the theory about MB and Edward of Middleham? How she say how she thought the murder could have been done? Nico
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups....com> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 10:23:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,Until I read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the link. The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as 'hearing of the cruel and rigorous disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits in.Here is an article of about Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/I hope you enjoy your visit to York - one of my favourite places.Nico
On Thursday, 21 March 2019, 09:22:31 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Think there's a bit more Nico; that was all I could manage in one go. Off to York for a couple of days but will send you the rest when I get back. H
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 22:08:46 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi, Thanks Hilary for posting the parliament roll. I will take more detailed look at it tomorrow.Mary, what is the theory about MB and Edward of Middleham? How she say how she thought the murder could have been done? Nico
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019, 10:46:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups....com> wrote:
HI Nico
With regard to MB sweeping up Katherine with the other children and then she died in her care, died from natural causes or ? I am sorry but I keep remembering Jenny Powys Lybbe's speculation at on of the Triennial Conferences when she speculated that MB could have been responsible for E of M's death. MB would not have wanted Katherine to have any children as they would be Richard's descendants and have a much better claim to the throne than her darling boy.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-24 13:50:32
Mary,
Sorry for the delay in making this reply, but it took some time trying to figure out how to do it, so here goes.
It's only my personal view, although I believe what facts we do have support it, but we haven't any direct evidence that young Edward and his brother were dead. What we have are claims by Tudor and his supporting propagandists that they were. The one piece of direct evidence we have about the boys is that they weren't seen in the Tower after Easter. As they weren't even living in the Tower until after Easter of 1483, it's very unlikely that's the year meant. Which leaves 1484 and 1485 as the possibilities. I believe the reference is to 1484, mainly because their mother left sanctuary around Easter 1484 and it would make sense for them to reside with her, however briefly. Where they may have gone after that is a subject of debate, here and elsewhere.
We don't know what Edward of Middleham died from, but my guess is something such as a burst appendix followed by infection. FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him describes Edward of Middleham as being sickly and gives that as the reason he didn't attend his father's coronation. Do we have any supporting evidence that Edward was, indeed, sickly ? At any rate, considering how dangerous day-to-day life could be during this period because of the lack of antibiotics, that a child should die due to some sort of infection isn't that unusual. It's because of the effects that death had on the English politics of the day that it takes on such importance. Well, in my view anyway.
BTW, do we know what Peter Idley did when he was in Henry VI's household?
Doug
Mary wrote:
Nico, Jenny thought it could be possible for MB to have had E of M killed because Anne Idley was head of his nursery. Anne's husband, Peter Idley was in the household of H6 but apparently had connections to MB. There was a report in the Bulletin of her speech to the Triennial Conference a few years ago. It chimed with me because I gave a talk at a R3 Branch meeting which suggested that it was odd that, all the people who stood in the way of HT gaining the throne, were dead within two and a half years of Edward's death. Incidentally since then I have read somewhere that Richard gave Anne Idley a generous annuity which doesn't seem as if she had killed his son but I suppose we will never know one way or the other because I doubt if there would ever be any credible evidence.
I will look up the report and post the date that it was in the Bulletin as my computer skills are not up to posting it on here.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Sorry for the delay in making this reply, but it took some time trying to figure out how to do it, so here goes.
It's only my personal view, although I believe what facts we do have support it, but we haven't any direct evidence that young Edward and his brother were dead. What we have are claims by Tudor and his supporting propagandists that they were. The one piece of direct evidence we have about the boys is that they weren't seen in the Tower after Easter. As they weren't even living in the Tower until after Easter of 1483, it's very unlikely that's the year meant. Which leaves 1484 and 1485 as the possibilities. I believe the reference is to 1484, mainly because their mother left sanctuary around Easter 1484 and it would make sense for them to reside with her, however briefly. Where they may have gone after that is a subject of debate, here and elsewhere.
We don't know what Edward of Middleham died from, but my guess is something such as a burst appendix followed by infection. FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him describes Edward of Middleham as being sickly and gives that as the reason he didn't attend his father's coronation. Do we have any supporting evidence that Edward was, indeed, sickly ? At any rate, considering how dangerous day-to-day life could be during this period because of the lack of antibiotics, that a child should die due to some sort of infection isn't that unusual. It's because of the effects that death had on the English politics of the day that it takes on such importance. Well, in my view anyway.
BTW, do we know what Peter Idley did when he was in Henry VI's household?
Doug
Mary wrote:
Nico, Jenny thought it could be possible for MB to have had E of M killed because Anne Idley was head of his nursery. Anne's husband, Peter Idley was in the household of H6 but apparently had connections to MB. There was a report in the Bulletin of her speech to the Triennial Conference a few years ago. It chimed with me because I gave a talk at a R3 Branch meeting which suggested that it was odd that, all the people who stood in the way of HT gaining the throne, were dead within two and a half years of Edward's death. Incidentally since then I have read somewhere that Richard gave Anne Idley a generous annuity which doesn't seem as if she had killed his son but I suppose we will never know one way or the other because I doubt if there would ever be any credible evidence.
I will look up the report and post the date that it was in the Bulletin as my computer skills are not up to posting it on here.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-24 18:16:14
Apparently Peter Idley was lord of the manor of Drayton in Oxfordshire and a minor household officer for H6 ,who appointed him gentleman falconer in 1453 and controller of the kings works in 1456. He wrote two books of instructions to his son. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-25 08:33:33
Hi Doug, Mary. Anne Idley (nee Cretyng) was Peter Idley's second wife, his first was Elizabeth Drayton by whom he had at least two sons including the Thomas to whom the 'instruction' was written. Idley died in circa 1473. He didn't originally come from Drayton St Leonard, he got that through his first wife. His father, John (Gentleman) came from Ash by Wrotham Kent.Cretyng is an East Anglian surname; Creeting is in Suffolk. In the previous century, Sir Adam, Sir John and Sir Edward had expanded into Hunts. I have directly linked Anne yet.BUT there is a William Cretyng, Dean of Windsor from the 1490s - her son/nephew? Very interestingly both John Morton and Oliver King were made Dean of Windsor in 1481 - now there's a link. Perhaps we should look at the connections to St George's? H
On Sunday, 24 March 2019, 18:16:18 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Apparently Peter Idley was lord of the manor of Drayton in Oxfordshire and a minor household officer for H6 ,who appointed him gentleman falconer in 1453 and controller of the kings works in 1456. He wrote two books of instructions to his son. Mary
On Sunday, 24 March 2019, 18:16:18 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Apparently Peter Idley was lord of the manor of Drayton in Oxfordshire and a minor household officer for H6 ,who appointed him gentleman falconer in 1453 and controller of the kings works in 1456. He wrote two books of instructions to his son. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-25 09:45:29
Thank you Hilary.Interesting information. Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-25 12:55:15
Hi,
Like Mary, I also
thought that the article may have been tongue in cheek. However, MB was
definitely plotting in 1483. The question remains what was her objective? It
would appear that at the early stages it was about bringing back HT from exile,
restoring his lands and arranging a good marriage for him. I also wonder if
history could have taken a different course if Richard had punished her more
harshly not executing her, but imprisoning her in more secure surroundings.
MB is an intriguing
character. The Tudor myth paints her as the a mother of the nation figure, an
pious, intellectual secular Madonna whose place in history is inalienable from
HT. This image is reinforced by the fact that we only have portraits of her
from later life when she looks like a nun. While I don't see her as a murderer,
she was definitely arrogant with a strong sense of entitlement, possibly even
narcissistic with a grandiose and misplaced estimation of her own abilities. I
would also like to know more about her relationship with Stanley, which is
often seen as a business arrangement, but I could also see them as a couple who
had a genuine partnership nourished by a mutual vision of life as a game of
chess to be played enthusiastically for their benefit. Her parting from him in 1499 needs closer
attention when we take into consideration the events that coincide with it
the executions of the 3Ws, the mysterious Ralph Wilford, followed by the
executions of Warbeck and Warwick. It was very rare for a married woman to
suddenly separate from her husband and start dressing like a nun. Did these
events have anything to do with her mournful
confessions?
There is also her
relationship with HT. She sent him money and conspired with EW for arrange the marriage
to EofY, but how close was their relationship really? It would appear that she
would like to have played a more vital role in his reign, but he made his own
decisions while she organized the court with minutely detailed rules and
regulations, and clashes were not unknown. Her affinity certainly helped, but
HT was styling himself as King before Bosworth. He hadn't seen her in years,
and there is no evidence his ambitions to be King ever originated with her.
Also, being in France he may have had more reason to believe that the Princes
were dead. The death of an anointed King at the hands of her son may have
troubled her, but was it Warwick's fate (and perhaps Warbeck if he was genuine)
that brought out the remorse in her conscience?
Overall, I don't think that
Ann and Peter Idley did anything to harm Edward of Middleham. As outsiders in
Yorkshire they would have come under suspicion quickly if there was anything
unusual about his death. Neverthless,
the link with Morton and Oliver King to Ann's family is interesting. Those two
certainly had long tentacles.
I don't know what is
going on with the spamming. I think one of Doug's messages has gone missing,
but I can't be sure.
Nico
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 09:57:43 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you Hilary.Interesting information. Mary
Like Mary, I also
thought that the article may have been tongue in cheek. However, MB was
definitely plotting in 1483. The question remains what was her objective? It
would appear that at the early stages it was about bringing back HT from exile,
restoring his lands and arranging a good marriage for him. I also wonder if
history could have taken a different course if Richard had punished her more
harshly not executing her, but imprisoning her in more secure surroundings.
MB is an intriguing
character. The Tudor myth paints her as the a mother of the nation figure, an
pious, intellectual secular Madonna whose place in history is inalienable from
HT. This image is reinforced by the fact that we only have portraits of her
from later life when she looks like a nun. While I don't see her as a murderer,
she was definitely arrogant with a strong sense of entitlement, possibly even
narcissistic with a grandiose and misplaced estimation of her own abilities. I
would also like to know more about her relationship with Stanley, which is
often seen as a business arrangement, but I could also see them as a couple who
had a genuine partnership nourished by a mutual vision of life as a game of
chess to be played enthusiastically for their benefit. Her parting from him in 1499 needs closer
attention when we take into consideration the events that coincide with it
the executions of the 3Ws, the mysterious Ralph Wilford, followed by the
executions of Warbeck and Warwick. It was very rare for a married woman to
suddenly separate from her husband and start dressing like a nun. Did these
events have anything to do with her mournful
confessions?
There is also her
relationship with HT. She sent him money and conspired with EW for arrange the marriage
to EofY, but how close was their relationship really? It would appear that she
would like to have played a more vital role in his reign, but he made his own
decisions while she organized the court with minutely detailed rules and
regulations, and clashes were not unknown. Her affinity certainly helped, but
HT was styling himself as King before Bosworth. He hadn't seen her in years,
and there is no evidence his ambitions to be King ever originated with her.
Also, being in France he may have had more reason to believe that the Princes
were dead. The death of an anointed King at the hands of her son may have
troubled her, but was it Warwick's fate (and perhaps Warbeck if he was genuine)
that brought out the remorse in her conscience?
Overall, I don't think that
Ann and Peter Idley did anything to harm Edward of Middleham. As outsiders in
Yorkshire they would have come under suspicion quickly if there was anything
unusual about his death. Neverthless,
the link with Morton and Oliver King to Ann's family is interesting. Those two
certainly had long tentacles.
I don't know what is
going on with the spamming. I think one of Doug's messages has gone missing,
but I can't be sure.
Nico
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 09:57:43 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you Hilary.Interesting information. Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-25 12:56:05
Hi,Doug, that is an interesting point about the financial role of medieval abbeys. It shouldn't be underestimated.I agree with your assessment about Hastings. I think he was terrified of losing his position especially with Calais and the Mint. Losing the amount of power he had would hit hard. Richard's need to work with him to keep the Woodvilles at bay would have given him some security at the early stages, but with Richard as King, rather than as Protector of a boy King, he was less necessary and it was foreseeable that he could be replaced with someone from Richard's affinity. There was also the issue punishment for his participation and encouragement of a lifestyle that may have hasten Edward's demise. He had a lot of power to lose and he realized that keeping EV was the key to keeping his power. This is where he may have needed Burton to step in.Nico
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 14:05:53 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the dates are very significant again.I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk. Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help from York are a significant coup.So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on. Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in fact on Richard's side?Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored. I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon. H
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 13:52:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released... The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 14:05:53 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the dates are very significant again.I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk. Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help from York are a significant coup.So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on. Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in fact on Richard's side?Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored. I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon. H
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 13:52:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released... The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-25 14:17:14
Mary,
I
don't know how often Henry went hunting, thus possibly needing his :gentleman
falconer, but that Controller of the King's Works position sounds as if it
might have been fairly important, and remunerative. It would also give Idley an
excuse to travel around the country doing inspections and/or overseeing
construction projects; if he needed one, that is.
I
don't see how Mr. Idley might fit into the over-all picture, but one never
knows! Thank you for filling in a little of his background.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Apparently
Peter Idley was lord of the manor of Drayton in Oxfordshire and a minor
household officer for H6 ,who appointed him gentleman falconer in 1453 and
controller of the kings works in 1456. He wrote two books of instructions to his
son.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
don't know how often Henry went hunting, thus possibly needing his :gentleman
falconer, but that Controller of the King's Works position sounds as if it
might have been fairly important, and remunerative. It would also give Idley an
excuse to travel around the country doing inspections and/or overseeing
construction projects; if he needed one, that is.
I
don't see how Mr. Idley might fit into the over-all picture, but one never
knows! Thank you for filling in a little of his background.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Apparently
Peter Idley was lord of the manor of Drayton in Oxfordshire and a minor
household officer for H6 ,who appointed him gentleman falconer in 1453 and
controller of the kings works in 1456. He wrote two books of instructions to his
son.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-03-25 14:31:06
Hilary,
So,
if I understand it correctly, Idley's family came from Kent. Through his
marriage to his first wife he obtained a manor in Oxfordshire and through his
second marriage linked into families from East Anglia/Suffolk which were
expanding southeastwards into Huntingdonshire (which I discovered is part of
Cambridgeshire).
I
know it's only Wikipedia, but their list for Deans of Windsor has
Thomas Danett for 1481, William Beverly for 1483 and a John Davyson and William
Morgan consecutively listed for 1485. Help!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Mary. Anne Idley (nee Cretyng) was Peter Idley's second wife, his first
was Elizabeth Drayton by whom he had at least two sons including the Thomas to
whom the 'instruction' was written. Idley died in circa 1473. He didn't
originally come from Drayton St Leonard, he got that through his first wife. His
father, John (Gentleman) came from Ash by Wrotham Kent.
Cretyng is an East Anglian surname; Creeting is in Suffolk. In the previous
century, Sir Adam, Sir John and Sir Edward had expanded into Hunts. I have
directly linked Anne yet.
BUT there is a William Cretyng, Dean of Windsor from the 1490s - her
son/nephew? Very interestingly both John Morton and Oliver King were made Dean
of Windsor in 1481 - now there's a link. Perhaps we should look at the
connections to St George's?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
So,
if I understand it correctly, Idley's family came from Kent. Through his
marriage to his first wife he obtained a manor in Oxfordshire and through his
second marriage linked into families from East Anglia/Suffolk which were
expanding southeastwards into Huntingdonshire (which I discovered is part of
Cambridgeshire).
I
know it's only Wikipedia, but their list for Deans of Windsor has
Thomas Danett for 1481, William Beverly for 1483 and a John Davyson and William
Morgan consecutively listed for 1485. Help!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Mary. Anne Idley (nee Cretyng) was Peter Idley's second wife, his first
was Elizabeth Drayton by whom he had at least two sons including the Thomas to
whom the 'instruction' was written. Idley died in circa 1473. He didn't
originally come from Drayton St Leonard, he got that through his first wife. His
father, John (Gentleman) came from Ash by Wrotham Kent.
Cretyng is an East Anglian surname; Creeting is in Suffolk. In the previous
century, Sir Adam, Sir John and Sir Edward had expanded into Hunts. I have
directly linked Anne yet.
BUT there is a William Cretyng, Dean of Windsor from the 1490s - her
son/nephew? Very interestingly both John Morton and Oliver King were made Dean
of Windsor in 1481 - now there's a link. Perhaps we should look at the
connections to St George's?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-25 15:09:49
Nico,
Maybe if we broke what happened into three parts
they'd make more sense?
The first part would be the period before the
Council accepted the validity of the Pre-Contract and during that period any
agreements made between MB and EW concerning the return of HT would be legal,
wouldn't they? While Tudor was charged with various criminal acts, an attempt by
his mother to arrange his return, in and of itself, wouldn't be illegal. In
exchange for her son's free return, and possible marriage to EoY, for her part
MB would use whatever influence she had, on her husband especially, to ensure
young Edward remained on the throne and the Woodvilles returned to power.
Obviously, EW over-estimated the influence MB had, apparently both on her
husband and anyone else she may have been in a position to influence. If this
was all that was planned between MB and EW, it would help explain Richard's
attitude toward the Stanleys immediately after he accepted the crown. And that's
presuming he even knew about any exchanges between the two women.
The second part would have been the lead-up to
and during the October Rebellion. There's no direct evidence, but I'm inclined
to think that, sometime shortly after Richard's coronation, the possibility of
Tudor's return was brought up, most likely by Lord Thomas, and Richard refused
to alter the terms of Tudor's return; Tudor would still have to return with no
guarantees before any further decisions concerning him were made. After the rebellion had been defeated, Richard apparently had
enough evidence to show that MB was not only still plotting to get her son back
into England, but that plotting was part of the over-all rebellion to return
young Edward to the throne. On this occasion, however, and possibly because
Richard didn't want to make an enemy of of Lord
Stanley unless he absolutely had to, while MB was attainted, she and her
properties given into the custody of her husband.
By the time of the run-up to Bosworth, OTOH, MB,
perhaps feeling she had nothing to lose already being attainted, likely
continued to provide information and funds to her son, although the French
involvement and funding demonstrates whatever monies she may have provided
weren't nearly enough to finance an invasion.
Just how much of what she was doing was known by
her husband is, or so I think, critical to explaining what happened in late
August 1485. Unfortunately, I doubt we're ever going to find anything that could
definitely settle that question one way or the other. Darn it!
Doug
Nico wrote:
Hi,
Like Mary, I also thought that the
article may have been tongue in cheek. However, MB was definitely plotting in
1483. The question remains what was her objective? It would appear that at the
early stages it was about bringing back HT from exile, restoring his lands and
arranging a good marriage for him. I also wonder if history could have taken a
different course if Richard had punished her more harshly not executing her,
but imprisoning her in more secure
surroundings.
MB is an intriguing character. The
Tudor myth paints her as the a mother of the nation figure, an pious,
intellectual secular Madonna whose place in history is inalienable from HT. This
image is reinforced by the fact that we only have portraits of her from later
life when she looks like a nun. While I don't see her as a murderer, she was
definitely arrogant with a strong sense of entitlement, possibly even
narcissistic with a grandiose and misplaced estimation of her own abilities.. I
would also like to know more about her relationship with Stanley, which is often
seen as a business arrangement, but I could also see them as a couple who had a
genuine partnership nourished by a mutual vision of life as a game of chess to
be played enthusiastically for their benefit. Her parting
from him in 1499 needs closer attention when we take into consideration the
events that coincide with it the executions of the 3Ws, the mysterious Ralph
Wilford, followed by the executions of Warbeck and Warwick. It was very rare for
a married woman to suddenly separate from her husband and start dressing like a
nun. Did these events have anything to do with her mournful
confessions?
There is also her relationship with
HT. She sent him money and conspired with EW for arrange the marriage to EofY,
but how close was their relationship really? It would appear that she would like
to have played a more vital role in his reign, but he made his own decisions
while she organized the court with minutely detailed rules and regulations, and
clashes were not unknown. Her affinity certainly helped, but HT was styling
himself as King before Bosworth. He hadn't seen her in years, and there is no
evidence his ambitions to be King ever originated with her. Also, being in
France he may have had more reason to believe that the Princes were dead. The
death of an anointed King at the hands of her son may have troubled her, but was
it Warwick's fate (and perhaps Warbeck if he was genuine) that brought out the
remorse in her conscience?
Overall, I don't think that Ann and
Peter Idley did anything to harm Edward of Middleham. As outsiders in Yorkshire
they would have come under suspicion quickly if there was anything unusual about
his death. Neverthless, the link with Morton and Oliver King
to Ann's family is interesting.. Those two certainly had long
tentacles.
I don't know what is going on with
the spamming. I think one of Doug's messages has gone missing, but I can't be
sure.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Maybe if we broke what happened into three parts
they'd make more sense?
The first part would be the period before the
Council accepted the validity of the Pre-Contract and during that period any
agreements made between MB and EW concerning the return of HT would be legal,
wouldn't they? While Tudor was charged with various criminal acts, an attempt by
his mother to arrange his return, in and of itself, wouldn't be illegal. In
exchange for her son's free return, and possible marriage to EoY, for her part
MB would use whatever influence she had, on her husband especially, to ensure
young Edward remained on the throne and the Woodvilles returned to power.
Obviously, EW over-estimated the influence MB had, apparently both on her
husband and anyone else she may have been in a position to influence. If this
was all that was planned between MB and EW, it would help explain Richard's
attitude toward the Stanleys immediately after he accepted the crown. And that's
presuming he even knew about any exchanges between the two women.
The second part would have been the lead-up to
and during the October Rebellion. There's no direct evidence, but I'm inclined
to think that, sometime shortly after Richard's coronation, the possibility of
Tudor's return was brought up, most likely by Lord Thomas, and Richard refused
to alter the terms of Tudor's return; Tudor would still have to return with no
guarantees before any further decisions concerning him were made. After the rebellion had been defeated, Richard apparently had
enough evidence to show that MB was not only still plotting to get her son back
into England, but that plotting was part of the over-all rebellion to return
young Edward to the throne. On this occasion, however, and possibly because
Richard didn't want to make an enemy of of Lord
Stanley unless he absolutely had to, while MB was attainted, she and her
properties given into the custody of her husband.
By the time of the run-up to Bosworth, OTOH, MB,
perhaps feeling she had nothing to lose already being attainted, likely
continued to provide information and funds to her son, although the French
involvement and funding demonstrates whatever monies she may have provided
weren't nearly enough to finance an invasion.
Just how much of what she was doing was known by
her husband is, or so I think, critical to explaining what happened in late
August 1485. Unfortunately, I doubt we're ever going to find anything that could
definitely settle that question one way or the other. Darn it!
Doug
Nico wrote:
Hi,
Like Mary, I also thought that the
article may have been tongue in cheek. However, MB was definitely plotting in
1483. The question remains what was her objective? It would appear that at the
early stages it was about bringing back HT from exile, restoring his lands and
arranging a good marriage for him. I also wonder if history could have taken a
different course if Richard had punished her more harshly not executing her,
but imprisoning her in more secure
surroundings.
MB is an intriguing character. The
Tudor myth paints her as the a mother of the nation figure, an pious,
intellectual secular Madonna whose place in history is inalienable from HT. This
image is reinforced by the fact that we only have portraits of her from later
life when she looks like a nun. While I don't see her as a murderer, she was
definitely arrogant with a strong sense of entitlement, possibly even
narcissistic with a grandiose and misplaced estimation of her own abilities.. I
would also like to know more about her relationship with Stanley, which is often
seen as a business arrangement, but I could also see them as a couple who had a
genuine partnership nourished by a mutual vision of life as a game of chess to
be played enthusiastically for their benefit. Her parting
from him in 1499 needs closer attention when we take into consideration the
events that coincide with it the executions of the 3Ws, the mysterious Ralph
Wilford, followed by the executions of Warbeck and Warwick. It was very rare for
a married woman to suddenly separate from her husband and start dressing like a
nun. Did these events have anything to do with her mournful
confessions?
There is also her relationship with
HT. She sent him money and conspired with EW for arrange the marriage to EofY,
but how close was their relationship really? It would appear that she would like
to have played a more vital role in his reign, but he made his own decisions
while she organized the court with minutely detailed rules and regulations, and
clashes were not unknown. Her affinity certainly helped, but HT was styling
himself as King before Bosworth. He hadn't seen her in years, and there is no
evidence his ambitions to be King ever originated with her. Also, being in
France he may have had more reason to believe that the Princes were dead. The
death of an anointed King at the hands of her son may have troubled her, but was
it Warwick's fate (and perhaps Warbeck if he was genuine) that brought out the
remorse in her conscience?
Overall, I don't think that Ann and
Peter Idley did anything to harm Edward of Middleham. As outsiders in Yorkshire
they would have come under suspicion quickly if there was anything unusual about
his death. Neverthless, the link with Morton and Oliver King
to Ann's family is interesting.. Those two certainly had long
tentacles.
I don't know what is going on with
the spamming. I think one of Doug's messages has gone missing, but I can't be
sure.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-03-26 10:37:47
Doug:So, if I understand it correctly, Idley's family came from Kent. Through his marriage to his first wife he obtained a manor in Oxfordshire and through his second marriage linked into families from East Anglia/Suffolk which were expanding southeastwards into Huntingdonshire (which I discovered is part of Cambridgeshire).Yes. Of course Anne Creting could herself have been a widow but whilst looking something up for you I discovered that William Creting was originally parson of Stowe, Suffolk and was given a general pardon by Richard on 3 Sep 1484. This was about the time when Richard was dividing up the spoils of those attainted for the October rebellions, including Morton's as Bishop of Ely. Haven't yet been able to find out whether Stowe was in that diocese or that of Lincoln, I would have thought the former, but they kept being shuffled.Doug:I know it's only Wikipedia, but their list for Deans of Windsor has Thomas Danett for 1481, William Beverly for 1483 and a John Davyson and William Morgan consecutively listed for 1485. Help!
My fault Doug, they were Canons, the two often get dumped together. So:Stall 6 Robert (not John my earlier source was wrong) Morton 1481-86Stall 8 Christopher Urswick 1492-96Stall 10 William Creting (Creton) 1489-1519Stall 11 Oliver King 1480-1503, William Atwater 1504 - 1514Quite a hotbed St George's wasn't it? H
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 14:31:13 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
So,
if I understand it correctly, Idley's family came from Kent. Through his
marriage to his first wife he obtained a manor in Oxfordshire and through his
second marriage linked into families from East Anglia/Suffolk which were
expanding southeastwards into Huntingdonshire (which I discovered is part of
Cambridgeshire).
I
know it's only Wikipedia, but their list for Deans of Windsor has
Thomas Danett for 1481, William Beverly for 1483 and a John Davyson and William
Morgan consecutively listed for 1485. Help!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Mary. Anne Idley (nee Cretyng) was Peter Idley's second wife, his first
was Elizabeth Drayton by whom he had at least two sons including the Thomas to
whom the 'instruction' was written. Idley died in circa 1473. He didn't
originally come from Drayton St Leonard, he got that through his first wife.. His
father, John (Gentleman) came from Ash by Wrotham Kent.
Cretyng is an East Anglian surname; Creeting is in Suffolk. In the previous
century, Sir Adam, Sir John and Sir Edward had expanded into Hunts. I have
directly linked Anne yet.
BUT there is a William Cretyng, Dean of Windsor from the 1490s - her
son/nephew? Very interestingly both John Morton and Oliver King were made Dean
of Windsor in 1481 - now there's a link. Perhaps we should look at the
connections to St George's?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
My fault Doug, they were Canons, the two often get dumped together. So:Stall 6 Robert (not John my earlier source was wrong) Morton 1481-86Stall 8 Christopher Urswick 1492-96Stall 10 William Creting (Creton) 1489-1519Stall 11 Oliver King 1480-1503, William Atwater 1504 - 1514Quite a hotbed St George's wasn't it? H
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 14:31:13 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
So,
if I understand it correctly, Idley's family came from Kent. Through his
marriage to his first wife he obtained a manor in Oxfordshire and through his
second marriage linked into families from East Anglia/Suffolk which were
expanding southeastwards into Huntingdonshire (which I discovered is part of
Cambridgeshire).
I
know it's only Wikipedia, but their list for Deans of Windsor has
Thomas Danett for 1481, William Beverly for 1483 and a John Davyson and William
Morgan consecutively listed for 1485. Help!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Mary. Anne Idley (nee Cretyng) was Peter Idley's second wife, his first
was Elizabeth Drayton by whom he had at least two sons including the Thomas to
whom the 'instruction' was written. Idley died in circa 1473. He didn't
originally come from Drayton St Leonard, he got that through his first wife.. His
father, John (Gentleman) came from Ash by Wrotham Kent.
Cretyng is an East Anglian surname; Creeting is in Suffolk. In the previous
century, Sir Adam, Sir John and Sir Edward had expanded into Hunts. I have
directly linked Anne yet.
BUT there is a William Cretyng, Dean of Windsor from the 1490s - her
son/nephew? Very interestingly both John Morton and Oliver King were made Dean
of Windsor in 1481 - now there's a link. Perhaps we should look at the
connections to St George's?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-26 10:50:02
Hi, I agree with all of this. We do need to know more about the Margaret/Stanley dynamics. She might have proved a serious embarrassment for Stanley who was doing well under the Yorkists and then he got stuck with HT.I also agree that Anne Idley is probably a red herring. After all, wasn't it Hugh and Isabel Burgh who looked after the nursery? My guess is she was brought in because someone like Cis or Anne Beauchamp had read the 'Treatise' and thought it was a model way to bring up young Edward. We know Cis shared books with Richard's Anne. Richard's Yorkshire household would be far too canny to miss any potential wrongdoing, particularly after what allegedly happened to Isabel.EOM is yet another version of Victorian cliche - if a child survived infancy but died before adulthood they were 'sickly'. In fact even people like Jane Seymour are described as sickly - but she died of puerperal fever. And as you say, it sounds much more like EOM died of some sudden illness. There's no mention of illness before. As for the coronation, well given the attempts to hijack Richard on his way to London I'm not surprised he chose not to risk his heir, given the circumstances of just a few days' before. BTW on the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous merchant backgrounds. H
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 12:55:58 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
Like Mary, I also
thought that the article may have been tongue in cheek. However, MB was
definitely plotting in 1483. The question remains what was her objective? It
would appear that at the early stages it was about bringing back HT from exile,
restoring his lands and arranging a good marriage for him. I also wonder if
history could have taken a different course if Richard had punished her more
harshly not executing her, but imprisoning her in more secure surroundings.
MB is an intriguing
character. The Tudor myth paints her as the a mother of the nation figure, an
pious, intellectual secular Madonna whose place in history is inalienable from
HT. This image is reinforced by the fact that we only have portraits of her
from later life when she looks like a nun. While I don't see her as a murderer,
she was definitely arrogant with a strong sense of entitlement, possibly even
narcissistic with a grandiose and misplaced estimation of her own abilities.. I
would also like to know more about her relationship with Stanley, which is
often seen as a business arrangement, but I could also see them as a couple who
had a genuine partnership nourished by a mutual vision of life as a game of
chess to be played enthusiastically for their benefit. Her parting from him in 1499 needs closer
attention when we take into consideration the events that coincide with it
the executions of the 3Ws, the mysterious Ralph Wilford, followed by the
executions of Warbeck and Warwick. It was very rare for a married woman to
suddenly separate from her husband and start dressing like a nun. Did these
events have anything to do with her mournful
confessions?
There is also her
relationship with HT. She sent him money and conspired with EW for arrange the marriage
to EofY, but how close was their relationship really? It would appear that she
would like to have played a more vital role in his reign, but he made his own
decisions while she organized the court with minutely detailed rules and
regulations, and clashes were not unknown. Her affinity certainly helped, but
HT was styling himself as King before Bosworth. He hadn't seen her in years,
and there is no evidence his ambitions to be King ever originated with her.
Also, being in France he may have had more reason to believe that the Princes
were dead. The death of an anointed King at the hands of her son may have
troubled her, but was it Warwick's fate (and perhaps Warbeck if he was genuine)
that brought out the remorse in her conscience?
Overall, I don't think that
Ann and Peter Idley did anything to harm Edward of Middleham. As outsiders in
Yorkshire they would have come under suspicion quickly if there was anything
unusual about his death. Neverthless,
the link with Morton and Oliver King to Ann's family is interesting.. Those two
certainly had long tentacles.
I don't know what is
going on with the spamming. I think one of Doug's messages has gone missing,
but I can't be sure.
Nico
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 09:57:43 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you Hilary.Interesting information. Mary
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 12:55:58 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
Like Mary, I also
thought that the article may have been tongue in cheek. However, MB was
definitely plotting in 1483. The question remains what was her objective? It
would appear that at the early stages it was about bringing back HT from exile,
restoring his lands and arranging a good marriage for him. I also wonder if
history could have taken a different course if Richard had punished her more
harshly not executing her, but imprisoning her in more secure surroundings.
MB is an intriguing
character. The Tudor myth paints her as the a mother of the nation figure, an
pious, intellectual secular Madonna whose place in history is inalienable from
HT. This image is reinforced by the fact that we only have portraits of her
from later life when she looks like a nun. While I don't see her as a murderer,
she was definitely arrogant with a strong sense of entitlement, possibly even
narcissistic with a grandiose and misplaced estimation of her own abilities.. I
would also like to know more about her relationship with Stanley, which is
often seen as a business arrangement, but I could also see them as a couple who
had a genuine partnership nourished by a mutual vision of life as a game of
chess to be played enthusiastically for their benefit. Her parting from him in 1499 needs closer
attention when we take into consideration the events that coincide with it
the executions of the 3Ws, the mysterious Ralph Wilford, followed by the
executions of Warbeck and Warwick. It was very rare for a married woman to
suddenly separate from her husband and start dressing like a nun. Did these
events have anything to do with her mournful
confessions?
There is also her
relationship with HT. She sent him money and conspired with EW for arrange the marriage
to EofY, but how close was their relationship really? It would appear that she
would like to have played a more vital role in his reign, but he made his own
decisions while she organized the court with minutely detailed rules and
regulations, and clashes were not unknown. Her affinity certainly helped, but
HT was styling himself as King before Bosworth. He hadn't seen her in years,
and there is no evidence his ambitions to be King ever originated with her.
Also, being in France he may have had more reason to believe that the Princes
were dead. The death of an anointed King at the hands of her son may have
troubled her, but was it Warwick's fate (and perhaps Warbeck if he was genuine)
that brought out the remorse in her conscience?
Overall, I don't think that
Ann and Peter Idley did anything to harm Edward of Middleham. As outsiders in
Yorkshire they would have come under suspicion quickly if there was anything
unusual about his death. Neverthless,
the link with Morton and Oliver King to Ann's family is interesting.. Those two
certainly had long tentacles.
I don't know what is
going on with the spamming. I think one of Doug's messages has gone missing,
but I can't be sure.
Nico
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 09:57:43 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you Hilary.Interesting information. Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-26 10:56:58
I'm reluctantly coming round to this position too - I wanted Hastings to be in the clear, or at least set up. And yes I agree, Doug your point about Abbeys is very relevant.You see I think the final fly in the ointment for Hastings was the appearance of Buckingham and Richard's apparent attachment to him. What a shame he didn't wait a month or two longer, like Stanley and Howard.Going right back to the original heading of this - Bosworth - I understand more and more why it was so necessary to get rid of the HS of Leics & Warks the day before. This was no random ambush on Richard Boughton, it was a planned murder. Because he lived where I do, so HT's planned battlefield was only 8 miles up the road. He would have known all its hazards, including the marsh, as would the guys he'd recruited. A clever and treacherous plan indeed, Burton. H
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 12:56:48 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,Doug, that is an interesting point about the financial role of medieval abbeys. It shouldn't be underestimated.I agree with your assessment about Hastings. I think he was terrified of losing his position especially with Calais and the Mint. Losing the amount of power he had would hit hard. Richard's need to work with him to keep the Woodvilles at bay would have given him some security at the early stages, but with Richard as King, rather than as Protector of a boy King, he was less necessary and it was foreseeable that he could be replaced with someone from Richard's affinity. There was also the issue punishment for his participation and encouragement of a lifestyle that may have hasten Edward's demise. He had a lot of power to lose and he realized that keeping EV was the key to keeping his power. This is where he may have needed Burton to step in.Nico
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 14:05:53 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the dates are very significant again.I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk. Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help from York are a significant coup.So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on. Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in fact on Richard's side?Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored. I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon. H
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 13:52:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released.... The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 12:56:48 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,Doug, that is an interesting point about the financial role of medieval abbeys. It shouldn't be underestimated.I agree with your assessment about Hastings. I think he was terrified of losing his position especially with Calais and the Mint. Losing the amount of power he had would hit hard. Richard's need to work with him to keep the Woodvilles at bay would have given him some security at the early stages, but with Richard as King, rather than as Protector of a boy King, he was less necessary and it was foreseeable that he could be replaced with someone from Richard's affinity. There was also the issue punishment for his participation and encouragement of a lifestyle that may have hasten Edward's demise. He had a lot of power to lose and he realized that keeping EV was the key to keeping his power. This is where he may have needed Burton to step in.Nico
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 14:05:53 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the dates are very significant again.I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk. Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help from York are a significant coup.So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on. Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in fact on Richard's side?Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored. I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon. H
On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 13:52:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Until I
read this, I hadn't realized the full context of the arrest. Since the arrest
date was 14 June, this must mean that Forster and Burton were accused of
involvement in a conspiracy related to Hastings. Since Forster was EW's
Treasurer, that suggests Woodville-Hastings collusion. Also, according to Chris
Skidmore, Hastings and Forster were both Stewards of St. Alban's Abbey. I have
never been sure how that Hastings would conspire directly with the EW and
Dorset, but this leans in favour of it and Forster could be the
link.
Doug
here:
I
think this
might
once again be a case of follow the money. I know I've read that on occasion
people would leave sums of money in the care of a local abbey, much as we put
money into a savings account. Of course the abbey wouldn't pay any interest, but
it would provide a fairly safe place to store any extra cash. As best I could
discover, St. Albans was Benedictine and would almost certainly have dealings
with other abbeys, and not only Benedictine. St. Albans would likely also be in
contact with abbeys outside of England. IOW, the Stewards of an abbey would be
in an excellent position to move money around both legally and illegally and,
FWIW, I think moving sums of money around the kingdom and in and out of it is
what this was about.
As
for Hastings' motive/s in working with EW, I have to fall back on what he had to
lose if Edward V was removed and Richard ascended the throne. It's also entirely
possible that the stories that have come down about how Richard felt Hastings
was, at least in part, responsible for Edward's wenching and wining are true. At
the very least, Hastings may have been led to believe that was how Richard
felt.
After
all, under Edward IV, Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and
Captain of Calais. He almost certainly as well had received various properties,
either out-right or the fees from them. The three positions Hastings held, Lord
Chamberlain, Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint made him the second most
powerful man in the country after the King. As Lord Chamberlain Hastings
literally controlled who had access to Edward. As Captain of Calais, Hastings
controlled the only standing armed forces of the country and as Master of the
Mint he was in charge of the country's money supplies. Now, when Edward IV died,
and as would be expected, Hastings lost his position as Lord Chamberlain. OTOH,
after Richard arrived in London in May 1483 Hastings was reconfirmed by the
Council as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. What we don't know is how
Richard felt about Hastings retaining those positions. My view is that Richard
accepted the necessity of working with Hastings as a tactical maneuver against
the Woodvilles and their supporters, but that if he'd had his druthers, Hastings
would have been removed from all the posts he'd held.
Even
so, while was no longer in quite as powerful a position as before, Hastings
still was someone whose views mattered when affairs of state were being
discussed and as long as young Edward remained on the throne he could look
forward to remaining at the center of things. Richard would need his support
against any remaining Woodville supporters on the Council, while those who might
not like the idea of an all-powerful Protector would also be bidding for his
support.
Now,
what would happen should Richard become king after the Council had accepted the
Pre-Contract as representing the true state of Edward IV's marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville? Well, first off, if Richard became king, there'd be no need
for Hastings' support on the Council as a counter-balance to the Woodvilles and
their supporters as they fought for control of young Edward.
Richard would almost certainly
replace Hastings as Captain of Calais with someone in whom the new king had
greater trust and the same would likely apply to that Mastership of the Mint.
With
Hastings' value as an asset against the Woodville faction gone, stripped of the
positions that provided not only power but protection, Hastings would be unable
to protect himself against a king who believed him to have been a major
contributor in the degradation and death of the new king's brother. Not a
prospect to viewed with complacency, I'd imagine.
Nico
continued:
The date is March 9, 1484, but references such as
'hearing of the cruel and rigorous
disposition demonstrated by the said late King Richard' and 'Richard III late in deed and not by right king' sound
like it was recorded in HT's reign or is this just Forster's choice of words? I
will look for a bit more to find out where Burton fits
in.
Doug
here:
FWIW, my
understanding is that the reference to March 9, 1484 was the date Forster either
first began his attempts to regain his property or the date he was released.... The
wording you quoted sounds to me as if it comes from a later attempt made after
Tudor took the throne. Do we know when Forster managed to
either get his property back or receive compensation for it? From what I've read
about some of these lawsuits, I can easily imagine Forster first filing a suit
when Richard was king and then having to continue prosecuting that suit for
quite some time after Bosworth.
Nico
concluded:
Here is an article of about
Forster and the manor of Maudelyn:
https://dottietales.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-manor-of-mawedelyne/
I hope you enjoy your visit
to York - one of my favourite places.
Doug
here:
The article was
extremely interesting and well-researched; as were the other articles I looked
at on the blog.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-26 11:01:27
Seems to be more of a poetic type Doug! There's lots about him on the web. Just the type that kind old Henry VI would have liked, and all that about education ..... No I don't have him as a Bray.And he left his affairs in a mess. He seems to have forgotten to include his heir's son in his will (the hero of the Treatise, Thomas, was already dead) so there are lawsuits between him and the second son. Doesn't seem to have been a very worldly person to me. H
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 14:33:31 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
I
don't know how often Henry went hunting, thus possibly needing his :gentleman
falconer, but that Controller of the King's Works position sounds as if it
might have been fairly important, and remunerative. It would also give Idley an
excuse to travel around the country doing inspections and/or overseeing
construction projects; if he needed one, that is.
I
don't see how Mr. Idley might fit into the over-all picture, but one never
knows! Thank you for filling in a little of his background.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Apparently
Peter Idley was lord of the manor of Drayton in Oxfordshire and a minor
household officer for H6 ,who appointed him gentleman falconer in 1453 and
controller of the kings works in 1456. He wrote two books of instructions to his
son.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 25 March 2019, 14:33:31 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
I
don't know how often Henry went hunting, thus possibly needing his :gentleman
falconer, but that Controller of the King's Works position sounds as if it
might have been fairly important, and remunerative. It would also give Idley an
excuse to travel around the country doing inspections and/or overseeing
construction projects; if he needed one, that is.
I
don't see how Mr. Idley might fit into the over-all picture, but one never
knows! Thank you for filling in a little of his background.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Apparently
Peter Idley was lord of the manor of Drayton in Oxfordshire and a minor
household officer for H6 ,who appointed him gentleman falconer in 1453 and
controller of the kings works in 1456. He wrote two books of instructions to his
son.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-03-26 13:55:20
A nest of vipers by the look of it.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 05:27:44
Hilary,
I
don't know why, but I've always tended to view the marriage of Margaret Beaufort
and Lord Stanley as being more one of convenience; that doesn't mean they may
not have felt affection for each other, though.
Also,
thank you for reminding me about Jane Seymour. One reason for her being
inaccurately described as being sickly is likely because her son, Edward VI,
died young of tuberculosis and everyone knows one gets that disease because of
the health, or lack of it, of one's mother! I just love circular logic, don't
you?
Even
here across the Pond, we know that prosperous merchant backgrounds isn't the
same as being younger sprigs of the nobility, so those bishops were of humble
origins. If my memory is correct, it was during the period of the Whig Oligarchy
that the practice of sending younger sons of the nobility into the Church became
fairly widespread as the family fortune could only be stretched so
far...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with all of this. We do need to know more about the Margaret/Stanley
dynamics. She might have proved a serious embarrassment for Stanley who was
doing well under the Yorkists and then he got stuck with HT.
I also agree that Anne Idley is probably a red herring. After all, wasn't
it Hugh and Isabel Burgh who looked after the nursery? My guess is she was
brought in because someone like Cis or Anne Beauchamp had read the 'Treatise'
and thought it was a model way to bring up young Edward. We know Cis shared
books with Richard's Anne. Richard's Yorkshire household would be far too canny
to miss any potential wrongdoing, particularly after what allegedly happened to
Isabel.
EOM is yet another version of Victorian cliche - if a child survived
infancy but died before adulthood they were 'sickly'. In fact even people like
Jane Seymour are described as sickly - but she died of puerperal fever. And as
you say, it sounds much more like EOM died of some sudden illness. There's no
mention of illness before. As for the coronation, well given the attempts to
hijack Richard on his way to London I'm not surprised he chose not to risk his
heir, given the circumstances of just a few days' before.
BTW on the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described as
coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust Anglicanism?
Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous merchant
backgrounds.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
don't know why, but I've always tended to view the marriage of Margaret Beaufort
and Lord Stanley as being more one of convenience; that doesn't mean they may
not have felt affection for each other, though.
Also,
thank you for reminding me about Jane Seymour. One reason for her being
inaccurately described as being sickly is likely because her son, Edward VI,
died young of tuberculosis and everyone knows one gets that disease because of
the health, or lack of it, of one's mother! I just love circular logic, don't
you?
Even
here across the Pond, we know that prosperous merchant backgrounds isn't the
same as being younger sprigs of the nobility, so those bishops were of humble
origins. If my memory is correct, it was during the period of the Whig Oligarchy
that the practice of sending younger sons of the nobility into the Church became
fairly widespread as the family fortune could only be stretched so
far...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with all of this. We do need to know more about the Margaret/Stanley
dynamics. She might have proved a serious embarrassment for Stanley who was
doing well under the Yorkists and then he got stuck with HT.
I also agree that Anne Idley is probably a red herring. After all, wasn't
it Hugh and Isabel Burgh who looked after the nursery? My guess is she was
brought in because someone like Cis or Anne Beauchamp had read the 'Treatise'
and thought it was a model way to bring up young Edward. We know Cis shared
books with Richard's Anne. Richard's Yorkshire household would be far too canny
to miss any potential wrongdoing, particularly after what allegedly happened to
Isabel.
EOM is yet another version of Victorian cliche - if a child survived
infancy but died before adulthood they were 'sickly'. In fact even people like
Jane Seymour are described as sickly - but she died of puerperal fever. And as
you say, it sounds much more like EOM died of some sudden illness. There's no
mention of illness before. As for the coronation, well given the attempts to
hijack Richard on his way to London I'm not surprised he chose not to risk his
heir, given the circumstances of just a few days' before.
BTW on the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described as
coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust Anglicanism?
Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous merchant
backgrounds.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-27 05:37:32
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 05:44:29
Nico,
When
I write about what Hastings had to lose, I'm also referring to the protection
those positions gave him from any enemies. He'd been a major part of Edward IV's
administration since Edward became king and I find it hard to believe he'd not
made any enemies during that time! Hastings may also have become so
accustomed to being at the center of affairs that not being
there was something to be prevented at almost any cost.
And
if Warwick could ally himself with Margaret of Anjou for tactical political
reasons, why couldn't Hastings do the same with the Woodvilles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
Doug, that is an interesting point about the financial role of medieval
abbeys. It shouldn't be underestimated.
I agree with your assessment about Hastings. I think he was terrified of
losing his position especially with Calais and the Mint. Losing the amount of
power he had would hit hard. Richard's need to work with him to keep the
Woodvilles at bay would have given him some security at the early stages, but
with Richard as King, rather than as Protector of a boy King, he was less
necessary and it was foreseeable that he could be replaced with someone from
Richard's affinity. There was also the issue punishment for his participation
and encouragement of a lifestyle that may have hasten Edward's demise. He
had a lot of power to lose and he realized that keeping EV was the key to
keeping his power. This is where he may have needed Burton to step in.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
When
I write about what Hastings had to lose, I'm also referring to the protection
those positions gave him from any enemies. He'd been a major part of Edward IV's
administration since Edward became king and I find it hard to believe he'd not
made any enemies during that time! Hastings may also have become so
accustomed to being at the center of affairs that not being
there was something to be prevented at almost any cost.
And
if Warwick could ally himself with Margaret of Anjou for tactical political
reasons, why couldn't Hastings do the same with the Woodvilles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
Doug, that is an interesting point about the financial role of medieval
abbeys. It shouldn't be underestimated.
I agree with your assessment about Hastings. I think he was terrified of
losing his position especially with Calais and the Mint. Losing the amount of
power he had would hit hard. Richard's need to work with him to keep the
Woodvilles at bay would have given him some security at the early stages, but
with Richard as King, rather than as Protector of a boy King, he was less
necessary and it was foreseeable that he could be replaced with someone from
Richard's affinity. There was also the issue punishment for his participation
and encouragement of a lifestyle that may have hasten Edward's demise. He
had a lot of power to lose and he realized that keeping EV was the key to
keeping his power. This is where he may have needed Burton to step in.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 05:52:42
Hilary,
Ah,
a dreamer and not a schemer, then? Oh well, it takes all types.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Seems
to be more of a poetic type Doug! There's lots about him on the web. Just the
type that kind old Henry VI would have liked, and all that about education
..... No I don't have him as a Bray.
And he left his affairs in a mess. He seems to have forgotten to include
his heir's son in his will (the hero of the Treatise, Thomas, was already dead)
so there are lawsuits between him and the second son. Doesn't seem to have been
a very worldly person to me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Ah,
a dreamer and not a schemer, then? Oh well, it takes all types.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Seems
to be more of a poetic type Doug! There's lots about him on the web. Just the
type that kind old Henry VI would have liked, and all that about education
..... No I don't have him as a Bray.
And he left his affairs in a mess. He seems to have forgotten to include
his heir's son in his will (the hero of the Treatise, Thomas, was already dead)
so there are lawsuits between him and the second son. Doesn't seem to have been
a very worldly person to me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ
2019-03-27 06:08:37
Hilary
wrote:
Yes.
Of course Anne Creting could herself have been a widow but whilst looking
something up for you I discovered that William Creting was originally parson of
Stowe, Suffolk and was given a general pardon by Richard on 3 Sep 1484. This was
about the time when Richard was dividing up the spoils of those attainted for
the October rebellions, including Morton's as Bishop of Ely. Haven't yet been
able to find out whether Stowe was in that diocese or that of Lincoln, I would
have thought the former, but they kept being shuffled.
Doug
here:
When
one can't even trust a parson...
Hilary
concluded:
My fault Doug, they were Canons, the two often get dumped
together. So:
Stall 6 Robert (not John my earlier source was wrong) Morton
1481-86
Stall 8 Christopher Urswick 1492-96
Stall 10 William Creting (Creton) 1489-1519
Stall 11 Oliver King 1480-1503, William Atwater 1504 - 1514
Quite a hotbed St George's wasn't it?
Doug here:
Thanks for the clarification, but
I'm sorry to say that when I saw the word Canons this immediately
came to mind:
The House of Commons en
bloc do it,
Civil servants by the clock do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Deacons who've done it before do
it,
Minor canons with a roar do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Some rather rotty old rips do it
when they get a bit
tight,
Government whips do it
if it takes them all
night,
Old mountain goats in ravines do
it,
Probably we'll live to see machines
do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love.
(Noel Coward's take on a song by
Cole Porter)
And yes, talk about an old Boys'
Network !
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Yes.
Of course Anne Creting could herself have been a widow but whilst looking
something up for you I discovered that William Creting was originally parson of
Stowe, Suffolk and was given a general pardon by Richard on 3 Sep 1484. This was
about the time when Richard was dividing up the spoils of those attainted for
the October rebellions, including Morton's as Bishop of Ely. Haven't yet been
able to find out whether Stowe was in that diocese or that of Lincoln, I would
have thought the former, but they kept being shuffled.
Doug
here:
When
one can't even trust a parson...
Hilary
concluded:
My fault Doug, they were Canons, the two often get dumped
together. So:
Stall 6 Robert (not John my earlier source was wrong) Morton
1481-86
Stall 8 Christopher Urswick 1492-96
Stall 10 William Creting (Creton) 1489-1519
Stall 11 Oliver King 1480-1503, William Atwater 1504 - 1514
Quite a hotbed St George's wasn't it?
Doug here:
Thanks for the clarification, but
I'm sorry to say that when I saw the word Canons this immediately
came to mind:
The House of Commons en
bloc do it,
Civil servants by the clock do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Deacons who've done it before do
it,
Minor canons with a roar do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Some rather rotty old rips do it
when they get a bit
tight,
Government whips do it
if it takes them all
night,
Old mountain goats in ravines do
it,
Probably we'll live to see machines
do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love.
(Noel Coward's take on a song by
Cole Porter)
And yes, talk about an old Boys'
Network !
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 10:14:09
Doug:Even here across the Pond, we know that prosperous merchant backgrounds isn't the same as being younger sprigs of the nobility, so those bishops were of humble origins. If my memory is correct, it was during the period of the Whig Oligarchy that the practice of sending younger sons of the nobility into the Church became fairly widespread as the family fortune could only be stretched so faAny talk of the Anglican clergy always conjures up Mr Collins from P & P :) :)Looking at my bits of data Doug I think it had always been going on - for both sexes. After all if you had an heir and a spare for your earldom, why not go for a bishop/cardinal and an abbess, or even two or three of each? A different sort of power-base if you struck lucky. Do I recall that Richard was originally destined for the priesthood before his father and Edmund's death, which it's why it's reckoned he has such a good hand? Religious devotion did seem to run in some families more than others, but it could also be that they bred healthier children and had more spares.You're right about the Whigs as well and of course the whole religious revival took on a new turn in the nineteenth century with robust Anglicanism seen as a way for future leaders (educated in public schools) learning how to train the masses. And of course at the same time we had the revival of Catholicism led by people like Henry Newman. It's a fascinating subject to study which I think subconsciously permeates us all - and our behaviour. Lose religion, lose control. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 05:27:49 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
don't know why, but I've always tended to view the marriage of Margaret Beaufort
and Lord Stanley as being more one of convenience; that doesn't mean they may
not have felt affection for each other, though.
Also,
thank you for reminding me about Jane Seymour. One reason for her being
inaccurately described as being sickly is likely because her son, Edward VI,
died young of tuberculosis and everyone knows one gets that disease because of
the health, or lack of it, of one's mother! I just love circular logic, don't
you?
Even
here across the Pond, we know that prosperous merchant backgrounds isn't the
same as being younger sprigs of the nobility, so those bishops were of humble
origins. If my memory is correct, it was during the period of the Whig Oligarchy
that the practice of sending younger sons of the nobility into the Church became
fairly widespread as the family fortune could only be stretched so
far...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with all of this. We do need to know more about the Margaret/Stanley
dynamics. She might have proved a serious embarrassment for Stanley who was
doing well under the Yorkists and then he got stuck with HT.
I also agree that Anne Idley is probably a red herring. After all, wasn't
it Hugh and Isabel Burgh who looked after the nursery? My guess is she was
brought in because someone like Cis or Anne Beauchamp had read the 'Treatise'
and thought it was a model way to bring up young Edward. We know Cis shared
books with Richard's Anne. Richard's Yorkshire household would be far too canny
to miss any potential wrongdoing, particularly after what allegedly happened to
Isabel.
EOM is yet another version of Victorian cliche - if a child survived
infancy but died before adulthood they were 'sickly'. In fact even people like
Jane Seymour are described as sickly - but she died of puerperal fever. And as
you say, it sounds much more like EOM died of some sudden illness. There's no
mention of illness before. As for the coronation, well given the attempts to
hijack Richard on his way to London I'm not surprised he chose not to risk his
heir, given the circumstances of just a few days' before.
BTW on the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described as
coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust Anglicanism?
Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous merchant
backgrounds.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 05:27:49 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
don't know why, but I've always tended to view the marriage of Margaret Beaufort
and Lord Stanley as being more one of convenience; that doesn't mean they may
not have felt affection for each other, though.
Also,
thank you for reminding me about Jane Seymour. One reason for her being
inaccurately described as being sickly is likely because her son, Edward VI,
died young of tuberculosis and everyone knows one gets that disease because of
the health, or lack of it, of one's mother! I just love circular logic, don't
you?
Even
here across the Pond, we know that prosperous merchant backgrounds isn't the
same as being younger sprigs of the nobility, so those bishops were of humble
origins. If my memory is correct, it was during the period of the Whig Oligarchy
that the practice of sending younger sons of the nobility into the Church became
fairly widespread as the family fortune could only be stretched so
far...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi,
I agree with all of this. We do need to know more about the Margaret/Stanley
dynamics. She might have proved a serious embarrassment for Stanley who was
doing well under the Yorkists and then he got stuck with HT.
I also agree that Anne Idley is probably a red herring. After all, wasn't
it Hugh and Isabel Burgh who looked after the nursery? My guess is she was
brought in because someone like Cis or Anne Beauchamp had read the 'Treatise'
and thought it was a model way to bring up young Edward. We know Cis shared
books with Richard's Anne. Richard's Yorkshire household would be far too canny
to miss any potential wrongdoing, particularly after what allegedly happened to
Isabel.
EOM is yet another version of Victorian cliche - if a child survived
infancy but died before adulthood they were 'sickly'. In fact even people like
Jane Seymour are described as sickly - but she died of puerperal fever. And as
you say, it sounds much more like EOM died of some sudden illness. There's no
mention of illness before. As for the coronation, well given the attempts to
hijack Richard on his way to London I'm not surprised he chose not to risk his
heir, given the circumstances of just a few days' before.
BTW on the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described as
coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust Anglicanism?
Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous merchant
backgrounds.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-27 10:22:49
Doug, I believe that during Edward's reign Richard was travelling back from Wales and he caught Stanley up to something on the border between Wales and England. Not sure what it was that Stanley was doing but apparently Richard sorted him out and then travelled on northwards. However, Stanley was not a happy bunny and turned south to London and complained to Edward about Richard. So they have a bit of history there. When Richard was on the Scottish campaign Stanley was with him and I think that he was involved in the seige of Berwick. So maybe they made up then. With regard to William Stanley, I think that he was a supporter of Edward V so he might have been against Richard because he wasn't convinced by the pre-contract and thought that young Edward should have been king. I think it is possible that Stanley could have been one to tell Richard about the so called Hastings plot, though I think that some people think that it was Catesby. If I remember rightly didn't we have a conversation on the forum a while ago and it was thought that Stanley wasn't actually present when Hastings was arrested and that he made up the story to look good in Tudor's eyes? I might have not remembered this correctly.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 10:44:51
Hi,Doug wrote: Maybe if we broke what happened into three parts
they'd make more sense?
The first part would be the period before the
Council accepted the validity of the Pre-Contract and during that period any
agreements made between MB and EW concerning the return of HT would be legal,
wouldn't they? While Tudor was charged with various criminal acts, an attempt by
his mother to arrange his return, in and of itself, wouldn't be illegal. In
exchange for her son's free return, and possible marriage to EoY, for her part
MB would use whatever influence she had, on her husband especially, to ensure
young Edward remained on the throne and the Woodvilles returned to power.
Obviously, EW over-estimated the influence MB had, apparently both on her
husband and anyone else she may have been in a position to influence. If this
was all that was planned between MB and EW, it would help explain Richard's
attitude toward the Stanleys immediately after he accepted the crown. And that's
presuming he even knew about any exchanges between the two women.Breaking down the events of 1483 is always helpful. When we consider the Part 1, (before the pre-contract is accepted as valid), Edward V was King and Richard Protector, so I would think that Richard could expect to be advised of anything that would affect the realm. While it wouldn't normally be illegal for EW and MB to arrange a marriage between their children, it does appear to be subversive in this case because Elizabeth of York was still a legitimate member of the Royal Family and any marriage plans involving her would be state matter, as her availability for a marriage alliance was crucial to foreign policy. Furthermore, Henry Tudor was in exile, not in good standing and had for years been considered a security risk. Richard and the Council would have had a right to know about any such discussions, and the more developed the plans became, the greater the breach of protocol. If Richard did find out, some action would almost certainly have been taken against and probably EW's positions would also be compromised, but since there is no record of any, I assume that he was unaware of their discussions. If Stanley had known of their plans, communicating them to Richard may have assured him of Stanley's loyalty, but I think both women would have been punished in some way.Doug Continued: The second part would have been the lead-up to
and during the October Rebellion. There's no direct evidence, but I'm inclined
to think that, sometime shortly after Richard's coronation, the possibility of
Tudor's return was brought up, most likely by Lord Thomas, and Richard refused
to alter the terms of Tudor's return; Tudor would still have to return with no
guarantees before any further decisions concerning him were made. After the rebellion had been defeated, Richard apparently had
enough evidence to show that MB was not only still plotting to get her son back
into England, but that plotting was part of the over-all rebellion to return
young Edward to the throne. On this occasion, however, and possibly because
Richard didn't want to make an enemy of of Lord
Stanley unless he absolutely had to, while MB was attainted, she and her
properties given into the custody of her husband. The idea of HT's return may have been proposed by Lord Thomas, but as you say, Richard turned it down as too risky because HT was a total unknown in terms of character and was linked to the House of Lancaster (albeit with no legal claim). At this point, MB was only accused of sending HT money, but it was clearly part of a larger threat to his throne in favour of Edward V. As you say, it would have been wise not to make an enemy of Stanley by arresting MB and taking her into formal custody, but it also shows the esteem in which he must have held Stanley by entrusting him with her supervision. Unfortunately, I think he underestimated her relationship with Bray, who was still free to carry out her orders. Does giving her husband custody of MB indicate anything about her relationship with Stanley? The possibilities are:- MB and Stanley were actually very fond of each other, and Richard knew that separating them and punishing her would anger Stanley and put his loyalty in jeopardy.- MB and Stanley were more like business partners, but drawing attention to her activity would test his loyalty by humiliating him, scandalizing his family and undermining his position if he were ridiculed for being unable to control his wife.- Richard may have preferred to keep MB's activity quiet in case it encouraged any other rebellion.Maybe all three reasons played a part.
Doug continued: By the time of the run-up to Bosworth, OTOH, MB,
perhaps feeling she had nothing to lose already being attainted, likely
continued to provide information and funds to her son, although the French
involvement and funding demonstrates whatever monies she may have provided
weren't nearly enough to finance an invasion.
Just how much of what she was doing was known by
her husband is, or so I think, critical to explaining what happened in late
August 1485. Unfortunately, I doubt we're ever going to find anything that could
definitely settle that question one way or the other. Darn it!That is true; she probably didn't feel she had much to lose by continuing to assist HT, although if further activity was uncovered, she may have been removed to the Tower or kept in the custody of another noble family like Eleanor Cobham. Up until then, I can't think of any noblewomen being executed for treason. The Tudors were more equal opportunity when it came to executing traitors. She may have managed to keep some things from Stanley by using Bray to carry out her orders, but he would need to be paid for his services, and if Stanley was properly managing her estates, he should have been controlling her funds. Either he was lazy and left too much to Bray to manage, or he was being drawn into the conspiracy himself. The other question for me is how far the conspiracy went for her. Was her assistance to HT more directed at making him someone that Richard was forced to take seriously and buy his loyalty by allowing him to return and giving him generous rewards, or was she backing his idea to take the throne? Unfortunately, I think we need a tardis for this one!Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 05:53:49 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Ah,
a dreamer and not a schemer, then? Oh well, it takes all types.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Seems
to be more of a poetic type Doug! There's lots about him on the web. Just the
type that kind old Henry VI would have liked, and all that about education
...... No I don't have him as a Bray.
And he left his affairs in a mess. He seems to have forgotten to include
his heir's son in his will (the hero of the Treatise, Thomas, was already dead)
so there are lawsuits between him and the second son. Doesn't seem to have been
a very worldly person to me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
they'd make more sense?
The first part would be the period before the
Council accepted the validity of the Pre-Contract and during that period any
agreements made between MB and EW concerning the return of HT would be legal,
wouldn't they? While Tudor was charged with various criminal acts, an attempt by
his mother to arrange his return, in and of itself, wouldn't be illegal. In
exchange for her son's free return, and possible marriage to EoY, for her part
MB would use whatever influence she had, on her husband especially, to ensure
young Edward remained on the throne and the Woodvilles returned to power.
Obviously, EW over-estimated the influence MB had, apparently both on her
husband and anyone else she may have been in a position to influence. If this
was all that was planned between MB and EW, it would help explain Richard's
attitude toward the Stanleys immediately after he accepted the crown. And that's
presuming he even knew about any exchanges between the two women.Breaking down the events of 1483 is always helpful. When we consider the Part 1, (before the pre-contract is accepted as valid), Edward V was King and Richard Protector, so I would think that Richard could expect to be advised of anything that would affect the realm. While it wouldn't normally be illegal for EW and MB to arrange a marriage between their children, it does appear to be subversive in this case because Elizabeth of York was still a legitimate member of the Royal Family and any marriage plans involving her would be state matter, as her availability for a marriage alliance was crucial to foreign policy. Furthermore, Henry Tudor was in exile, not in good standing and had for years been considered a security risk. Richard and the Council would have had a right to know about any such discussions, and the more developed the plans became, the greater the breach of protocol. If Richard did find out, some action would almost certainly have been taken against and probably EW's positions would also be compromised, but since there is no record of any, I assume that he was unaware of their discussions. If Stanley had known of their plans, communicating them to Richard may have assured him of Stanley's loyalty, but I think both women would have been punished in some way.Doug Continued: The second part would have been the lead-up to
and during the October Rebellion. There's no direct evidence, but I'm inclined
to think that, sometime shortly after Richard's coronation, the possibility of
Tudor's return was brought up, most likely by Lord Thomas, and Richard refused
to alter the terms of Tudor's return; Tudor would still have to return with no
guarantees before any further decisions concerning him were made. After the rebellion had been defeated, Richard apparently had
enough evidence to show that MB was not only still plotting to get her son back
into England, but that plotting was part of the over-all rebellion to return
young Edward to the throne. On this occasion, however, and possibly because
Richard didn't want to make an enemy of of Lord
Stanley unless he absolutely had to, while MB was attainted, she and her
properties given into the custody of her husband. The idea of HT's return may have been proposed by Lord Thomas, but as you say, Richard turned it down as too risky because HT was a total unknown in terms of character and was linked to the House of Lancaster (albeit with no legal claim). At this point, MB was only accused of sending HT money, but it was clearly part of a larger threat to his throne in favour of Edward V. As you say, it would have been wise not to make an enemy of Stanley by arresting MB and taking her into formal custody, but it also shows the esteem in which he must have held Stanley by entrusting him with her supervision. Unfortunately, I think he underestimated her relationship with Bray, who was still free to carry out her orders. Does giving her husband custody of MB indicate anything about her relationship with Stanley? The possibilities are:- MB and Stanley were actually very fond of each other, and Richard knew that separating them and punishing her would anger Stanley and put his loyalty in jeopardy.- MB and Stanley were more like business partners, but drawing attention to her activity would test his loyalty by humiliating him, scandalizing his family and undermining his position if he were ridiculed for being unable to control his wife.- Richard may have preferred to keep MB's activity quiet in case it encouraged any other rebellion.Maybe all three reasons played a part.
Doug continued: By the time of the run-up to Bosworth, OTOH, MB,
perhaps feeling she had nothing to lose already being attainted, likely
continued to provide information and funds to her son, although the French
involvement and funding demonstrates whatever monies she may have provided
weren't nearly enough to finance an invasion.
Just how much of what she was doing was known by
her husband is, or so I think, critical to explaining what happened in late
August 1485. Unfortunately, I doubt we're ever going to find anything that could
definitely settle that question one way or the other. Darn it!That is true; she probably didn't feel she had much to lose by continuing to assist HT, although if further activity was uncovered, she may have been removed to the Tower or kept in the custody of another noble family like Eleanor Cobham. Up until then, I can't think of any noblewomen being executed for treason. The Tudors were more equal opportunity when it came to executing traitors. She may have managed to keep some things from Stanley by using Bray to carry out her orders, but he would need to be paid for his services, and if Stanley was properly managing her estates, he should have been controlling her funds. Either he was lazy and left too much to Bray to manage, or he was being drawn into the conspiracy himself. The other question for me is how far the conspiracy went for her. Was her assistance to HT more directed at making him someone that Richard was forced to take seriously and buy his loyalty by allowing him to return and giving him generous rewards, or was she backing his idea to take the throne? Unfortunately, I think we need a tardis for this one!Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 05:53:49 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Ah,
a dreamer and not a schemer, then? Oh well, it takes all types.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Seems
to be more of a poetic type Doug! There's lots about him on the web. Just the
type that kind old Henry VI would have liked, and all that about education
...... No I don't have him as a Bray.
And he left his affairs in a mess. He seems to have forgotten to include
his heir's son in his will (the hero of the Treatise, Thomas, was already dead)
so there are lawsuits between him and the second son. Doesn't seem to have been
a very worldly person to me.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 14:26:58
Bray was pardoned by Richard in 1483 after Buckingham's Rebellion. In 1483 he acted as go between for MB and Morton. Bray raised much needed funds for Richmond and won key gentlemen to the Tudor cause including Giles Daubeney and Richard Guildford. I found this online in something called the Encyclopedia of the WOTR so I don't know how reliable it is. Why on earth would Richard pardon him because apparently he carried on working for Tudor!Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 14:52:21
Mary,
Now
that you've mentioned it, I vaguely remember something about Richard, Lord
Stanley and, I believe, people named Harrington involved in some fighting over
some land. Stanley either wanted the land for himself or one of his affinity and
Harrington was either a member of Richard's or else simply appealed to him for
help. I gather Lord Stanley wasn't above grabbing property and then, once in his
possession, letting the courts or the King get involved. And, of course, once in
possession, the money from the land could be used to fight the court battle
whether before a judge or the King.
You're
also right about that conversation whether or not Stanley was present when
Hastings was arrested and executed. I think the major point question was whether
or not Stanley had also been arrested and, partly because of how Richard treated
Stanley and his wife during the coronation ceremonies, it was more or less
decided that Stanley may have been involved in a scuffle, but almost certainly
hadn't been arrested.
In
regards to the matter of Sir William, I wonder if we shouldn't look at him as
being one of those I termed quite a while back as an Edwardian Yorkist when we
were discussing the October Rebellion? IOW, Sir William supported the House of
York but, for some reason or other, eventually came to believe that the
Pre-Contract was a put-up job and Elizabeth Woodville's children by Edward IV
were indeed legitimate. I say eventually because Sir William apparently
supported Richard's becoming king, as well as Richard against Buckingham during
the October Rebellion. So, the question becomes: What, or more likely who, was
responsible for Sir William's change mind over the validity of the Pre-Contract
between the autumn/winter of 1483 and the spring of 1485?
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I believe that during Edward's reign Richard was travelling back from Wales and
he caught Stanley up to something on the border between Wales and England. Not
sure what it was that Stanley was doing but apparently Richard sorted him out
and then travelled on northwards. However, Stanley was not a happy bunny and
turned south to London and complained to Edward about Richard. So they have a
bit of history there. When Richard was on the Scottish campaign Stanley was with
him and I think that he was involved in the seige of Berwick. So maybe they made
up then. With regard to William Stanley, I think that he was a supporter of
Edward V so he might have been against Richard because he wasn't convinced by
the pre-contract and thought that young Edward should have been king. I think it
is possible that Stanley could have been one to tell Richard about the so called
Hastings plot, though I think that some people think that it was Catesby. If I
remember rightly didn't we have a conversation on the forum a while ago and it
was thought that Stanley wasn't actually present when Hastings was arrested and
that he made up the story to look good in Tudor's eyes? I might have not
remembered this correctly.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Now
that you've mentioned it, I vaguely remember something about Richard, Lord
Stanley and, I believe, people named Harrington involved in some fighting over
some land. Stanley either wanted the land for himself or one of his affinity and
Harrington was either a member of Richard's or else simply appealed to him for
help. I gather Lord Stanley wasn't above grabbing property and then, once in his
possession, letting the courts or the King get involved. And, of course, once in
possession, the money from the land could be used to fight the court battle
whether before a judge or the King.
You're
also right about that conversation whether or not Stanley was present when
Hastings was arrested and executed. I think the major point question was whether
or not Stanley had also been arrested and, partly because of how Richard treated
Stanley and his wife during the coronation ceremonies, it was more or less
decided that Stanley may have been involved in a scuffle, but almost certainly
hadn't been arrested.
In
regards to the matter of Sir William, I wonder if we shouldn't look at him as
being one of those I termed quite a while back as an Edwardian Yorkist when we
were discussing the October Rebellion? IOW, Sir William supported the House of
York but, for some reason or other, eventually came to believe that the
Pre-Contract was a put-up job and Elizabeth Woodville's children by Edward IV
were indeed legitimate. I say eventually because Sir William apparently
supported Richard's becoming king, as well as Richard against Buckingham during
the October Rebellion. So, the question becomes: What, or more likely who, was
responsible for Sir William's change mind over the validity of the Pre-Contract
between the autumn/winter of 1483 and the spring of 1485?
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I believe that during Edward's reign Richard was travelling back from Wales and
he caught Stanley up to something on the border between Wales and England. Not
sure what it was that Stanley was doing but apparently Richard sorted him out
and then travelled on northwards. However, Stanley was not a happy bunny and
turned south to London and complained to Edward about Richard. So they have a
bit of history there. When Richard was on the Scottish campaign Stanley was with
him and I think that he was involved in the seige of Berwick. So maybe they made
up then. With regard to William Stanley, I think that he was a supporter of
Edward V so he might have been against Richard because he wasn't convinced by
the pre-contract and thought that young Edward should have been king. I think it
is possible that Stanley could have been one to tell Richard about the so called
Hastings plot, though I think that some people think that it was Catesby. If I
remember rightly didn't we have a conversation on the forum a while ago and it
was thought that Stanley wasn't actually present when Hastings was arrested and
that he made up the story to look good in Tudor's eyes? I might have not
remembered this correctly.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-27 15:08:51
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 15:29:43
I had forgotten about the Harrington problem, so there were two examples of Richard coming up against the Stanleys or maybe just Thomas.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 15:29:43
Yes Mary Berry think the mention of the Stanley punch up at the Tower was Vergil?And the meeting on the road is when young Richard behave arrogantly was I think with Sir William?Doug the feud was over Hornby castle and the Harington inheritance. Not with my notes but it was to do with the Stanley's marrying the Harrington girls for their inheritance. Teenager Richard dug in in support of his Harrington chums and Edward told him to behaveSorry about predictive text! Mary Berry oh dear :)Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 2:52 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Now
that you've mentioned it, I vaguely remember something about Richard, Lord
Stanley and, I believe, people named Harrington involved in some fighting over
some land. Stanley either wanted the land for himself or one of his affinity and
Harrington was either a member of Richard's or else simply appealed to him for
help. I gather Lord Stanley wasn't above grabbing property and then, once in his
possession, letting the courts or the King get involved. And, of course, once in
possession, the money from the land could be used to fight the court battle
whether before a judge or the King.
You're
also right about that conversation whether or not Stanley was present when
Hastings was arrested and executed. I think the major point question was whether
or not Stanley had also been arrested and, partly because of how Richard treated
Stanley and his wife during the coronation ceremonies, it was more or less
decided that Stanley may have been involved in a scuffle, but almost certainly
hadn't been arrested.
In
regards to the matter of Sir William, I wonder if we shouldn't look at him as
being one of those I termed quite a while back as an Edwardian Yorkist when we
were discussing the October Rebellion? IOW, Sir William supported the House of
York but, for some reason or other, eventually came to believe that the
Pre-Contract was a put-up job and Elizabeth Woodville's children by Edward IV
were indeed legitimate. I say eventually because Sir William apparently
supported Richard's becoming king, as well as Richard against Buckingham during
the October Rebellion. So, the question becomes: What, or more likely who, was
responsible for Sir William's change mind over the validity of the Pre-Contract
between the autumn/winter of 1483 and the spring of 1485?
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I believe that during Edward's reign Richard was travelling back from Wales and
he caught Stanley up to something on the border between Wales and England. Not
sure what it was that Stanley was doing but apparently Richard sorted him out
and then travelled on northwards. However, Stanley was not a happy bunny and
turned south to London and complained to Edward about Richard. So they have a
bit of history there. When Richard was on the Scottish campaign Stanley was with
him and I think that he was involved in the seige of Berwick. So maybe they made
up then. With regard to William Stanley, I think that he was a supporter of
Edward V so he might have been against Richard because he wasn't convinced by
the pre-contract and thought that young Edward should have been king. I think it
is possible that Stanley could have been one to tell Richard about the so called
Hastings plot, though I think that some people think that it was Catesby. If I
remember rightly didn't we have a conversation on the forum a while ago and it
was thought that Stanley wasn't actually present when Hastings was arrested and
that he made up the story to look good in Tudor's eyes? I might have not
remembered this correctly.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Mary,
Now
that you've mentioned it, I vaguely remember something about Richard, Lord
Stanley and, I believe, people named Harrington involved in some fighting over
some land. Stanley either wanted the land for himself or one of his affinity and
Harrington was either a member of Richard's or else simply appealed to him for
help. I gather Lord Stanley wasn't above grabbing property and then, once in his
possession, letting the courts or the King get involved. And, of course, once in
possession, the money from the land could be used to fight the court battle
whether before a judge or the King.
You're
also right about that conversation whether or not Stanley was present when
Hastings was arrested and executed. I think the major point question was whether
or not Stanley had also been arrested and, partly because of how Richard treated
Stanley and his wife during the coronation ceremonies, it was more or less
decided that Stanley may have been involved in a scuffle, but almost certainly
hadn't been arrested.
In
regards to the matter of Sir William, I wonder if we shouldn't look at him as
being one of those I termed quite a while back as an Edwardian Yorkist when we
were discussing the October Rebellion? IOW, Sir William supported the House of
York but, for some reason or other, eventually came to believe that the
Pre-Contract was a put-up job and Elizabeth Woodville's children by Edward IV
were indeed legitimate. I say eventually because Sir William apparently
supported Richard's becoming king, as well as Richard against Buckingham during
the October Rebellion. So, the question becomes: What, or more likely who, was
responsible for Sir William's change mind over the validity of the Pre-Contract
between the autumn/winter of 1483 and the spring of 1485?
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I believe that during Edward's reign Richard was travelling back from Wales and
he caught Stanley up to something on the border between Wales and England. Not
sure what it was that Stanley was doing but apparently Richard sorted him out
and then travelled on northwards. However, Stanley was not a happy bunny and
turned south to London and complained to Edward about Richard. So they have a
bit of history there. When Richard was on the Scottish campaign Stanley was with
him and I think that he was involved in the seige of Berwick. So maybe they made
up then. With regard to William Stanley, I think that he was a supporter of
Edward V so he might have been against Richard because he wasn't convinced by
the pre-contract and thought that young Edward should have been king. I think it
is possible that Stanley could have been one to tell Richard about the so called
Hastings plot, though I think that some people think that it was Catesby. If I
remember rightly didn't we have a conversation on the forum a while ago and it
was thought that Stanley wasn't actually present when Hastings was arrested and
that he made up the story to look good in Tudor's eyes? I might have not
remembered this correctly.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 15:47:47
Hilary,
Of course, the problem we face is that we don't what sort of conversations were going on amongst that group arranging young Edward's coronation. Conversations not related to the coronation, I mean. We also don't know exactly on what date the Pre-Contract was first brought before the Council and I really think when the Pre-Contract was brought up is very important. Before the Pre-Contract was brought to the Council's attention, everyone involved, including Hastings, was operating on the presumption that the political situation as then was would continue for the foreseeable future. Young Edward would be King, Richard would be Protector and the Council, if not pre-eminent, would still have quite a lot to say on how things went. IOW, Hastings would remain where he was as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. While he retained those positions, especially the Captaincy, he was safe from any attacks from anyone with a grudge against him. Even if the person with the grudge, or thought to have one anyway, was Richard?
Here I have to go back a bit, because I really think that it was the Council that had a much larger say in what happened than is commonly believed or thought. We know that when Richard arrived in London in May 1483, he was all for having Rivers, Grey and Vaughan tried, convicted and executed for treason but, at the request of the Council, backed off. We also know that Hastings retained his Captaincy and Mastership, and I believe that was again due to the actions of the Council. IOW, the members of the Council were possibly all that stood between Hastings and ruin. But, should Richard become King, it would be a foregone conclusion that the membership of the Council would change. Nor would the aims of the Council remain the same. Under the Protectorate, Richard would need the support of the Council and thus have to adjust whatever he may have wanted to do to what he could get a majority of the Council to agree to.
Once the Pre-Contract was placed before the Council, though, everything changed. Hastings was now faced with possibility of young Edward being replaced as king by Richard. Both were Yorks, so in and of itself that wouldn't necessarily be a stumbling block for a Yorkist such as Hastings. Unfortunately, if the histories are to be believed, Richard had made his aversion to Hastings known and given his reason for that sentiment; he held Hastings at least partially responsible for Edward's immoral behavior. While young Edward was king, Richard likely would need Hastings' support as part of that much-needed Council majority enough so that he wouldn't act on his feelings but, should Richard become king, that changed as would the Council's membership.
To a certain it's entirely possible that Hastings was set up, but not, I think, in the manner you've been thinking. We know Hastings was on the coronation committee and that, among others, that committee included Bishop Morton. We also have it on record that Morton was known for his ability to read other people and use what he learned to his own advantage. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Morton simply played on Hastings' fears for his future under Richard III; stripped of the Captaincy and Mastership, possibly having to forfeit some/most/all of any properties he'd been given by Edward (if any) and then tossed to the tender mercies of anyone Hastings had crossed in the past two decades. Hastings position as Edward's Lord Chamberlain alone would likely mean there were people out there who wouldn't mind seeing him powerless and poverty-stricken (relatively speaking), if not dead.
That's what I think motivated Hastings well, for now anyway!
What I find interesting concerning all these well-placed traitors is that, even with all the positions they controlled, they still had to rely on French mercenaries to make up the majority of Tudor's army. Sort of a disconnect between what actually happened and what's been entered in the history books, isn't it?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
I'm reluctantly coming round to this position too - I wanted Hastings to be in the clear, or at least set up. And yes I agree, Doug your point about Abbeys is very relevant.
You see I think the final fly in the ointment for Hastings was the appearance of Buckingham and Richard's apparent attachment to him. What a shame he didn't wait a month or two longer, like Stanley and Howard.
Going right back to the original heading of this - Bosworth - I understand more and more why it was so necessary to get rid of the HS of Leics & Warks the day before. This was no random ambush on Richard Boughton, it was a planned murder. Because he lived where I do, so HT's planned battlefield was only 8 miles up the road. He would have known all its hazards, including the marsh, as would the guys he'd recruited. A clever and treacherous plan indeed, Burton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Of course, the problem we face is that we don't what sort of conversations were going on amongst that group arranging young Edward's coronation. Conversations not related to the coronation, I mean. We also don't know exactly on what date the Pre-Contract was first brought before the Council and I really think when the Pre-Contract was brought up is very important. Before the Pre-Contract was brought to the Council's attention, everyone involved, including Hastings, was operating on the presumption that the political situation as then was would continue for the foreseeable future. Young Edward would be King, Richard would be Protector and the Council, if not pre-eminent, would still have quite a lot to say on how things went. IOW, Hastings would remain where he was as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. While he retained those positions, especially the Captaincy, he was safe from any attacks from anyone with a grudge against him. Even if the person with the grudge, or thought to have one anyway, was Richard?
Here I have to go back a bit, because I really think that it was the Council that had a much larger say in what happened than is commonly believed or thought. We know that when Richard arrived in London in May 1483, he was all for having Rivers, Grey and Vaughan tried, convicted and executed for treason but, at the request of the Council, backed off. We also know that Hastings retained his Captaincy and Mastership, and I believe that was again due to the actions of the Council. IOW, the members of the Council were possibly all that stood between Hastings and ruin. But, should Richard become King, it would be a foregone conclusion that the membership of the Council would change. Nor would the aims of the Council remain the same. Under the Protectorate, Richard would need the support of the Council and thus have to adjust whatever he may have wanted to do to what he could get a majority of the Council to agree to.
Once the Pre-Contract was placed before the Council, though, everything changed. Hastings was now faced with possibility of young Edward being replaced as king by Richard. Both were Yorks, so in and of itself that wouldn't necessarily be a stumbling block for a Yorkist such as Hastings. Unfortunately, if the histories are to be believed, Richard had made his aversion to Hastings known and given his reason for that sentiment; he held Hastings at least partially responsible for Edward's immoral behavior. While young Edward was king, Richard likely would need Hastings' support as part of that much-needed Council majority enough so that he wouldn't act on his feelings but, should Richard become king, that changed as would the Council's membership.
To a certain it's entirely possible that Hastings was set up, but not, I think, in the manner you've been thinking. We know Hastings was on the coronation committee and that, among others, that committee included Bishop Morton. We also have it on record that Morton was known for his ability to read other people and use what he learned to his own advantage. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Morton simply played on Hastings' fears for his future under Richard III; stripped of the Captaincy and Mastership, possibly having to forfeit some/most/all of any properties he'd been given by Edward (if any) and then tossed to the tender mercies of anyone Hastings had crossed in the past two decades. Hastings position as Edward's Lord Chamberlain alone would likely mean there were people out there who wouldn't mind seeing him powerless and poverty-stricken (relatively speaking), if not dead.
That's what I think motivated Hastings well, for now anyway!
What I find interesting concerning all these well-placed traitors is that, even with all the positions they controlled, they still had to rely on French mercenaries to make up the majority of Tudor's army. Sort of a disconnect between what actually happened and what's been entered in the history books, isn't it?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
I'm reluctantly coming round to this position too - I wanted Hastings to be in the clear, or at least set up. And yes I agree, Doug your point about Abbeys is very relevant.
You see I think the final fly in the ointment for Hastings was the appearance of Buckingham and Richard's apparent attachment to him. What a shame he didn't wait a month or two longer, like Stanley and Howard.
Going right back to the original heading of this - Bosworth - I understand more and more why it was so necessary to get rid of the HS of Leics & Warks the day before. This was no random ambush on Richard Boughton, it was a planned murder. Because he lived where I do, so HT's planned battlefield was only 8 miles up the road. He would have known all its hazards, including the marsh, as would the guys he'd recruited. A clever and treacherous plan indeed, Burton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-27 17:43:32
Just a thought Doug regarding Richard's relationship with Hastings. After Charles of Burgundy died Margaret had a problem ( can't for the life of me remember what exactly probably with the French) and she asked Edward to go to her aid with troops but he refused, however, Hastings did, probably in his position as Captain of Calais and I believe that Richard did to. So at that time they were acting together. Does anyone else have any information on this? It could have been a Wendy Moorhen article for the Bulletin but I am not sure. I know she wrote a few things about Hastings.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-27 19:57:39
Hi Hilary,On the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-28 13:35:43
Hilary,
Perhaps
the practice simply became more noticed during the early 18th century? The
conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism during the middle/late 16th century
closed the convents and abbeys, so all those second sons (and daughters) simply
didn't, for a while anyway, have as many places available in the religious
establishment. Then there was the Civil War and Commonwealth to disturb
matters...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Any
talk of the Anglican clergy always conjures up Mr Collins from P & P :)
:)
Looking at my bits of data Doug I think it had always been going on - for
both sexes. After all if you had an heir and a spare for your earldom, why not
go for a bishop/cardinal and an abbess, or even two or three of each? A
different sort of power-base if you struck lucky. Do I recall that Richard was
originally destined for the priesthood before his father and Edmund's death,
which it's why it's reckoned he has such a good hand? Religious devotion did
seem to run in some families more than others, but it could also be that they
bred healthier children and had more spares.
You're right about the Whigs as well and of course the whole religious
revival took on a new turn in the nineteenth century with robust Anglicanism
seen as a way for future leaders (educated in public schools) learning how to
train the masses. And of course at the same time we had the revival of
Catholicism led by people like Henry Newman. It's a fascinating subject to study
which I think subconsciously permeates us all - and our behaviour. Lose
religion, lose control.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Perhaps
the practice simply became more noticed during the early 18th century? The
conversion from Catholicism to Protestantism during the middle/late 16th century
closed the convents and abbeys, so all those second sons (and daughters) simply
didn't, for a while anyway, have as many places available in the religious
establishment. Then there was the Civil War and Commonwealth to disturb
matters...
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Any
talk of the Anglican clergy always conjures up Mr Collins from P & P :)
:)
Looking at my bits of data Doug I think it had always been going on - for
both sexes. After all if you had an heir and a spare for your earldom, why not
go for a bishop/cardinal and an abbess, or even two or three of each? A
different sort of power-base if you struck lucky. Do I recall that Richard was
originally destined for the priesthood before his father and Edmund's death,
which it's why it's reckoned he has such a good hand? Religious devotion did
seem to run in some families more than others, but it could also be that they
bred healthier children and had more spares.
You're right about the Whigs as well and of course the whole religious
revival took on a new turn in the nineteenth century with robust Anglicanism
seen as a way for future leaders (educated in public schools) learning how to
train the masses. And of course at the same time we had the revival of
Catholicism led by people like Henry Newman. It's a fascinating subject to study
which I think subconsciously permeates us all - and our behaviour. Lose
religion, lose control.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-28 14:15:00
It's often suggested that the Harrington case was the reason the Stanley's betrayed Richard, but that means the Stanley's bore a grudge for years. It was a case at the time of another example of Stanley greed, and of Richard rewarding loyalty with his support, even at an early age. Richard matured very young indeed, and Edward making him lord of the north impinged on what the Stanley's considered their territory and their power base. Richard always looked after those who had proven themselves to him, a trait the Stanley's may later have realised could serve them well too. I don't believe Richard ever behaved arrogantly with anyone, not being in his nature, and certainly not something that would engender such fierce loyalty from those who knew him best.Vergil was a great advocate for making up stories to prove his point. An early Alison Weir one could say! :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 16:29, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Yes Mary Berry think the mention of the Stanley punch up at the Tower was Vergil?And the meeting on the road is when young Richard behave arrogantly was I think with Sir William?Doug the feud was over Hornby castle and the Harington inheritance. Not with my notes but it was to do with the Stanley's marrying the Harrington girls for their inheritance.. Teenager Richard dug in in support of his Harrington chums and Edward told him to behaveSorry about predictive text! Mary Berry oh dear :)Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 2:52 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Now
that you've mentioned it, I vaguely remember something about Richard, Lord
Stanley and, I believe, people named Harrington involved in some fighting over
some land. Stanley either wanted the land for himself or one of his affinity and
Harrington was either a member of Richard's or else simply appealed to him for
help. I gather Lord Stanley wasn't above grabbing property and then, once in his
possession, letting the courts or the King get involved. And, of course, once in
possession, the money from the land could be used to fight the court battle
whether before a judge or the King.
You're
also right about that conversation whether or not Stanley was present when
Hastings was arrested and executed. I think the major point question was whether
or not Stanley had also been arrested and, partly because of how Richard treated
Stanley and his wife during the coronation ceremonies, it was more or less
decided that Stanley may have been involved in a scuffle, but almost certainly
hadn't been arrested.
In
regards to the matter of Sir William, I wonder if we shouldn't look at him as
being one of those I termed quite a while back as an Edwardian Yorkist when we
were discussing the October Rebellion? IOW, Sir William supported the House of
York but, for some reason or other, eventually came to believe that the
Pre-Contract was a put-up job and Elizabeth Woodville's children by Edward IV
were indeed legitimate. I say eventually because Sir William apparently
supported Richard's becoming king, as well as Richard against Buckingham during
the October Rebellion. So, the question becomes: What, or more likely who, was
responsible for Sir William's change mind over the validity of the Pre-Contract
between the autumn/winter of 1483 and the spring of 1485?
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I believe that during Edward's reign Richard was travelling back from Wales and
he caught Stanley up to something on the border between Wales and England. Not
sure what it was that Stanley was doing but apparently Richard sorted him out
and then travelled on northwards. However, Stanley was not a happy bunny and
turned south to London and complained to Edward about Richard. So they have a
bit of history there. When Richard was on the Scottish campaign Stanley was with
him and I think that he was involved in the seige of Berwick. So maybe they made
up then. With regard to William Stanley, I think that he was a supporter of
Edward V so he might have been against Richard because he wasn't convinced by
the pre-contract and thought that young Edward should have been king. I think it
is possible that Stanley could have been one to tell Richard about the so called
Hastings plot, though I think that some people think that it was Catesby. If I
remember rightly didn't we have a conversation on the forum a while ago and it
was thought that Stanley wasn't actually present when Hastings was arrested and
that he made up the story to look good in Tudor's eyes? I might have not
remembered this correctly.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Yes Mary Berry think the mention of the Stanley punch up at the Tower was Vergil?And the meeting on the road is when young Richard behave arrogantly was I think with Sir William?Doug the feud was over Hornby castle and the Harington inheritance. Not with my notes but it was to do with the Stanley's marrying the Harrington girls for their inheritance.. Teenager Richard dug in in support of his Harrington chums and Edward told him to behaveSorry about predictive text! Mary Berry oh dear :)Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneOn Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 2:52 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Now
that you've mentioned it, I vaguely remember something about Richard, Lord
Stanley and, I believe, people named Harrington involved in some fighting over
some land. Stanley either wanted the land for himself or one of his affinity and
Harrington was either a member of Richard's or else simply appealed to him for
help. I gather Lord Stanley wasn't above grabbing property and then, once in his
possession, letting the courts or the King get involved. And, of course, once in
possession, the money from the land could be used to fight the court battle
whether before a judge or the King.
You're
also right about that conversation whether or not Stanley was present when
Hastings was arrested and executed. I think the major point question was whether
or not Stanley had also been arrested and, partly because of how Richard treated
Stanley and his wife during the coronation ceremonies, it was more or less
decided that Stanley may have been involved in a scuffle, but almost certainly
hadn't been arrested.
In
regards to the matter of Sir William, I wonder if we shouldn't look at him as
being one of those I termed quite a while back as an Edwardian Yorkist when we
were discussing the October Rebellion? IOW, Sir William supported the House of
York but, for some reason or other, eventually came to believe that the
Pre-Contract was a put-up job and Elizabeth Woodville's children by Edward IV
were indeed legitimate. I say eventually because Sir William apparently
supported Richard's becoming king, as well as Richard against Buckingham during
the October Rebellion. So, the question becomes: What, or more likely who, was
responsible for Sir William's change mind over the validity of the Pre-Contract
between the autumn/winter of 1483 and the spring of 1485?
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I believe that during Edward's reign Richard was travelling back from Wales and
he caught Stanley up to something on the border between Wales and England. Not
sure what it was that Stanley was doing but apparently Richard sorted him out
and then travelled on northwards. However, Stanley was not a happy bunny and
turned south to London and complained to Edward about Richard. So they have a
bit of history there. When Richard was on the Scottish campaign Stanley was with
him and I think that he was involved in the seige of Berwick. So maybe they made
up then. With regard to William Stanley, I think that he was a supporter of
Edward V so he might have been against Richard because he wasn't convinced by
the pre-contract and thought that young Edward should have been king. I think it
is possible that Stanley could have been one to tell Richard about the so called
Hastings plot, though I think that some people think that it was Catesby. If I
remember rightly didn't we have a conversation on the forum a while ago and it
was thought that Stanley wasn't actually present when Hastings was arrested and
that he made up the story to look good in Tudor's eyes? I might have not
remembered this correctly.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-28 14:47:14
Nico
wrote:
Breaking down the events of
1483 is always helpful. When we consider the Part 1, (before the pre-contract is
accepted as valid), Edward V was King and Richard Protector, so I would think
that Richard could expect to be advised of anything that would affect the realm.
While it wouldn't normally be illegal for EW and MB to arrange a marriage
between their children, it does appear to be subversive in this case because
Elizabeth of York was still a legitimate member of the Royal Family and any
marriage plans involving her would be state matter, as her availability for a
marriage alliance was crucial to foreign policy. Furthermore, Henry Tudor was in
exile, not in good standing and had for years been considered a security risk.
Richard and the Council would have had a right to know about any such
discussions, and the more developed the plans became, the greater the
breach of protocol. If Richard did find out, some action would almost certainly
have been taken against and probably EW's positions would also be compromised,
but since there is no record of any, I assume that he was unaware of their
discussions. If Stanley had known of their plans, communicating them to Richard
may have assured him of Stanley's loyalty, but I think both women would have
been punished in some way.
Doug here:
Oh yes, I quite agree that EW and MB would have been skating on
thin ice in trying to arrange a marriage between their children behind the backs
of the King, the Protector and the Council. However, if the proposed marriage
was simply one piece of an over-all effort to drastically limit the power and
authority of the Protector, then the negotiations being clandestine was a
necessity. If, as I think, the proposed marriage was simply one part of an
overall effort to limit the power of the Protector, placing him much more under
the control of the Council, then controlling the Council became paramount.
Viewed as one part of such an effort in coalition-building, then the proposed
marriage makes much more sense.
Nor, I imagine, would there have been expectations on either side
that the proposed marriage would take place if the King and his Council objected
strenuously enough, even after the Protector had been effectively neutered.
OTOH, whether there was a marriage or not, the aims of both parties would have
been achieved; the Woodvilles would be back in the King's Council and Household,
the Protector would have had his wings severely clipped, and MB would have her
son back.
Nico
continued:
The idea
of HT's return may have been proposed by Lord Thomas, but as you say, Richard
turned it down as too risky because HT was a total unknown in terms of character
and was linked to the House of Lancaster (albeit with no legal claim). At this
point, MB was only accused of sending HT money, but it was clearly part of a
larger threat to his throne in favour of Edward V. As you say, it would have
been wise not to make an enemy of Stanley by arresting MB and taking her into
formal custody, but it also shows the esteem in which he must have held Stanley
by entrusting him with her supervision. Unfortunately, I think he underestimated
her relationship with Bray, who was still free to carry out her orders. Does
giving her husband custody of MB indicate anything about her relationship with
Stanley? The possibilities are:
- MB and
Stanley were actually very fond of each other, and Richard knew that separating
them and punishing her would anger Stanley and put his loyalty in
jeopardy.
- MB and
Stanley were more like business partners, but drawing attention to her activity
would test his loyalty by humiliating him, scandalizing his family and
undermining his position if he were ridiculed for being unable to control his
wife.
- Richard
may have preferred to keep MB's activity quiet in case it encouraged any other
rebellion.
Maybe all
three reasons played a part.
Doug here:
I brought up the idea that Lord Stanley
inquiring about his step-son returning to England because, should Richard agree
outright or modify the conditions somehow in Tudor's favor, then MB would be
able to tell EW Thanks, but no thanks and I can't see Margaret Beaufort at
least not trying the simplest method first.
Considering how marriages were viewed then,
especially amongst the nobility, I'd go
with your second possibility as the most likely, although that doesn't mean
there wasn't any affection at all between them and the third where it is. If
anything, I wonder if Richard wasn't so much worried about MB's sending money
and letters to her son as he was about Tudor or someone else, availing
themselves of the network MB used to get the money and letters to Tudor.
Nico concluded:
That is
true; she probably didn't feel she had much to lose by continuing to assist HT,
although if further activity was uncovered, she may have been removed to the
Tower or kept in the custody of another noble family like Eleanor Cobham.
Up until then, I can't think of any noblewomen being executed for treason. The
Tudors were more equal opportunity when it came to executing traitors. She may
have managed to keep some things from Stanley by using Bray to carry out her
orders, but he would need to be paid for his services, and if Stanley was
properly managing her estates, he should have been controlling her funds. Either
he was lazy and left too much to Bray to manage, or he was being drawn into the
conspiracy himself. The other question for me is how far the conspiracy went for
her. Was her assistance to HT more directed at making him someone that Richard
was forced to take seriously and buy his loyalty by allowing him to return and
giving him generous rewards, or was she backing his idea to take the throne?
Unfortunately, I think we need a tardis for this one!
Doug here:
Of course, we know what exactly MB was sending
to Tudor after the failure of the October Rebellion. it may have been limited to
letters with only small sums of money she could scrape together which, frankly,
is my view at least until something else shows up.
It seems to me that any plans for an invasion
aimed at overthrowing Richard would take several months at least to be put
together, so we need to look at what was happening during 1484, I think. It's
entirely possible that what convinced Lord Stanley to switch sides, which is
what he effectively did by not aligning himself with Richard, was the death of
the PoW? I know people wrote, and are still writing, that Richard named his
nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, as his successor, but there's absolutely no
evidence he ever did so. Personally, I tend to think that, following the
completely unexpected death of his son, Richard was too grief-stricken to
consider the matter and that it was at that point that Stanley first began
moving towards supporting his son as a possible replacement for Richard. Whether
Stanley ever communicated his thoughts on the subject to his wife, I don't
know.
Doug
Who has has been severely disappointed lo, these
many past Christmases, by not finding a large, blue Police Box under his
tree!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Breaking down the events of
1483 is always helpful. When we consider the Part 1, (before the pre-contract is
accepted as valid), Edward V was King and Richard Protector, so I would think
that Richard could expect to be advised of anything that would affect the realm.
While it wouldn't normally be illegal for EW and MB to arrange a marriage
between their children, it does appear to be subversive in this case because
Elizabeth of York was still a legitimate member of the Royal Family and any
marriage plans involving her would be state matter, as her availability for a
marriage alliance was crucial to foreign policy. Furthermore, Henry Tudor was in
exile, not in good standing and had for years been considered a security risk.
Richard and the Council would have had a right to know about any such
discussions, and the more developed the plans became, the greater the
breach of protocol. If Richard did find out, some action would almost certainly
have been taken against and probably EW's positions would also be compromised,
but since there is no record of any, I assume that he was unaware of their
discussions. If Stanley had known of their plans, communicating them to Richard
may have assured him of Stanley's loyalty, but I think both women would have
been punished in some way.
Doug here:
Oh yes, I quite agree that EW and MB would have been skating on
thin ice in trying to arrange a marriage between their children behind the backs
of the King, the Protector and the Council. However, if the proposed marriage
was simply one piece of an over-all effort to drastically limit the power and
authority of the Protector, then the negotiations being clandestine was a
necessity. If, as I think, the proposed marriage was simply one part of an
overall effort to limit the power of the Protector, placing him much more under
the control of the Council, then controlling the Council became paramount.
Viewed as one part of such an effort in coalition-building, then the proposed
marriage makes much more sense.
Nor, I imagine, would there have been expectations on either side
that the proposed marriage would take place if the King and his Council objected
strenuously enough, even after the Protector had been effectively neutered.
OTOH, whether there was a marriage or not, the aims of both parties would have
been achieved; the Woodvilles would be back in the King's Council and Household,
the Protector would have had his wings severely clipped, and MB would have her
son back.
Nico
continued:
The idea
of HT's return may have been proposed by Lord Thomas, but as you say, Richard
turned it down as too risky because HT was a total unknown in terms of character
and was linked to the House of Lancaster (albeit with no legal claim). At this
point, MB was only accused of sending HT money, but it was clearly part of a
larger threat to his throne in favour of Edward V. As you say, it would have
been wise not to make an enemy of Stanley by arresting MB and taking her into
formal custody, but it also shows the esteem in which he must have held Stanley
by entrusting him with her supervision. Unfortunately, I think he underestimated
her relationship with Bray, who was still free to carry out her orders. Does
giving her husband custody of MB indicate anything about her relationship with
Stanley? The possibilities are:
- MB and
Stanley were actually very fond of each other, and Richard knew that separating
them and punishing her would anger Stanley and put his loyalty in
jeopardy.
- MB and
Stanley were more like business partners, but drawing attention to her activity
would test his loyalty by humiliating him, scandalizing his family and
undermining his position if he were ridiculed for being unable to control his
wife.
- Richard
may have preferred to keep MB's activity quiet in case it encouraged any other
rebellion.
Maybe all
three reasons played a part.
Doug here:
I brought up the idea that Lord Stanley
inquiring about his step-son returning to England because, should Richard agree
outright or modify the conditions somehow in Tudor's favor, then MB would be
able to tell EW Thanks, but no thanks and I can't see Margaret Beaufort at
least not trying the simplest method first.
Considering how marriages were viewed then,
especially amongst the nobility, I'd go
with your second possibility as the most likely, although that doesn't mean
there wasn't any affection at all between them and the third where it is. If
anything, I wonder if Richard wasn't so much worried about MB's sending money
and letters to her son as he was about Tudor or someone else, availing
themselves of the network MB used to get the money and letters to Tudor.
Nico concluded:
That is
true; she probably didn't feel she had much to lose by continuing to assist HT,
although if further activity was uncovered, she may have been removed to the
Tower or kept in the custody of another noble family like Eleanor Cobham.
Up until then, I can't think of any noblewomen being executed for treason. The
Tudors were more equal opportunity when it came to executing traitors. She may
have managed to keep some things from Stanley by using Bray to carry out her
orders, but he would need to be paid for his services, and if Stanley was
properly managing her estates, he should have been controlling her funds. Either
he was lazy and left too much to Bray to manage, or he was being drawn into the
conspiracy himself. The other question for me is how far the conspiracy went for
her. Was her assistance to HT more directed at making him someone that Richard
was forced to take seriously and buy his loyalty by allowing him to return and
giving him generous rewards, or was she backing his idea to take the throne?
Unfortunately, I think we need a tardis for this one!
Doug here:
Of course, we know what exactly MB was sending
to Tudor after the failure of the October Rebellion. it may have been limited to
letters with only small sums of money she could scrape together which, frankly,
is my view at least until something else shows up.
It seems to me that any plans for an invasion
aimed at overthrowing Richard would take several months at least to be put
together, so we need to look at what was happening during 1484, I think. It's
entirely possible that what convinced Lord Stanley to switch sides, which is
what he effectively did by not aligning himself with Richard, was the death of
the PoW? I know people wrote, and are still writing, that Richard named his
nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, as his successor, but there's absolutely no
evidence he ever did so. Personally, I tend to think that, following the
completely unexpected death of his son, Richard was too grief-stricken to
consider the matter and that it was at that point that Stanley first began
moving towards supporting his son as a possible replacement for Richard. Whether
Stanley ever communicated his thoughts on the subject to his wife, I don't
know.
Doug
Who has has been severely disappointed lo, these
many past Christmases, by not finding a large, blue Police Box under his
tree!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-28 14:56:13
Paul,
It
still strikes me as odd that the Stanley who supposedly was such a supporter of
the Yorkists, should be the one responsible for the death of the last Yorkist
king!
BTW,
the books have arrived and currently I'm reading Ingram's. For some strange
reason I had gotten the idea that Sir William was off somewhere to Tudor's left,
rather than to his rear and right! My questions about Nothumberland, and his
actions and motives, were based on where I imagined Sir William to be, so those
are going to have a strict review! I've only just flipped through the pages of
the Foard/Curry book, but the little I've seen leads me to believe the maps are
going to be very helpful in orienting myself as the motoring
atlas just doesn't have the necessary detail.
Doug
Paul
wrote:
Don't
forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when
he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.
Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I
hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It
still strikes me as odd that the Stanley who supposedly was such a supporter of
the Yorkists, should be the one responsible for the death of the last Yorkist
king!
BTW,
the books have arrived and currently I'm reading Ingram's. For some strange
reason I had gotten the idea that Sir William was off somewhere to Tudor's left,
rather than to his rear and right! My questions about Nothumberland, and his
actions and motives, were based on where I imagined Sir William to be, so those
are going to have a strict review! I've only just flipped through the pages of
the Foard/Curry book, but the little I've seen leads me to believe the maps are
going to be very helpful in orienting myself as the motoring
atlas just doesn't have the necessary detail.
Doug
Paul
wrote:
Don't
forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when
he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.
Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I
hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 09:51:00
What I found odd about the Ingram maps Doug is that he has one with Norfolk in front of Richard. Now you know I'm useless at this but I always had the 'van' on the wing so to speak (mixing sport with battles - sorry). H
On Thursday, 28 March 2019, 14:56:51 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Paul,
It
still strikes me as odd that the Stanley who supposedly was such a supporter of
the Yorkists, should be the one responsible for the death of the last Yorkist
king!
BTW,
the books have arrived and currently I'm reading Ingram's. For some strange
reason I had gotten the idea that Sir William was off somewhere to Tudor's left,
rather than to his rear and right! My questions about Nothumberland, and his
actions and motives, were based on where I imagined Sir William to be, so those
are going to have a strict review! I've only just flipped through the pages of
the Foard/Curry book, but the little I've seen leads me to believe the maps are
going to be very helpful in orienting myself as the motoring
atlas just doesn't have the necessary detail.
Doug
Paul
wrote:
Don't
forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when
he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.
Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I
hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 28 March 2019, 14:56:51 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Paul,
It
still strikes me as odd that the Stanley who supposedly was such a supporter of
the Yorkists, should be the one responsible for the death of the last Yorkist
king!
BTW,
the books have arrived and currently I'm reading Ingram's. For some strange
reason I had gotten the idea that Sir William was off somewhere to Tudor's left,
rather than to his rear and right! My questions about Nothumberland, and his
actions and motives, were based on where I imagined Sir William to be, so those
are going to have a strict review! I've only just flipped through the pages of
the Foard/Curry book, but the little I've seen leads me to believe the maps are
going to be very helpful in orienting myself as the motoring
atlas just doesn't have the necessary detail.
Doug
Paul
wrote:
Don't
forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when
he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.
Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I
hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 10:09:30
Doug I think there are two other things. As far as we know, and of course it's only as far as we know, the PreContract wasn't revealed until after Hastings was dead. So had it been 'leaked' and by whom?Secondly, as you say, from Edward's death right up until that Friday things had being going pretty normally - well as normally as they could with the panicking Woodvilles around. The Council - Stanley, Hastings, Howard, the bishops, had put up a robust resistance to Woodville intervention and had shown a clear intention of wishing to carrying out Edward's dying wishes. Everyone (even the Woodvilles to a certain extent) had acted in character. Business had continued to be carried out.But what no-one had predicted was the appearance of Buckingham. His entry on the scene, parading the captured arms of the Woodvilles, changed the whole dynamic. And what made it worse was that Richard seemed to see none of his faults, which were many. I think that's when people began to get the jitters - Hastings for one, as you say had an awful lot to lose, including control of what was effectively the only professional army the country had. If Morton worked on Buckingham later he could certainly have worked on Hastings, or what were Forster and Burton up to?I continue to think the whole Buckingham thing is strange. His ascendancy was very fast, but lasted for no time at all. I doubt Richard really had time to 'test' him. How many days between the Coronation and Richard leaving town? There's an awful lot we still don't know. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:47:52 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Of course, the problem we face is that we don't what sort of conversations were going on amongst that group arranging young Edward's coronation. Conversations not related to the coronation, I mean. We also don't know exactly on what date the Pre-Contract was first brought before the Council and I really think when the Pre-Contract was brought up is very important. Before the Pre-Contract was brought to the Council's attention, everyone involved, including Hastings, was operating on the presumption that the political situation as then was would continue for the foreseeable future. Young Edward would be King, Richard would be Protector and the Council, if not pre-eminent, would still have quite a lot to say on how things went. IOW, Hastings would remain where he was as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. While he retained those positions, especially the Captaincy, he was safe from any attacks from anyone with a grudge against him. Even if the person with the grudge, or thought to have one anyway, was Richard?
Here I have to go back a bit, because I really think that it was the Council that had a much larger say in what happened than is commonly believed or thought. We know that when Richard arrived in London in May 1483, he was all for having Rivers, Grey and Vaughan tried, convicted and executed for treason but, at the request of the Council, backed off. We also know that Hastings retained his Captaincy and Mastership, and I believe that was again due to the actions of the Council. IOW, the members of the Council were possibly all that stood between Hastings and ruin. But, should Richard become King, it would be a foregone conclusion that the membership of the Council would change. Nor would the aims of the Council remain the same. Under the Protectorate, Richard would need the support of the Council and thus have to adjust whatever he may have wanted to do to what he could get a majority of the Council to agree to.
Once the Pre-Contract was placed before the Council, though, everything changed. Hastings was now faced with possibility of young Edward being replaced as king by Richard. Both were Yorks, so in and of itself that wouldn't necessarily be a stumbling block for a Yorkist such as Hastings. Unfortunately, if the histories are to be believed, Richard had made his aversion to Hastings known and given his reason for that sentiment; he held Hastings at least partially responsible for Edward's immoral behavior. While young Edward was king, Richard likely would need Hastings' support as part of that much-needed Council majority enough so that he wouldn't act on his feelings but, should Richard become king, that changed as would the Council's membership.
To a certain it's entirely possible that Hastings was set up, but not, I think, in the manner you've been thinking. We know Hastings was on the coronation committee and that, among others, that committee included Bishop Morton. We also have it on record that Morton was known for his ability to read other people and use what he learned to his own advantage. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Morton simply played on Hastings' fears for his future under Richard III; stripped of the Captaincy and Mastership, possibly having to forfeit some/most/all of any properties he'd been given by Edward (if any) and then tossed to the tender mercies of anyone Hastings had crossed in the past two decades. Hastings position as Edward's Lord Chamberlain alone would likely mean there were people out there who wouldn't mind seeing him powerless and poverty-stricken (relatively speaking), if not dead.
That's what I think motivated Hastings well, for now anyway!
What I find interesting concerning all these well-placed traitors is that, even with all the positions they controlled, they still had to rely on French mercenaries to make up the majority of Tudor's army. Sort of a disconnect between what actually happened and what's been entered in the history books, isn't it?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
I'm reluctantly coming round to this position too - I wanted Hastings to be in the clear, or at least set up. And yes I agree, Doug your point about Abbeys is very relevant.
You see I think the final fly in the ointment for Hastings was the appearance of Buckingham and Richard's apparent attachment to him. What a shame he didn't wait a month or two longer, like Stanley and Howard.
Going right back to the original heading of this - Bosworth - I understand more and more why it was so necessary to get rid of the HS of Leics & Warks the day before. This was no random ambush on Richard Boughton, it was a planned murder. Because he lived where I do, so HT's planned battlefield was only 8 miles up the road. He would have known all its hazards, including the marsh, as would the guys he'd recruited. A clever and treacherous plan indeed, Burton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:47:52 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Of course, the problem we face is that we don't what sort of conversations were going on amongst that group arranging young Edward's coronation. Conversations not related to the coronation, I mean. We also don't know exactly on what date the Pre-Contract was first brought before the Council and I really think when the Pre-Contract was brought up is very important. Before the Pre-Contract was brought to the Council's attention, everyone involved, including Hastings, was operating on the presumption that the political situation as then was would continue for the foreseeable future. Young Edward would be King, Richard would be Protector and the Council, if not pre-eminent, would still have quite a lot to say on how things went. IOW, Hastings would remain where he was as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. While he retained those positions, especially the Captaincy, he was safe from any attacks from anyone with a grudge against him. Even if the person with the grudge, or thought to have one anyway, was Richard?
Here I have to go back a bit, because I really think that it was the Council that had a much larger say in what happened than is commonly believed or thought. We know that when Richard arrived in London in May 1483, he was all for having Rivers, Grey and Vaughan tried, convicted and executed for treason but, at the request of the Council, backed off. We also know that Hastings retained his Captaincy and Mastership, and I believe that was again due to the actions of the Council. IOW, the members of the Council were possibly all that stood between Hastings and ruin. But, should Richard become King, it would be a foregone conclusion that the membership of the Council would change. Nor would the aims of the Council remain the same. Under the Protectorate, Richard would need the support of the Council and thus have to adjust whatever he may have wanted to do to what he could get a majority of the Council to agree to.
Once the Pre-Contract was placed before the Council, though, everything changed. Hastings was now faced with possibility of young Edward being replaced as king by Richard. Both were Yorks, so in and of itself that wouldn't necessarily be a stumbling block for a Yorkist such as Hastings. Unfortunately, if the histories are to be believed, Richard had made his aversion to Hastings known and given his reason for that sentiment; he held Hastings at least partially responsible for Edward's immoral behavior. While young Edward was king, Richard likely would need Hastings' support as part of that much-needed Council majority enough so that he wouldn't act on his feelings but, should Richard become king, that changed as would the Council's membership.
To a certain it's entirely possible that Hastings was set up, but not, I think, in the manner you've been thinking. We know Hastings was on the coronation committee and that, among others, that committee included Bishop Morton. We also have it on record that Morton was known for his ability to read other people and use what he learned to his own advantage. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Morton simply played on Hastings' fears for his future under Richard III; stripped of the Captaincy and Mastership, possibly having to forfeit some/most/all of any properties he'd been given by Edward (if any) and then tossed to the tender mercies of anyone Hastings had crossed in the past two decades. Hastings position as Edward's Lord Chamberlain alone would likely mean there were people out there who wouldn't mind seeing him powerless and poverty-stricken (relatively speaking), if not dead.
That's what I think motivated Hastings well, for now anyway!
What I find interesting concerning all these well-placed traitors is that, even with all the positions they controlled, they still had to rely on French mercenaries to make up the majority of Tudor's army. Sort of a disconnect between what actually happened and what's been entered in the history books, isn't it?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
I'm reluctantly coming round to this position too - I wanted Hastings to be in the clear, or at least set up. And yes I agree, Doug your point about Abbeys is very relevant.
You see I think the final fly in the ointment for Hastings was the appearance of Buckingham and Richard's apparent attachment to him. What a shame he didn't wait a month or two longer, like Stanley and Howard.
Going right back to the original heading of this - Bosworth - I understand more and more why it was so necessary to get rid of the HS of Leics & Warks the day before. This was no random ambush on Richard Boughton, it was a planned murder. Because he lived where I do, so HT's planned battlefield was only 8 miles up the road. He would have known all its hazards, including the marsh, as would the guys he'd recruited. A clever and treacherous plan indeed, Burton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-03-29 10:14:17
Oh no Nico that's a pain! I find I have to read my stuff again and again because it keeps changing stuff to predictive text.I think the 'sniffy' attitude to trade persisted well into the twentieth century; it was always more noble to be a teacher, doctor or clergyman rather than go into business.I've been doing some more work on your Wilsfords and they've led me to Devon and the Beaumonts. I'll come back when I've firmed it up. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 19:57:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,On the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 19:57:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,On the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ
2019-03-29 10:16:27
Love it! Another version of all gas and gaiters. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 06:11:38 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Yes.
Of course Anne Creting could herself have been a widow but whilst looking
something up for you I discovered that William Creting was originally parson of
Stowe, Suffolk and was given a general pardon by Richard on 3 Sep 1484. This was
about the time when Richard was dividing up the spoils of those attainted for
the October rebellions, including Morton's as Bishop of Ely. Haven't yet been
able to find out whether Stowe was in that diocese or that of Lincoln, I would
have thought the former, but they kept being shuffled.
Doug
here:
When
one can't even trust a parson...
Hilary
concluded:
My fault Doug, they were Canons, the two often get dumped
together. So:
Stall 6 Robert (not John my earlier source was wrong) Morton
1481-86
Stall 8 Christopher Urswick 1492-96
Stall 10 William Creting (Creton) 1489-1519
Stall 11 Oliver King 1480-1503, William Atwater 1504 - 1514
Quite a hotbed St George's wasn't it?
Doug here:
Thanks for the clarification, but
I'm sorry to say that when I saw the word Canons this immediately
came to mind:
The House of Commons en
bloc do it,
Civil servants by the clock do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Deacons who've done it before do
it,
Minor canons with a roar do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Some rather rotty old rips do it
when they get a bit
tight,
Government whips do it
if it takes them all
night,
Old mountain goats in ravines do
it,
Probably we'll live to see machines
do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love.
(Noel Coward's take on a song by
Cole Porter)
And yes, talk about an old Boys'
Network !
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 06:11:38 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Yes.
Of course Anne Creting could herself have been a widow but whilst looking
something up for you I discovered that William Creting was originally parson of
Stowe, Suffolk and was given a general pardon by Richard on 3 Sep 1484. This was
about the time when Richard was dividing up the spoils of those attainted for
the October rebellions, including Morton's as Bishop of Ely. Haven't yet been
able to find out whether Stowe was in that diocese or that of Lincoln, I would
have thought the former, but they kept being shuffled.
Doug
here:
When
one can't even trust a parson...
Hilary
concluded:
My fault Doug, they were Canons, the two often get dumped
together. So:
Stall 6 Robert (not John my earlier source was wrong) Morton
1481-86
Stall 8 Christopher Urswick 1492-96
Stall 10 William Creting (Creton) 1489-1519
Stall 11 Oliver King 1480-1503, William Atwater 1504 - 1514
Quite a hotbed St George's wasn't it?
Doug here:
Thanks for the clarification, but
I'm sorry to say that when I saw the word Canons this immediately
came to mind:
The House of Commons en
bloc do it,
Civil servants by the clock do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Deacons who've done it before do
it,
Minor canons with a roar do
it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love
Some rather rotty old rips do it
when they get a bit
tight,
Government whips do it
if it takes them all
night,
Old mountain goats in ravines do
it,
Probably we'll live to see machines
do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in
love.
(Noel Coward's take on a song by
Cole Porter)
And yes, talk about an old Boys'
Network !
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 13:35:31
Sorry you had been trashed Mary. Yes Margaret indeed asked for help in 1477 (I'm trying to find the reference at the moment) and both George and Richard wanted to go to her aid. Edward forbade it so she turned to Hastings who was in Calais and prepared to help. When Edward found out this was going on he summoned Hastings back to London and rapped his knuckles soundly. So yes, apart from the wording of TR, there is nothing earlier to suggest tension between Hastings and Richard or Hastings and George. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 18:05:51 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Just a thought Doug regarding Richard's relationship with Hastings. After Charles of Burgundy died Margaret had a problem ( can't for the life of me remember what exactly probably with the French) and she asked Edward to go to her aid with troops but he refused, however, Hastings did, probably in his position as Captain of Calais and I believe that Richard did to. So at that time they were acting together. Does anyone else have any information on this? It could have been a Wendy Moorhen article for the Bulletin but I am not sure. I know she wrote a few things about Hastings.Mary
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 18:05:51 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Just a thought Doug regarding Richard's relationship with Hastings. After Charles of Burgundy died Margaret had a problem ( can't for the life of me remember what exactly probably with the French) and she asked Edward to go to her aid with troops but he refused, however, Hastings did, probably in his position as Captain of Calais and I believe that Richard did to. So at that time they were acting together. Does anyone else have any information on this? It could have been a Wendy Moorhen article for the Bulletin but I am not sure. I know she wrote a few things about Hastings.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 14:40:46
Mary,
I
imagine Bray got his pardon in 1483 because at that time all that he'd
done was assist MB in getting letters and some money to Tudor. It certainly
wouldn't be fair to punish Bray more harshly than the person for whom Bray had
committed the crimes, now would it? For that matter, from what I've read about
Tudor's stay in Brittany and France, any funds would have been
much needed ! And by the time Richard would likely have known about Bray's
continuing to serve as a conduit of funds to Tudor, it would become a matter to
be settled after Tudor was defeated...
When
it comes to suborning Daubeney and Guildford, that was probable more a case of
Bray again working on MB's orders. AFAIK, p
rior
to Tudor taking the throne and putting Bray to work on the royal finances, he
served as MB's financial manager; at least until Richard placed MB's properties
under the control of Lord Stanley. Of course, Bray may have continued sending
money to Tudor even after that; presuming he remained as the person who handled
MB's income before it got to Lord Stanley. Or, considering what happened before
and during the battle of Bosworth, he may have continued sending money with
Stanley's full knowledge.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Bray
was pardoned by Richard in 1483 after Buckingham's Rebellion. In 1483 he acted
as go between for MB and Morton. Bray raised much needed funds for Richmond and
won key gentlemen to the Tudor cause including Giles Daubeney and Richard
Guildford. I found this online in something called the Encyclopedia of the WOTR
so I don't know how reliable it is. Why on earth would Richard pardon him
because apparently he carried on working for Tudor!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
imagine Bray got his pardon in 1483 because at that time all that he'd
done was assist MB in getting letters and some money to Tudor. It certainly
wouldn't be fair to punish Bray more harshly than the person for whom Bray had
committed the crimes, now would it? For that matter, from what I've read about
Tudor's stay in Brittany and France, any funds would have been
much needed ! And by the time Richard would likely have known about Bray's
continuing to serve as a conduit of funds to Tudor, it would become a matter to
be settled after Tudor was defeated...
When
it comes to suborning Daubeney and Guildford, that was probable more a case of
Bray again working on MB's orders. AFAIK, p
rior
to Tudor taking the throne and putting Bray to work on the royal finances, he
served as MB's financial manager; at least until Richard placed MB's properties
under the control of Lord Stanley. Of course, Bray may have continued sending
money to Tudor even after that; presuming he remained as the person who handled
MB's income before it got to Lord Stanley. Or, considering what happened before
and during the battle of Bosworth, he may have continued sending money with
Stanley's full knowledge.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Bray
was pardoned by Richard in 1483 after Buckingham's Rebellion. In 1483 he acted
as go between for MB and Morton. Bray raised much needed funds for Richmond and
won key gentlemen to the Tudor cause including Giles Daubeney and Richard
Guildford. I found this online in something called the Encyclopedia of the WOTR
so I don't know how reliable it is. Why on earth would Richard pardon him
because apparently he carried on working for Tudor!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 14:41:11
Mary,
It
certainly appears as if Richard and Hastings were quite willing to work together
when they agreed on something; whether it was providing assistance to Margaret
or keeping the Woodvilles from controlling the new king. Which is why it seems
to me that it must have been their differing views on the Pre-Contract, and what
it meant for Hastings, that forced them apart.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Just
a thought Doug regarding Richard's relationship with Hastings. After Charles of
Burgundy died Margaret had a problem ( can't for the life of me remember what
exactly probably with the French) and she asked Edward to go to her aid with
troops but he refused, however, Hastings did, probably in his position as
Captain of Calais and I believe that Richard did to. So at that time they were
acting together. Does anyone else have any information on this? It could have
been a Wendy Moorhen article for the Bulletin but I am not sure. I know she
wrote a few things about Hastings.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It
certainly appears as if Richard and Hastings were quite willing to work together
when they agreed on something; whether it was providing assistance to Margaret
or keeping the Woodvilles from controlling the new king. Which is why it seems
to me that it must have been their differing views on the Pre-Contract, and what
it meant for Hastings, that forced them apart.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Just
a thought Doug regarding Richard's relationship with Hastings. After Charles of
Burgundy died Margaret had a problem ( can't for the life of me remember what
exactly probably with the French) and she asked Edward to go to her aid with
troops but he refused, however, Hastings did, probably in his position as
Captain of Calais and I believe that Richard did to. So at that time they were
acting together. Does anyone else have any information on this? It could have
been a Wendy Moorhen article for the Bulletin but I am not sure. I know she
wrote a few things about Hastings.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 14:41:58
Hilary,
So we have a couple of instances where, prior to
Richard ascending the throne, he and the Stanleys butted heads? While it doesn't
seem likely they were determinative, I suppose they may have helped incline the
Stanleys, especially Lord Stanley, towards Tudor. Doesn't seem to be enough on
their own, though.
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Yes
Mary Berry think the mention of the Stanley punch up at the Tower was Vergil?
And the meeting on the road is when young Richard behave arrogantly was I
think with Sir William?
Doug the feud was over Hornby castle and the Harington inheritance. Not
with my notes but it was to do with the Stanley's marrying the Harrington girls
for their inheritance.. Teenager Richard dug in in support of his Harrington
chums and Edward told him to behave
Sorry about predictive text! Mary Berry oh dear :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
So we have a couple of instances where, prior to
Richard ascending the throne, he and the Stanleys butted heads? While it doesn't
seem likely they were determinative, I suppose they may have helped incline the
Stanleys, especially Lord Stanley, towards Tudor. Doesn't seem to be enough on
their own, though.
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Yes
Mary Berry think the mention of the Stanley punch up at the Tower was Vergil?
And the meeting on the road is when young Richard behave arrogantly was I
think with Sir William?
Doug the feud was over Hornby castle and the Harington inheritance. Not
with my notes but it was to do with the Stanley's marrying the Harrington girls
for their inheritance.. Teenager Richard dug in in support of his Harrington
chums and Edward told him to behave
Sorry about predictive text! Mary Berry oh dear :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 14:44:47
Paul,
It
does seem a long time to hold a grudge, but perhaps l'affaire
Harrington was brought to mind by some of Richard's more recent actions? I
know Richard appointed Stanley Constable of England and made him a Knight of the
Garter, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that, after becoming king, Richard
couldn't have supported the other side, a non-Stanley, in some property
disputes. And if those disputes were in territory Stanley considered his that
may have been a factor, too. I really don't know.
Doug
Paul
wrote:
It's
often suggested that the Harrington case was the reason the Stanley's betrayed
Richard, but that means the Stanley's bore a grudge for years. It was a case at
the time of another example of Stanley greed, and of Richard rewarding loyalty
with his support, even at an early age. Richard matured very young indeed, and
Edward making him lord of the north impinged on what the Stanley's considered
their territory and their power base. Richard always looked after those who had
proven themselves to him, a trait the Stanley's may later have realised could
serve them well too. I don't believe Richard ever behaved arrogantly with
anyone, not being in his nature, and certainly not something that would engender
such fierce loyalty from those who knew him best.
Vergil was a great advocate for making up stories to prove his point. An
early Alison Weir one could say! :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It
does seem a long time to hold a grudge, but perhaps l'affaire
Harrington was brought to mind by some of Richard's more recent actions? I
know Richard appointed Stanley Constable of England and made him a Knight of the
Garter, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that, after becoming king, Richard
couldn't have supported the other side, a non-Stanley, in some property
disputes. And if those disputes were in territory Stanley considered his that
may have been a factor, too. I really don't know.
Doug
Paul
wrote:
It's
often suggested that the Harrington case was the reason the Stanley's betrayed
Richard, but that means the Stanley's bore a grudge for years. It was a case at
the time of another example of Stanley greed, and of Richard rewarding loyalty
with his support, even at an early age. Richard matured very young indeed, and
Edward making him lord of the north impinged on what the Stanley's considered
their territory and their power base. Richard always looked after those who had
proven themselves to him, a trait the Stanley's may later have realised could
serve them well too. I don't believe Richard ever behaved arrogantly with
anyone, not being in his nature, and certainly not something that would engender
such fierce loyalty from those who knew him best.
Vergil was a great advocate for making up stories to prove his point. An
early Alison Weir one could say! :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-29 15:00:36
Hilary,
I
really haven't gotten to the battle part yet, but I did flip through and glance
at some of the maps. That van is where we get the word vanguard from, so it
wouldn't necessarily be unusual for it to be in front. There were three
battles; the van, the rear and the main. Apparently, however, if the van
wasn't in front, it most likely would have been the right wing of the
force, with the rear either serving on the left wing or, in keeping with its'
name, remaining to the back of the forces. As I said, I haven't (quite) gotten
to the battle yet, but it appears that Richard had Norfolk in charge of the
van and Northumberland in charge of the rear, while he, Richard, retained
control of what would have been the main. I don't know for certain, does
anyone?, but it appears that Norfolk's van contained the largest number of
men, Northumberland's rear the next largest, and Richard's main the least.
I'll know more once I get to the (literally) next chapter.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
What
I found odd about the Ingram maps Doug is that he has one with Norfolk in
front of Richard. Now you know I'm useless at this but I always had the
'van' on the wing so to speak (mixing sport with battles - sorry).
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
really haven't gotten to the battle part yet, but I did flip through and glance
at some of the maps. That van is where we get the word vanguard from, so it
wouldn't necessarily be unusual for it to be in front. There were three
battles; the van, the rear and the main. Apparently, however, if the van
wasn't in front, it most likely would have been the right wing of the
force, with the rear either serving on the left wing or, in keeping with its'
name, remaining to the back of the forces. As I said, I haven't (quite) gotten
to the battle yet, but it appears that Richard had Norfolk in charge of the
van and Northumberland in charge of the rear, while he, Richard, retained
control of what would have been the main. I don't know for certain, does
anyone?, but it appears that Norfolk's van contained the largest number of
men, Northumberland's rear the next largest, and Richard's main the least.
I'll know more once I get to the (literally) next chapter.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
What
I found odd about the Ingram maps Doug is that he has one with Norfolk in
front of Richard. Now you know I'm useless at this but I always had the
'van' on the wing so to speak (mixing sport with battles - sorry).
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-03-30 15:07:12
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I think there are two other things. As far as we know, and of course it's only
as far as we know, the PreContract wasn't revealed until after Hastings was
dead. So had it been 'leaked' and by whom?
Doug
here:
Ah,
I see the problem now we're operating on two different scenarios!
My
scenario is that the Pre-Contract had already been brought before the Council,
most likely at it's previous meeting, which would have been the meeting held a
week earlier at most (presuming the Council met at least once a week). And by
Council I'm referring only to those members of the Council that were meeting
at the Tower. However, it does seem to me that, once the Tower group had been
informed of the Pre-Contract, those members assigned to planning the coronation
would also have to be informed immediately. The subject matter alone would
demand the attention of the entire Council membership and there was no reason to
not also inform the members of the coronation committee about the Pre-Contract.
In fact, as members of the Council, it was their right to know as soon as
possible so they could be ready to make a decision when the full Council met.
And
I have that meeting of the whole Council as being on 13 June; which explains why
those members of the coronation committee, such as Hastings and Morton, were
present. If the Tower Council group was simply going to handle its' usual
business, then why were the other members there?
Hilary
continued:
Secondly, as you say, from Edward's death right up until that Friday
things had being going pretty normally - well as normally as they could with the
panicking Woodvilles around. The Council - Stanley, Hastings, Howard, the
bishops, had put up a robust resistance to Woodville intervention and had shown
a clear intention of wishing to carrying out Edward's dying wishes. Everyone
(even the Woodvilles to a certain extent) had acted in character. Business had
continued to be carried out.
Doug here:
I would put it as things going normally
until the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, but otherwise
we're in agreement.
Hilary concluded:
But what no-one had predicted was the appearance of Buckingham. His entry
on the scene, parading the captured arms of the Woodvilles, changed the whole
dynamic. And what made it worse was that Richard seemed to see none of his
faults, which were many. I think that's when people began to get the jitters -
Hastings for one, as you say had an awful lot to lose, including control of what
was effectively the only professional army the country had.. If Morton worked on
Buckingham later he could certainly have worked on Hastings, or what were
Forster and Burton up to?
I continue to think the whole Buckingham thing is strange. His ascendancy
was very fast, but lasted for no time at all. I doubt Richard really had time to
'test' him. How many days between the Coronation and Richard leaving town?
There's an awful lot we still don't know.
Doug here:
Is it possible we've placed too much importance
on Buckingham as a political player? Edward IV doesn't seem to have made much,
if any, use of him, even though he was married to the Queen's sister. OTOH, he
was a Duke, and royal at that, so Richard, whether as Protector or
King, palling around with him, even appointing him to various positions made
sense it tied someone who represented both the old, the Plantagenets, and new,
the Woodvilles, to the new king. That alone would be worth something, I'd
imagine. Nor were the positions to which Buckingham was appointed those that
dealt with the day-to-day running of the kingdom, or have I missed something?
Other than the various Wales-associated ones, the only others I know of are
Constable of the Tower and Lord High Steward of England. The former didn't mean
much if Buckingham was in Wales and the latter was ceremonial (I
think).
If anything, I rather wonder if it wasn't so much
Richard turning to Buckingham as a political supporter/ally as
it was Richard turning away from those already in power that
caused those jitters ? IOW, it wasn't Buckingham qua Buckingham, it
was the trend he represented that made so many who had so much to lose nervous.
And it was, I think, those fears upon which Morton
played.
It also seems to me
that the Woodvilles hadn't ceased plotting against Richard when the Stony
Stratford ambush failed, they simply waited for another opportunity to present
itself. When the Pre-Contract came before the Council, the number of those whose
positions would be placed in jeopardy increased. People, such as Hastings, who
retained their positions only because the political demands on Richard in his
position as Protector, would immediately have realized how things would change
for them, and not for the better, should Richard exchange being Protector for
the throne.
I find it interesting that, even after the
Council accepted Richard as Protector, Hastings retained that Captaincy. To me
that says the Council was trying to divide up the various power-bases, while
still allowing the Protector the powers necessary for the smooth, day-to-day
running of the Kingdom. That's why we have only the Woodvilles that actively
sought to disturb the peace, such as Sir Edward absconding with that treasure or
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan remaining in custody, other supporters remained where
they were. At the same time, we seem to have members of the Council who weren't
in either the Woodvilles' camp or Richard's, represented best by Hastings. Then
there'd be Richard's supporters, people such as Buckingham and, possibly?,
Stanley.
So, for Richard to smoothly operate the
government, he'd need the support of either the Woodville group or the
non-aligned group.
And I really think it was the drastic changes in
the political dynamic that would almost certainly occur should Richard become
king, that led Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Doug
I think there are two other things. As far as we know, and of course it's only
as far as we know, the PreContract wasn't revealed until after Hastings was
dead. So had it been 'leaked' and by whom?
Doug
here:
Ah,
I see the problem now we're operating on two different scenarios!
My
scenario is that the Pre-Contract had already been brought before the Council,
most likely at it's previous meeting, which would have been the meeting held a
week earlier at most (presuming the Council met at least once a week). And by
Council I'm referring only to those members of the Council that were meeting
at the Tower. However, it does seem to me that, once the Tower group had been
informed of the Pre-Contract, those members assigned to planning the coronation
would also have to be informed immediately. The subject matter alone would
demand the attention of the entire Council membership and there was no reason to
not also inform the members of the coronation committee about the Pre-Contract.
In fact, as members of the Council, it was their right to know as soon as
possible so they could be ready to make a decision when the full Council met.
And
I have that meeting of the whole Council as being on 13 June; which explains why
those members of the coronation committee, such as Hastings and Morton, were
present. If the Tower Council group was simply going to handle its' usual
business, then why were the other members there?
Hilary
continued:
Secondly, as you say, from Edward's death right up until that Friday
things had being going pretty normally - well as normally as they could with the
panicking Woodvilles around. The Council - Stanley, Hastings, Howard, the
bishops, had put up a robust resistance to Woodville intervention and had shown
a clear intention of wishing to carrying out Edward's dying wishes. Everyone
(even the Woodvilles to a certain extent) had acted in character. Business had
continued to be carried out.
Doug here:
I would put it as things going normally
until the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, but otherwise
we're in agreement.
Hilary concluded:
But what no-one had predicted was the appearance of Buckingham. His entry
on the scene, parading the captured arms of the Woodvilles, changed the whole
dynamic. And what made it worse was that Richard seemed to see none of his
faults, which were many. I think that's when people began to get the jitters -
Hastings for one, as you say had an awful lot to lose, including control of what
was effectively the only professional army the country had.. If Morton worked on
Buckingham later he could certainly have worked on Hastings, or what were
Forster and Burton up to?
I continue to think the whole Buckingham thing is strange. His ascendancy
was very fast, but lasted for no time at all. I doubt Richard really had time to
'test' him. How many days between the Coronation and Richard leaving town?
There's an awful lot we still don't know.
Doug here:
Is it possible we've placed too much importance
on Buckingham as a political player? Edward IV doesn't seem to have made much,
if any, use of him, even though he was married to the Queen's sister. OTOH, he
was a Duke, and royal at that, so Richard, whether as Protector or
King, palling around with him, even appointing him to various positions made
sense it tied someone who represented both the old, the Plantagenets, and new,
the Woodvilles, to the new king. That alone would be worth something, I'd
imagine. Nor were the positions to which Buckingham was appointed those that
dealt with the day-to-day running of the kingdom, or have I missed something?
Other than the various Wales-associated ones, the only others I know of are
Constable of the Tower and Lord High Steward of England. The former didn't mean
much if Buckingham was in Wales and the latter was ceremonial (I
think).
If anything, I rather wonder if it wasn't so much
Richard turning to Buckingham as a political supporter/ally as
it was Richard turning away from those already in power that
caused those jitters ? IOW, it wasn't Buckingham qua Buckingham, it
was the trend he represented that made so many who had so much to lose nervous.
And it was, I think, those fears upon which Morton
played.
It also seems to me
that the Woodvilles hadn't ceased plotting against Richard when the Stony
Stratford ambush failed, they simply waited for another opportunity to present
itself. When the Pre-Contract came before the Council, the number of those whose
positions would be placed in jeopardy increased. People, such as Hastings, who
retained their positions only because the political demands on Richard in his
position as Protector, would immediately have realized how things would change
for them, and not for the better, should Richard exchange being Protector for
the throne.
I find it interesting that, even after the
Council accepted Richard as Protector, Hastings retained that Captaincy. To me
that says the Council was trying to divide up the various power-bases, while
still allowing the Protector the powers necessary for the smooth, day-to-day
running of the Kingdom. That's why we have only the Woodvilles that actively
sought to disturb the peace, such as Sir Edward absconding with that treasure or
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan remaining in custody, other supporters remained where
they were. At the same time, we seem to have members of the Council who weren't
in either the Woodvilles' camp or Richard's, represented best by Hastings. Then
there'd be Richard's supporters, people such as Buckingham and, possibly?,
Stanley.
So, for Richard to smoothly operate the
government, he'd need the support of either the Woodville group or the
non-aligned group.
And I really think it was the drastic changes in
the political dynamic that would almost certainly occur should Richard become
king, that led Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-02 14:04:05
Hi,Doug wrote: I quite agree that EW and MB would have been skating on
thin ice in trying to arrange a marriage between their children behind the backs
of the King, the Protector and the Council. However, if the proposed marriage
was simply one piece of an over-all effort to drastically limit the power and
authority of the Protector, then the negotiations being clandestine was a
necessity. If, as I think, the proposed marriage was simply one part of an
overall effort to limit the power of the Protector, placing him much more under
the control of the Council, then controlling the Council became paramount...Nor, I imagine, would there have been expectations on either side
that the proposed marriage would take place if the King and his Council objected
strenuously enough, even after the Protector had been effectively neutered.
OTOH, whether there was a marriage or not, the aims of both parties would have
been achieved; the Woodvilles would be back in the King's Council and Household,
the Protector would have had his wings severely clipped, and MB would have her
son back. I agree with you about the council power balance, and at least on EW's part it may have been a ploy to keep as much power as possible on the council while limiting the powers of Richard as Protector. Even if there was no threat of the revelation of the precontract, EW and the Woodvilles would be looking for allies. However, the timing of when the conspiracy began is important. It was a very risky plot which if uncovered could have been treated as treason, with the Woodvilles losing everything, even being excluded from the council and any authority over Edward V. For that reason, I believe it is more likely that EW was willing to discuss the possibility of marriage between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor after there was some threat of the precontract being revealed (even if it was just rumours not anything formal.) Until then, I would think that EW promising MB to return HT would be a good enough offer to draw her in. Possibly the conspiracy started with that an offer to repatriate HT, but when the precontract became a reality, she raised the stakes to include the marriage with EofY. Talks between MB and EW for HT's return were less of a problem as they could be covered up as a general idea for EV's rule, but not necessarily seditious, but if marriage between a princess and a nobody was being discussed, something much more dangerous was going on.Of course, we know what exactly MB was sending
to Tudor after the failure of the October Rebellion. it may have been limited to
letters with only small sums of money she could scrape together which, frankly,
is my view at least until something else shows up.
It seems to me that any plans for an invasion
aimed at overthrowing Richard would take several months at least to be put
together, so we need to look at what was happening during 1484, I think. It's
entirely possible that what convinced Lord Stanley to switch sides, which is
what he effectively did by not aligning himself with Richard, was the death of
the PoW? I know people wrote, and are still writing, that Richard named his
nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, as his successor, but there's absolutely no
evidence he ever did so. Personally, I tend to think that, following the
completely unexpected death of his son, Richard was too grief-stricken to
consider the matter and that it was at that point that Stanley first began
moving towards supporting his son as a possible replacement for Richard. Whether
Stanley ever communicated his thoughts on the subject to his wife, I don't
know.Without a in depth look at the general events of 1484, I can't think of anything that would have changed Stanley's loyalties. However, he was still married to MB and had to listen to her extolling HT's virtues and how he would be so generously rewarded once HT returned as whatever she was planning for him at the time. Also, his brother, William may also have been pushing his own agenda, which may have included support for HT in some capacity. I can't be sure when the plan for him to gain some power as EofY's husband in a restoration of one of the Princes changed to conquering the throne for himself, but Henry certainly seemed enthusiastic about his prospects of being King, and if he was corresponding with her, she must have been aware of his intentions. I am less inclined to think that she pushed him into claiming the throne than the idea coming from HT himself and possibly Jasper Tudor. When Edward of Middleham died, that would have created a security gap, especially when Anne was still alive, but Lincoln was available to fill in, and after Anne died, Richard clearly planned to remarry as soon as possible.My overall impression of Thomas Stanley is that he was hedging his bets right up until Bosworth, and may have preferred to remain loyal to Richard, especially when the odds of victory at Bosworth were against HT. He didn't have any of the personal issues that William Stanley had with Richard, which I do think was a resentment that went back to the Harrington-Hornby incident. I think it was Chris Skidmore's book that outlined HT's route from Milford Haven up to Bosworth, with letters requesting support along the way. He could be no more sure of Stanley's loyalty than Richard, and I suspect that TS never really had sweating sickness, just stress from his divided loyalties.Nico
On Saturday, 30 March 2019, 15:07:15 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I think there are two other things. As far as we know, and of course it's only
as far as we know, the PreContract wasn't revealed until after Hastings was
dead. So had it been 'leaked' and by whom?
Doug
here:
Ah,
I see the problem now we're operating on two different scenarios!
My
scenario is that the Pre-Contract had already been brought before the Council,
most likely at it's previous meeting, which would have been the meeting held a
week earlier at most (presuming the Council met at least once a week). And by
Council I'm referring only to those members of the Council that were meeting
at the Tower. However, it does seem to me that, once the Tower group had been
informed of the Pre-Contract, those members assigned to planning the coronation
would also have to be informed immediately. The subject matter alone would
demand the attention of the entire Council membership and there was no reason to
not also inform the members of the coronation committee about the Pre-Contract.
In fact, as members of the Council, it was their right to know as soon as
possible so they could be ready to make a decision when the full Council met.
And
I have that meeting of the whole Council as being on 13 June; which explains why
those members of the coronation committee, such as Hastings and Morton, were
present. If the Tower Council group was simply going to handle its' usual
business, then why were the other members there?
Hilary
continued:
Secondly, as you say, from Edward's death right up until that Friday
things had being going pretty normally - well as normally as they could with the
panicking Woodvilles around. The Council - Stanley, Hastings, Howard, the
bishops, had put up a robust resistance to Woodville intervention and had shown
a clear intention of wishing to carrying out Edward's dying wishes. Everyone
(even the Woodvilles to a certain extent) had acted in character. Business had
continued to be carried out.
Doug here:
I would put it as things going normally
until the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, but otherwise
we're in agreement.
Hilary concluded:
But what no-one had predicted was the appearance of Buckingham. His entry
on the scene, parading the captured arms of the Woodvilles, changed the whole
dynamic. And what made it worse was that Richard seemed to see none of his
faults, which were many. I think that's when people began to get the jitters -
Hastings for one, as you say had an awful lot to lose, including control of what
was effectively the only professional army the country had.. If Morton worked on
Buckingham later he could certainly have worked on Hastings, or what were
Forster and Burton up to?
I continue to think the whole Buckingham thing is strange. His ascendancy
was very fast, but lasted for no time at all. I doubt Richard really had time to
'test' him. How many days between the Coronation and Richard leaving town?
There's an awful lot we still don't know.
Doug here:
Is it possible we've placed too much importance
on Buckingham as a political player? Edward IV doesn't seem to have made much,
if any, use of him, even though he was married to the Queen's sister. OTOH, he
was a Duke, and royal at that, so Richard, whether as Protector or
King, palling around with him, even appointing him to various positions made
sense it tied someone who represented both the old, the Plantagenets, and new,
the Woodvilles, to the new king. That alone would be worth something, I'd
imagine. Nor were the positions to which Buckingham was appointed those that
dealt with the day-to-day running of the kingdom, or have I missed something?
Other than the various Wales-associated ones, the only others I know of are
Constable of the Tower and Lord High Steward of England. The former didn't mean
much if Buckingham was in Wales and the latter was ceremonial (I
think).
If anything, I rather wonder if it wasn't so much
Richard turning to Buckingham as a political supporter/ally as
it was Richard turning away from those already in power that
caused those jitters ? IOW, it wasn't Buckingham qua Buckingham, it
was the trend he represented that made so many who had so much to lose nervous.
And it was, I think, those fears upon which Morton
played.
It also seems to me
that the Woodvilles hadn't ceased plotting against Richard when the Stony
Stratford ambush failed, they simply waited for another opportunity to present
itself. When the Pre-Contract came before the Council, the number of those whose
positions would be placed in jeopardy increased. People, such as Hastings, who
retained their positions only because the political demands on Richard in his
position as Protector, would immediately have realized how things would change
for them, and not for the better, should Richard exchange being Protector for
the throne.
I find it interesting that, even after the
Council accepted Richard as Protector, Hastings retained that Captaincy. To me
that says the Council was trying to divide up the various power-bases, while
still allowing the Protector the powers necessary for the smooth, day-to-day
running of the Kingdom. That's why we have only the Woodvilles that actively
sought to disturb the peace, such as Sir Edward absconding with that treasure or
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan remaining in custody, other supporters remained where
they were. At the same time, we seem to have members of the Council who weren't
in either the Woodvilles' camp or Richard's, represented best by Hastings. Then
there'd be Richard's supporters, people such as Buckingham and, possibly?,
Stanley.
So, for Richard to smoothly operate the
government, he'd need the support of either the Woodville group or the
non-aligned group.
And I really think it was the drastic changes in
the political dynamic that would almost certainly occur should Richard become
king, that led Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
thin ice in trying to arrange a marriage between their children behind the backs
of the King, the Protector and the Council. However, if the proposed marriage
was simply one piece of an over-all effort to drastically limit the power and
authority of the Protector, then the negotiations being clandestine was a
necessity. If, as I think, the proposed marriage was simply one part of an
overall effort to limit the power of the Protector, placing him much more under
the control of the Council, then controlling the Council became paramount...Nor, I imagine, would there have been expectations on either side
that the proposed marriage would take place if the King and his Council objected
strenuously enough, even after the Protector had been effectively neutered.
OTOH, whether there was a marriage or not, the aims of both parties would have
been achieved; the Woodvilles would be back in the King's Council and Household,
the Protector would have had his wings severely clipped, and MB would have her
son back. I agree with you about the council power balance, and at least on EW's part it may have been a ploy to keep as much power as possible on the council while limiting the powers of Richard as Protector. Even if there was no threat of the revelation of the precontract, EW and the Woodvilles would be looking for allies. However, the timing of when the conspiracy began is important. It was a very risky plot which if uncovered could have been treated as treason, with the Woodvilles losing everything, even being excluded from the council and any authority over Edward V. For that reason, I believe it is more likely that EW was willing to discuss the possibility of marriage between Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor after there was some threat of the precontract being revealed (even if it was just rumours not anything formal.) Until then, I would think that EW promising MB to return HT would be a good enough offer to draw her in. Possibly the conspiracy started with that an offer to repatriate HT, but when the precontract became a reality, she raised the stakes to include the marriage with EofY. Talks between MB and EW for HT's return were less of a problem as they could be covered up as a general idea for EV's rule, but not necessarily seditious, but if marriage between a princess and a nobody was being discussed, something much more dangerous was going on.Of course, we know what exactly MB was sending
to Tudor after the failure of the October Rebellion. it may have been limited to
letters with only small sums of money she could scrape together which, frankly,
is my view at least until something else shows up.
It seems to me that any plans for an invasion
aimed at overthrowing Richard would take several months at least to be put
together, so we need to look at what was happening during 1484, I think. It's
entirely possible that what convinced Lord Stanley to switch sides, which is
what he effectively did by not aligning himself with Richard, was the death of
the PoW? I know people wrote, and are still writing, that Richard named his
nephew, the Earl of Lincoln, as his successor, but there's absolutely no
evidence he ever did so. Personally, I tend to think that, following the
completely unexpected death of his son, Richard was too grief-stricken to
consider the matter and that it was at that point that Stanley first began
moving towards supporting his son as a possible replacement for Richard. Whether
Stanley ever communicated his thoughts on the subject to his wife, I don't
know.Without a in depth look at the general events of 1484, I can't think of anything that would have changed Stanley's loyalties. However, he was still married to MB and had to listen to her extolling HT's virtues and how he would be so generously rewarded once HT returned as whatever she was planning for him at the time. Also, his brother, William may also have been pushing his own agenda, which may have included support for HT in some capacity. I can't be sure when the plan for him to gain some power as EofY's husband in a restoration of one of the Princes changed to conquering the throne for himself, but Henry certainly seemed enthusiastic about his prospects of being King, and if he was corresponding with her, she must have been aware of his intentions. I am less inclined to think that she pushed him into claiming the throne than the idea coming from HT himself and possibly Jasper Tudor. When Edward of Middleham died, that would have created a security gap, especially when Anne was still alive, but Lincoln was available to fill in, and after Anne died, Richard clearly planned to remarry as soon as possible.My overall impression of Thomas Stanley is that he was hedging his bets right up until Bosworth, and may have preferred to remain loyal to Richard, especially when the odds of victory at Bosworth were against HT. He didn't have any of the personal issues that William Stanley had with Richard, which I do think was a resentment that went back to the Harrington-Hornby incident. I think it was Chris Skidmore's book that outlined HT's route from Milford Haven up to Bosworth, with letters requesting support along the way. He could be no more sure of Stanley's loyalty than Richard, and I suspect that TS never really had sweating sickness, just stress from his divided loyalties.Nico
On Saturday, 30 March 2019, 15:07:15 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I think there are two other things. As far as we know, and of course it's only
as far as we know, the PreContract wasn't revealed until after Hastings was
dead. So had it been 'leaked' and by whom?
Doug
here:
Ah,
I see the problem now we're operating on two different scenarios!
My
scenario is that the Pre-Contract had already been brought before the Council,
most likely at it's previous meeting, which would have been the meeting held a
week earlier at most (presuming the Council met at least once a week). And by
Council I'm referring only to those members of the Council that were meeting
at the Tower. However, it does seem to me that, once the Tower group had been
informed of the Pre-Contract, those members assigned to planning the coronation
would also have to be informed immediately. The subject matter alone would
demand the attention of the entire Council membership and there was no reason to
not also inform the members of the coronation committee about the Pre-Contract.
In fact, as members of the Council, it was their right to know as soon as
possible so they could be ready to make a decision when the full Council met.
And
I have that meeting of the whole Council as being on 13 June; which explains why
those members of the coronation committee, such as Hastings and Morton, were
present. If the Tower Council group was simply going to handle its' usual
business, then why were the other members there?
Hilary
continued:
Secondly, as you say, from Edward's death right up until that Friday
things had being going pretty normally - well as normally as they could with the
panicking Woodvilles around. The Council - Stanley, Hastings, Howard, the
bishops, had put up a robust resistance to Woodville intervention and had shown
a clear intention of wishing to carrying out Edward's dying wishes. Everyone
(even the Woodvilles to a certain extent) had acted in character. Business had
continued to be carried out.
Doug here:
I would put it as things going normally
until the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, but otherwise
we're in agreement.
Hilary concluded:
But what no-one had predicted was the appearance of Buckingham. His entry
on the scene, parading the captured arms of the Woodvilles, changed the whole
dynamic. And what made it worse was that Richard seemed to see none of his
faults, which were many. I think that's when people began to get the jitters -
Hastings for one, as you say had an awful lot to lose, including control of what
was effectively the only professional army the country had.. If Morton worked on
Buckingham later he could certainly have worked on Hastings, or what were
Forster and Burton up to?
I continue to think the whole Buckingham thing is strange. His ascendancy
was very fast, but lasted for no time at all. I doubt Richard really had time to
'test' him. How many days between the Coronation and Richard leaving town?
There's an awful lot we still don't know.
Doug here:
Is it possible we've placed too much importance
on Buckingham as a political player? Edward IV doesn't seem to have made much,
if any, use of him, even though he was married to the Queen's sister. OTOH, he
was a Duke, and royal at that, so Richard, whether as Protector or
King, palling around with him, even appointing him to various positions made
sense it tied someone who represented both the old, the Plantagenets, and new,
the Woodvilles, to the new king. That alone would be worth something, I'd
imagine. Nor were the positions to which Buckingham was appointed those that
dealt with the day-to-day running of the kingdom, or have I missed something?
Other than the various Wales-associated ones, the only others I know of are
Constable of the Tower and Lord High Steward of England. The former didn't mean
much if Buckingham was in Wales and the latter was ceremonial (I
think).
If anything, I rather wonder if it wasn't so much
Richard turning to Buckingham as a political supporter/ally as
it was Richard turning away from those already in power that
caused those jitters ? IOW, it wasn't Buckingham qua Buckingham, it
was the trend he represented that made so many who had so much to lose nervous.
And it was, I think, those fears upon which Morton
played.
It also seems to me
that the Woodvilles hadn't ceased plotting against Richard when the Stony
Stratford ambush failed, they simply waited for another opportunity to present
itself. When the Pre-Contract came before the Council, the number of those whose
positions would be placed in jeopardy increased. People, such as Hastings, who
retained their positions only because the political demands on Richard in his
position as Protector, would immediately have realized how things would change
for them, and not for the better, should Richard exchange being Protector for
the throne.
I find it interesting that, even after the
Council accepted Richard as Protector, Hastings retained that Captaincy. To me
that says the Council was trying to divide up the various power-bases, while
still allowing the Protector the powers necessary for the smooth, day-to-day
running of the Kingdom. That's why we have only the Woodvilles that actively
sought to disturb the peace, such as Sir Edward absconding with that treasure or
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan remaining in custody, other supporters remained where
they were. At the same time, we seem to have members of the Council who weren't
in either the Woodvilles' camp or Richard's, represented best by Hastings. Then
there'd be Richard's supporters, people such as Buckingham and, possibly?,
Stanley.
So, for Richard to smoothly operate the
government, he'd need the support of either the Woodville group or the
non-aligned group.
And I really think it was the drastic changes in
the political dynamic that would almost certainly occur should Richard become
king, that led Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-02 14:13:16
Hi,I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated spy network.The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to London. This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life, and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s. If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the city of London.Nico
On Friday, 29 March 2019, 10:27:28 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Oh no Nico that's a pain! I find I have to read my stuff again and again because it keeps changing stuff to predictive text.I think the 'sniffy' attitude to trade persisted well into the twentieth century; it was always more noble to be a teacher, doctor or clergyman rather than go into business.I've been doing some more work on your Wilsfords and they've led me to Devon and the Beaumonts. I'll come back when I've firmed it up. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 19:57:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,On the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 29 March 2019, 10:27:28 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Oh no Nico that's a pain! I find I have to read my stuff again and again because it keeps changing stuff to predictive text.I think the 'sniffy' attitude to trade persisted well into the twentieth century; it was always more noble to be a teacher, doctor or clergyman rather than go into business.I've been doing some more work on your Wilsfords and they've led me to Devon and the Beaumonts. I'll come back when I've firmed it up. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 19:57:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,On the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-02 18:54:56
It will be interesting to see what JAH makes of the situation and any contact or cooperation between the two mothers.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-03 09:19:46
It's the Gittisham lot Nico - and it has links to some of our other West Country folk, what a surprise!I want to double check it - still working. BTW it's interesting that our Ralph is referred to as the son of a poor London cordwainer, when the Wilsfords were, and always had been, rich merchants. Notice that traitors are always poor. Warbeck was the son of a 'boatman', actually Warbeck senior owned a merchant ship, Colyngbourne was a 'nobody', in fact he was an ex High Sheriff. So it goes on .... H
On Tuesday, 2 April 2019, 17:15:47 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated spy network.The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to London. This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life, and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s. If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the city of London.Nico
On Friday, 29 March 2019, 10:27:28 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Oh no Nico that's a pain! I find I have to read my stuff again and again because it keeps changing stuff to predictive text.I think the 'sniffy' attitude to trade persisted well into the twentieth century; it was always more noble to be a teacher, doctor or clergyman rather than go into business.I've been doing some more work on your Wilsfords and they've led me to Devon and the Beaumonts. I'll come back when I've firmed it up.. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 19:57:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,On the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 2 April 2019, 17:15:47 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated spy network.The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to London. This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life, and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s. If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the city of London.Nico
On Friday, 29 March 2019, 10:27:28 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Oh no Nico that's a pain! I find I have to read my stuff again and again because it keeps changing stuff to predictive text.I think the 'sniffy' attitude to trade persisted well into the twentieth century; it was always more noble to be a teacher, doctor or clergyman rather than go into business.I've been doing some more work on your Wilsfords and they've led me to Devon and the Beaumonts. I'll come back when I've firmed it up.. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 19:57:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary,On the same note, have you noticed how bishops are always described
as coming from 'humble' backgrounds - another myth of Victorian robust
Anglicanism? Most of the ones I've tracked come from very prosperous
merchant backgrounds. I think the Victorians are responsible for many misunderstandings about the Wars of the Roses. Connections were extremely important in the Middle Ages as we have seen with people like Oliver King and Beaumont, and Victorian sentimentality about being self made doesn't fit in here. 14th and 15th century people didn't have the same sniffy attitudes towards trade that you find in Jane Austen novels. Perhaps that is why Victorian historians underestimated how powerful some of the merchant families whose son's became bishops actually were and miss the significance of some of the power bases at work. Yahoo has been deleting my posts again, this morning it was most of the thread I was working on. I will go through my phone and see what is missing.Nico
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 15:08:54 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.Funny but every time I see actor Laurence Naismith in an old movie on tv I hear Olivier's voice Aah Stanley! What's the news with you? :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Hilary,
It's
certainly possible that Stanley, using information from his wife, informed
Richard of what was being planned. However, it's also possible that Stanley
himself had people working for him; if nothing else, there'd almost certainly be
people who'd volunteer information to Stanley besides his wife, that is.
Stanley does seem to have been well-regarded, and well-treated, by Richard, so
his later actions are, to me anyway, as strange as Buckingham's.
What
I do find extremely odd is that at Bosworth it was Sir William, the
well-known Yorkist loyalist who led the charge and not Henry's step-father.
That need some explaining, doesn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
it's me - working backwards again. As Doug said earlier (just found that) the
dates are very significant again.
I do though think we also need to look at who informed against these folk.
Now we know everyone had spies but these arrests and Richard's plea for help
from York are a significant coup.
So I've a couple of questions to ask. Firstly, who would be in a prime
position to potentially know from what was going on and also gain from it? Think
of Richard's letter to Stanley. It's quite possible, I would have thought, for
MB and her contacts to have an idea what was going on, even if she didn't
directly involve herself. No-one ever asks how TS and MB really got on.
Financially she was a good catch but she'd never been the mother of his
children. Did he view her as a monetary asset but a real liability? Did he glean
this from her and see it as a real opportunity to gain some even more impressive
posts with Richard? And there is that story of him getting punched on the nose
or whatever during the arrests of Hastings and others. Was it because he was in
fact on Richard's side?
Secondly, there are some who were arrested we still haven't fully explored.
I've been looking at Morton, we've talked a bit about King, but there is
Rotherham too. All need more work I reckon.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-03 09:31:04
Doug, I'll check JAH's timeline on the proceedings and the Precontract and come back.For the rest, I think we're saying roughly the same thing. I have given more thought to Buckingham though.As you rightly say, he had no experience in politics whatsoever. The strength of the Staffords seemed to lie in gathering a large retinue with which to travel the country in splendour and thus run up huge bills. The focus of the journeys to London in April 1483 was almost certainly the new young king. Richard was just someone on his way to do a job. So why would Bucks choose to go anywhere but in the retinue of young Edward? It was right up his street.And, of course, he was the uncle of the new king thanks to his insurance policy of being married to a Woodville. Might not the thought of a Rivers/Bucks protectorate be attractive? So why did he change camps? Had he travelled part of the way with Vaughan and gleaned what was going on? If Rivers was coming from East Anglia, Bucks would have to cross over to Northampton on his own. And we know he arrived later and separately. Did he work out that Richard, having been warned, had the upper hand? Hence he quickly 'did a Stanley'? I don't know; it's puzzling. H
On Saturday, 30 March 2019, 15:07:15 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I think there are two other things. As far as we know, and of course it's only
as far as we know, the PreContract wasn't revealed until after Hastings was
dead. So had it been 'leaked' and by whom?
Doug
here:
Ah,
I see the problem now we're operating on two different scenarios!
My
scenario is that the Pre-Contract had already been brought before the Council,
most likely at it's previous meeting, which would have been the meeting held a
week earlier at most (presuming the Council met at least once a week). And by
Council I'm referring only to those members of the Council that were meeting
at the Tower. However, it does seem to me that, once the Tower group had been
informed of the Pre-Contract, those members assigned to planning the coronation
would also have to be informed immediately. The subject matter alone would
demand the attention of the entire Council membership and there was no reason to
not also inform the members of the coronation committee about the Pre-Contract.
In fact, as members of the Council, it was their right to know as soon as
possible so they could be ready to make a decision when the full Council met.
And
I have that meeting of the whole Council as being on 13 June; which explains why
those members of the coronation committee, such as Hastings and Morton, were
present. If the Tower Council group was simply going to handle its' usual
business, then why were the other members there?
Hilary
continued:
Secondly, as you say, from Edward's death right up until that Friday
things had being going pretty normally - well as normally as they could with the
panicking Woodvilles around. The Council - Stanley, Hastings, Howard, the
bishops, had put up a robust resistance to Woodville intervention and had shown
a clear intention of wishing to carrying out Edward's dying wishes. Everyone
(even the Woodvilles to a certain extent) had acted in character. Business had
continued to be carried out.
Doug here:
I would put it as things going normally
until the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, but otherwise
we're in agreement.
Hilary concluded:
But what no-one had predicted was the appearance of Buckingham. His entry
on the scene, parading the captured arms of the Woodvilles, changed the whole
dynamic. And what made it worse was that Richard seemed to see none of his
faults, which were many. I think that's when people began to get the jitters -
Hastings for one, as you say had an awful lot to lose, including control of what
was effectively the only professional army the country had.. If Morton worked on
Buckingham later he could certainly have worked on Hastings, or what were
Forster and Burton up to?
I continue to think the whole Buckingham thing is strange. His ascendancy
was very fast, but lasted for no time at all. I doubt Richard really had time to
'test' him. How many days between the Coronation and Richard leaving town?
There's an awful lot we still don't know.
Doug here:
Is it possible we've placed too much importance
on Buckingham as a political player? Edward IV doesn't seem to have made much,
if any, use of him, even though he was married to the Queen's sister. OTOH, he
was a Duke, and royal at that, so Richard, whether as Protector or
King, palling around with him, even appointing him to various positions made
sense it tied someone who represented both the old, the Plantagenets, and new,
the Woodvilles, to the new king. That alone would be worth something, I'd
imagine. Nor were the positions to which Buckingham was appointed those that
dealt with the day-to-day running of the kingdom, or have I missed something?
Other than the various Wales-associated ones, the only others I know of are
Constable of the Tower and Lord High Steward of England. The former didn't mean
much if Buckingham was in Wales and the latter was ceremonial (I
think).
If anything, I rather wonder if it wasn't so much
Richard turning to Buckingham as a political supporter/ally as
it was Richard turning away from those already in power that
caused those jitters ? IOW, it wasn't Buckingham qua Buckingham, it
was the trend he represented that made so many who had so much to lose nervous.
And it was, I think, those fears upon which Morton
played.
It also seems to me
that the Woodvilles hadn't ceased plotting against Richard when the Stony
Stratford ambush failed, they simply waited for another opportunity to present
itself. When the Pre-Contract came before the Council, the number of those whose
positions would be placed in jeopardy increased. People, such as Hastings, who
retained their positions only because the political demands on Richard in his
position as Protector, would immediately have realized how things would change
for them, and not for the better, should Richard exchange being Protector for
the throne.
I find it interesting that, even after the
Council accepted Richard as Protector, Hastings retained that Captaincy. To me
that says the Council was trying to divide up the various power-bases, while
still allowing the Protector the powers necessary for the smooth, day-to-day
running of the Kingdom. That's why we have only the Woodvilles that actively
sought to disturb the peace, such as Sir Edward absconding with that treasure or
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan remaining in custody, other supporters remained where
they were. At the same time, we seem to have members of the Council who weren't
in either the Woodvilles' camp or Richard's, represented best by Hastings. Then
there'd be Richard's supporters, people such as Buckingham and, possibly?,
Stanley.
So, for Richard to smoothly operate the
government, he'd need the support of either the Woodville group or the
non-aligned group.
And I really think it was the drastic changes in
the political dynamic that would almost certainly occur should Richard become
king, that led Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 30 March 2019, 15:07:15 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I think there are two other things. As far as we know, and of course it's only
as far as we know, the PreContract wasn't revealed until after Hastings was
dead. So had it been 'leaked' and by whom?
Doug
here:
Ah,
I see the problem now we're operating on two different scenarios!
My
scenario is that the Pre-Contract had already been brought before the Council,
most likely at it's previous meeting, which would have been the meeting held a
week earlier at most (presuming the Council met at least once a week). And by
Council I'm referring only to those members of the Council that were meeting
at the Tower. However, it does seem to me that, once the Tower group had been
informed of the Pre-Contract, those members assigned to planning the coronation
would also have to be informed immediately. The subject matter alone would
demand the attention of the entire Council membership and there was no reason to
not also inform the members of the coronation committee about the Pre-Contract.
In fact, as members of the Council, it was their right to know as soon as
possible so they could be ready to make a decision when the full Council met.
And
I have that meeting of the whole Council as being on 13 June; which explains why
those members of the coronation committee, such as Hastings and Morton, were
present. If the Tower Council group was simply going to handle its' usual
business, then why were the other members there?
Hilary
continued:
Secondly, as you say, from Edward's death right up until that Friday
things had being going pretty normally - well as normally as they could with the
panicking Woodvilles around. The Council - Stanley, Hastings, Howard, the
bishops, had put up a robust resistance to Woodville intervention and had shown
a clear intention of wishing to carrying out Edward's dying wishes. Everyone
(even the Woodvilles to a certain extent) had acted in character. Business had
continued to be carried out.
Doug here:
I would put it as things going normally
until the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, but otherwise
we're in agreement.
Hilary concluded:
But what no-one had predicted was the appearance of Buckingham. His entry
on the scene, parading the captured arms of the Woodvilles, changed the whole
dynamic. And what made it worse was that Richard seemed to see none of his
faults, which were many. I think that's when people began to get the jitters -
Hastings for one, as you say had an awful lot to lose, including control of what
was effectively the only professional army the country had.. If Morton worked on
Buckingham later he could certainly have worked on Hastings, or what were
Forster and Burton up to?
I continue to think the whole Buckingham thing is strange. His ascendancy
was very fast, but lasted for no time at all. I doubt Richard really had time to
'test' him. How many days between the Coronation and Richard leaving town?
There's an awful lot we still don't know.
Doug here:
Is it possible we've placed too much importance
on Buckingham as a political player? Edward IV doesn't seem to have made much,
if any, use of him, even though he was married to the Queen's sister. OTOH, he
was a Duke, and royal at that, so Richard, whether as Protector or
King, palling around with him, even appointing him to various positions made
sense it tied someone who represented both the old, the Plantagenets, and new,
the Woodvilles, to the new king. That alone would be worth something, I'd
imagine. Nor were the positions to which Buckingham was appointed those that
dealt with the day-to-day running of the kingdom, or have I missed something?
Other than the various Wales-associated ones, the only others I know of are
Constable of the Tower and Lord High Steward of England. The former didn't mean
much if Buckingham was in Wales and the latter was ceremonial (I
think).
If anything, I rather wonder if it wasn't so much
Richard turning to Buckingham as a political supporter/ally as
it was Richard turning away from those already in power that
caused those jitters ? IOW, it wasn't Buckingham qua Buckingham, it
was the trend he represented that made so many who had so much to lose nervous.
And it was, I think, those fears upon which Morton
played.
It also seems to me
that the Woodvilles hadn't ceased plotting against Richard when the Stony
Stratford ambush failed, they simply waited for another opportunity to present
itself. When the Pre-Contract came before the Council, the number of those whose
positions would be placed in jeopardy increased. People, such as Hastings, who
retained their positions only because the political demands on Richard in his
position as Protector, would immediately have realized how things would change
for them, and not for the better, should Richard exchange being Protector for
the throne.
I find it interesting that, even after the
Council accepted Richard as Protector, Hastings retained that Captaincy. To me
that says the Council was trying to divide up the various power-bases, while
still allowing the Protector the powers necessary for the smooth, day-to-day
running of the Kingdom. That's why we have only the Woodvilles that actively
sought to disturb the peace, such as Sir Edward absconding with that treasure or
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan remaining in custody, other supporters remained where
they were. At the same time, we seem to have members of the Council who weren't
in either the Woodvilles' camp or Richard's, represented best by Hastings. Then
there'd be Richard's supporters, people such as Buckingham and, possibly?,
Stanley.
So, for Richard to smoothly operate the
government, he'd need the support of either the Woodville group or the
non-aligned group.
And I really think it was the drastic changes in
the political dynamic that would almost certainly occur should Richard become
king, that led Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-04 01:30:53
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-04 17:35:53
Nico wrote:
I agree with you about the council power balance, and at least
on EW's part it may have been a ploy to keep as much power as possible on the
council while limiting the powers of Richard as Protector. Even if there was no
threat of the revelation of the precontract, EW and the Woodvilles would be
looking for allies. However, the timing of when the conspiracy began is
important. It was a very risky plot which if uncovered could have been treated
as treason, with the Woodvilles losing everything, even being excluded from the
council and any authority over Edward V. For that reason, I believe it is more
likely that EW was willing to discuss the possibility of marriage between
Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor after there was some threat of the precontract
being revealed (even if it was just rumours not anything formal.) Until then, I
would think that EW promising MB to return HT would be a good enough offer to
draw her in. Possibly the conspiracy started with that an offer to repatriate
HT, but when the precontract became a reality, she raised the stakes to include
the marriage with EofY. Talks between MB and EW for HT's return were less of a
problem as they could be covered up as a general idea for EV's rule, but not
necessarily seditious, but if marriage between a princess and a nobody was being
discussed, something much more dangerous was going
on.
Doug
here:
I've tended to view any
offer of a marriage between one of her daughters and Henry to have been the main
proposition, but your idea of the conversations beginning with simply Tudor's
return certainly makes sense. I wonder if there wasn't even yet another step
in the bargaining; first Tudor's return, then a proposed marriage between Tudor
and one of young Edward's sisters and finally, after the Pre-Contract came
before the Council, EoY being specifically named?
Nico
continued:
Without a in depth look at the general events
of 1484, I can't think of anything that would have changed Stanley's loyalties.
However, he was still married to MB and had to listen to her extolling HT's
virtues and how he would be so generously rewarded once HT returned as whatever
she was planning for him at the time. Also, his brother, William may also have
been pushing his own agenda, which may have included support for HT in some
capacity. I can't be sure when the plan for him to gain some power as EofY's
husband in a restoration of one of the Princes changed to conquering the throne
for himself, but Henry certainly seemed enthusiastic about his prospects of
being King, and if he was corresponding with her, she must have been aware of
his intentions. I am less inclined to think that she pushed him into claiming
the throne than the idea coming from HT himself and possibly Jasper Tudor. When
Edward of Middleham died, that would have created a security gap, especially
when Anne was still alive, but Lincoln was available to fill in, and after Anne
died, Richard clearly planned to remarry as soon as possible.
Doug here:
Perhaps if we viewed Lord Stanley as a sort of
political weather-vane, that might help? Of course, we'd still need to know what
caused the political winds to shift enough against Richard so as to make the
thought of his supersession a viable possibility. The lack of a firmly
designated heir was undoubtedly a major part of it, but would that have been
enough? I don't know how much influence MB had on her husband, or vice versa for
that matter. What does come across to me is that, come Hell or high water,
Stanley was going to adopt the same Wait and see attitude that he'd previously
displayed usually to his advantage. Perhaps it was simply a matter of not
being able to come to a decision?*
What I find very unusual is that the dedicated
Yorkist, Sir William Stanley switched sides. Why? Going by past
actions, one could almost expect Lord Thomas to stay on the sidelines, but his
brother? The only thing I can currently come up with is that those rumors of the
boys' deaths managed to gain traction for some reason or other. If, as I tend to
believe, the boys were in the Tower and, even if not easily contacted, were
known to be there until after Easter of, say, 1484, might that give enough
time for those rumors to gain a new life, possibly even enough of a one to
influence Sir William's attitude towards Richard? I don't know how apocryphal it
is, but supposedly Sir William was executed for, basically, refusing to fight
against either young Edward or his brother should they still be alive.
IOW, at some point and for some reason, Sir William not only thought the boys
were dead, but Richard apparently wasn't in a position to refute the rumors;
presuming, of course, he knew about them.
Nico concluded:
My overall impression of Thomas Stanley is
that he was hedging his bets right up until Bosworth, and may have preferred to
remain loyal to Richard, especially when the odds of victory at Bosworth were
against HT. He didn't have any of the personal issues that William Stanley had
with Richard, which I do think was a resentment that went back to the
Harrington-Hornby incident. I think it was Chris Skidmore's book that outlined
HT's route from Milford Haven up to Bosworth, with letters requesting support
along the way. He could be no more sure of Stanley's loyalty than Richard, and I suspect that TS never really had sweating
sickness, just stress from his divided loyalties.
Doug
here:
It looks as if we're basically in agreement about
Lord Thomas; if we can figure out Sir William's motivation/s for turning
traitor, perhaps it will shed some light on who was doing what behind the
scenes?
Doug
* Jenny points a moral with which you
cannot quarrel,
makes a lot of common
sense - -
Jenny and her saga
prove that you are gaga
if you don't keep
sitting on the fence!
lyrics by Ira Gershwin, Saga of
Jenny from Lady in the Dark
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I agree with you about the council power balance, and at least
on EW's part it may have been a ploy to keep as much power as possible on the
council while limiting the powers of Richard as Protector. Even if there was no
threat of the revelation of the precontract, EW and the Woodvilles would be
looking for allies. However, the timing of when the conspiracy began is
important. It was a very risky plot which if uncovered could have been treated
as treason, with the Woodvilles losing everything, even being excluded from the
council and any authority over Edward V. For that reason, I believe it is more
likely that EW was willing to discuss the possibility of marriage between
Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor after there was some threat of the precontract
being revealed (even if it was just rumours not anything formal.) Until then, I
would think that EW promising MB to return HT would be a good enough offer to
draw her in. Possibly the conspiracy started with that an offer to repatriate
HT, but when the precontract became a reality, she raised the stakes to include
the marriage with EofY. Talks between MB and EW for HT's return were less of a
problem as they could be covered up as a general idea for EV's rule, but not
necessarily seditious, but if marriage between a princess and a nobody was being
discussed, something much more dangerous was going
on.
Doug
here:
I've tended to view any
offer of a marriage between one of her daughters and Henry to have been the main
proposition, but your idea of the conversations beginning with simply Tudor's
return certainly makes sense. I wonder if there wasn't even yet another step
in the bargaining; first Tudor's return, then a proposed marriage between Tudor
and one of young Edward's sisters and finally, after the Pre-Contract came
before the Council, EoY being specifically named?
Nico
continued:
Without a in depth look at the general events
of 1484, I can't think of anything that would have changed Stanley's loyalties.
However, he was still married to MB and had to listen to her extolling HT's
virtues and how he would be so generously rewarded once HT returned as whatever
she was planning for him at the time. Also, his brother, William may also have
been pushing his own agenda, which may have included support for HT in some
capacity. I can't be sure when the plan for him to gain some power as EofY's
husband in a restoration of one of the Princes changed to conquering the throne
for himself, but Henry certainly seemed enthusiastic about his prospects of
being King, and if he was corresponding with her, she must have been aware of
his intentions. I am less inclined to think that she pushed him into claiming
the throne than the idea coming from HT himself and possibly Jasper Tudor. When
Edward of Middleham died, that would have created a security gap, especially
when Anne was still alive, but Lincoln was available to fill in, and after Anne
died, Richard clearly planned to remarry as soon as possible.
Doug here:
Perhaps if we viewed Lord Stanley as a sort of
political weather-vane, that might help? Of course, we'd still need to know what
caused the political winds to shift enough against Richard so as to make the
thought of his supersession a viable possibility. The lack of a firmly
designated heir was undoubtedly a major part of it, but would that have been
enough? I don't know how much influence MB had on her husband, or vice versa for
that matter. What does come across to me is that, come Hell or high water,
Stanley was going to adopt the same Wait and see attitude that he'd previously
displayed usually to his advantage. Perhaps it was simply a matter of not
being able to come to a decision?*
What I find very unusual is that the dedicated
Yorkist, Sir William Stanley switched sides. Why? Going by past
actions, one could almost expect Lord Thomas to stay on the sidelines, but his
brother? The only thing I can currently come up with is that those rumors of the
boys' deaths managed to gain traction for some reason or other. If, as I tend to
believe, the boys were in the Tower and, even if not easily contacted, were
known to be there until after Easter of, say, 1484, might that give enough
time for those rumors to gain a new life, possibly even enough of a one to
influence Sir William's attitude towards Richard? I don't know how apocryphal it
is, but supposedly Sir William was executed for, basically, refusing to fight
against either young Edward or his brother should they still be alive.
IOW, at some point and for some reason, Sir William not only thought the boys
were dead, but Richard apparently wasn't in a position to refute the rumors;
presuming, of course, he knew about them.
Nico concluded:
My overall impression of Thomas Stanley is
that he was hedging his bets right up until Bosworth, and may have preferred to
remain loyal to Richard, especially when the odds of victory at Bosworth were
against HT. He didn't have any of the personal issues that William Stanley had
with Richard, which I do think was a resentment that went back to the
Harrington-Hornby incident. I think it was Chris Skidmore's book that outlined
HT's route from Milford Haven up to Bosworth, with letters requesting support
along the way. He could be no more sure of Stanley's loyalty than Richard, and I suspect that TS never really had sweating
sickness, just stress from his divided loyalties.
Doug
here:
It looks as if we're basically in agreement about
Lord Thomas; if we can figure out Sir William's motivation/s for turning
traitor, perhaps it will shed some light on who was doing what behind the
scenes?
Doug
* Jenny points a moral with which you
cannot quarrel,
makes a lot of common
sense - -
Jenny and her saga
prove that you are gaga
if you don't keep
sitting on the fence!
lyrics by Ira Gershwin, Saga of
Jenny from Lady in the Dark
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-05 13:45:16
Hi,Hilary: It's the Gittisham lot Nico - and it has links to some of our other West Country folk, what a surprise!I
want to double check it - still working. BTW it's interesting that our
Ralph is referred to as the son of a poor London cordwainer, when the
Wilsfords were, and always had been, rich merchants. Notice that
traitors are always poor. Warbeck was the son of a 'boatman', actually
Warbeck senior owned a merchant ship, Colyngbourne was a 'nobody', in
fact he was an ex High Sheriff.I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the BeaumontsNico
want to double check it - still working. BTW it's interesting that our
Ralph is referred to as the son of a poor London cordwainer, when the
Wilsfords were, and always had been, rich merchants. Notice that
traitors are always poor. Warbeck was the son of a 'boatman', actually
Warbeck senior owned a merchant ship, Colyngbourne was a 'nobody', in
fact he was an ex High Sheriff.I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the BeaumontsNico
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-05 13:45:45
Hi,Doug wrote: Perhaps if we viewed Lord Stanley as a sort of
political weather-vane, that might help? Of course, we'd still need to know what
caused the political winds to shift enough against Richard so as to make the
thought of his supersession a viable possibility. The lack of a firmly
designated heir was undoubtedly a major part of it, but would that have been
enough? I don't know how much influence MB had on her husband, or vice versa for
that matter. What does come across to me is that, come Hell or high water,
Stanley was going to adopt the same Wait and see attitude that he'd previously
displayed usually to his advantage. Perhaps it was simply a matter of not
being able to come to a decision?*
What I find very unusual is that the dedicated
Yorkist, Sir William Stanley switched sides. Why? Going by past
actions, one could almost expect Lord Thomas to stay on the sidelines, but his
brother? The only thing I can currently come up with is that those rumors of the
boys' deaths managed to gain traction for some reason or other. If, as I tend to
believe, the boys were in the Tower and, even if not easily contacted, were
known to be there until after Easter of, say, 1484, might that give enough
time for those rumors to gain a new life, possibly even enough of a one to
influence Sir William's attitude towards Richard? I don't know how apocryphal it
is, but supposedly Sir William was executed for, basically, refusing to fight
against either young Edward or his brother should they still be alive.
IOW, at some point and for some reason, Sir William not only thought the boys
were dead, but Richard apparently wasn't in a position to refute the rumors;
presuming, of course, he knew about them.It think that a political weather-vane is an excellent way of describing Thomas Stanley. He could have been indecisive, but my my guess is that his motivation was about furthering his own interests and perhaps by extension those of his children. That would mean that he would be happy to go along with MB and William Stanley but only if their agenda coincided with his own. They may have been giving him a push all the way up to Bosworth but clearly they weren't getting a commitment.William Stanley confuses me too. He has been said to have been an Edwardian Yorkist, someone who was loyal to Edward IV, but not the House of York in general, but since Richard had always served Edward so loyally, why wouldn't he accept him and be loyal to him as the natural successor when it was revealed that all of Edward's children were illegitimate? The Harrington incident does show evidence of a personality clash, and since both Richard and Stanley were based in the North in the 1470s, there may have been other incidents that exacerbated a personality clash. However, your idea about what he believed about the fate of the Princes is a possibility that is worth examining. It raises a few questions:- The indication that he would not fight against EV or RofS if they were still alive suggests that he didn't know whether they were alive or not, but felt that there was a good chance that they were. - Since he said that during Henry VII's reign; does that mean that he believed they were the heirs to the throne because they had been relegitimized by Henry, or that he never believed in the precontract in the first place. I'm inclined to think the former, but if it was the latter, then that in itself could have turned him against Richard.- What were the chances that he believed the rumours about the Princes being dead? If he did that could also have turned him against Richard if he believed he had them murdered or had acted in a way that caused them to be by someone else. Alternatively, he may have disapproved of how Richard handled the problem of the Princes.- If WS had any serious views about the fate of the Princes, where was he getting his information? Most likely Thomas and MB, who as we know had their own agenda (just not quite what it was), and are also on the suspect list if the Princes were in fact murdered.- Finally, was Sir William Stanley close enough to the either Edward IV to care about the Princes (more than the average member of the nobility at the time), enough to encourage him to commit treason?Nico
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 17:44:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico wrote:
I agree with you about the council power balance, and at least
on EW's part it may have been a ploy to keep as much power as possible on the
council while limiting the powers of Richard as Protector. Even if there was no
threat of the revelation of the precontract, EW and the Woodvilles would be
looking for allies. However, the timing of when the conspiracy began is
important. It was a very risky plot which if uncovered could have been treated
as treason, with the Woodvilles losing everything, even being excluded from the
council and any authority over Edward V. For that reason, I believe it is more
likely that EW was willing to discuss the possibility of marriage between
Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor after there was some threat of the precontract
being revealed (even if it was just rumours not anything formal.) Until then, I
would think that EW promising MB to return HT would be a good enough offer to
draw her in. Possibly the conspiracy started with that an offer to repatriate
HT, but when the precontract became a reality, she raised the stakes to include
the marriage with EofY. Talks between MB and EW for HT's return were less of a
problem as they could be covered up as a general idea for EV's rule, but not
necessarily seditious, but if marriage between a princess and a nobody was being
discussed, something much more dangerous was going
on.
Doug
here:
I've tended to view any
offer of a marriage between one of her daughters and Henry to have been the main
proposition, but your idea of the conversations beginning with simply Tudor's
return certainly makes sense. I wonder if there wasn't even yet another step
in the bargaining; first Tudor's return, then a proposed marriage between Tudor
and one of young Edward's sisters and finally, after the Pre-Contract came
before the Council, EoY being specifically named?
Nico
continued:
Without a in depth look at the general events
of 1484, I can't think of anything that would have changed Stanley's loyalties.
However, he was still married to MB and had to listen to her extolling HT's
virtues and how he would be so generously rewarded once HT returned as whatever
she was planning for him at the time. Also, his brother, William may also have
been pushing his own agenda, which may have included support for HT in some
capacity. I can't be sure when the plan for him to gain some power as EofY's
husband in a restoration of one of the Princes changed to conquering the throne
for himself, but Henry certainly seemed enthusiastic about his prospects of
being King, and if he was corresponding with her, she must have been aware of
his intentions. I am less inclined to think that she pushed him into claiming
the throne than the idea coming from HT himself and possibly Jasper Tudor. When
Edward of Middleham died, that would have created a security gap, especially
when Anne was still alive, but Lincoln was available to fill in, and after Anne
died, Richard clearly planned to remarry as soon as possible.
Doug here:
Perhaps if we viewed Lord Stanley as a sort of
political weather-vane, that might help? Of course, we'd still need to know what
caused the political winds to shift enough against Richard so as to make the
thought of his supersession a viable possibility. The lack of a firmly
designated heir was undoubtedly a major part of it, but would that have been
enough? I don't know how much influence MB had on her husband, or vice versa for
that matter. What does come across to me is that, come Hell or high water,
Stanley was going to adopt the same Wait and see attitude that he'd previously
displayed usually to his advantage. Perhaps it was simply a matter of not
being able to come to a decision?*
What I find very unusual is that the dedicated
Yorkist, Sir William Stanley switched sides. Why? Going by past
actions, one could almost expect Lord Thomas to stay on the sidelines, but his
brother? The only thing I can currently come up with is that those rumors of the
boys' deaths managed to gain traction for some reason or other. If, as I tend to
believe, the boys were in the Tower and, even if not easily contacted, were
known to be there until after Easter of, say, 1484, might that give enough
time for those rumors to gain a new life, possibly even enough of a one to
influence Sir William's attitude towards Richard? I don't know how apocryphal it
is, but supposedly Sir William was executed for, basically, refusing to fight
against either young Edward or his brother should they still be alive.
IOW, at some point and for some reason, Sir William not only thought the boys
were dead, but Richard apparently wasn't in a position to refute the rumors;
presuming, of course, he knew about them.
Nico concluded:
My overall impression of Thomas Stanley is
that he was hedging his bets right up until Bosworth, and may have preferred to
remain loyal to Richard, especially when the odds of victory at Bosworth were
against HT. He didn't have any of the personal issues that William Stanley had
with Richard, which I do think was a resentment that went back to the
Harrington-Hornby incident. I think it was Chris Skidmore's book that outlined
HT's route from Milford Haven up to Bosworth, with letters requesting support
along the way. He could be no more sure of Stanley's loyalty than Richard, and I suspect that TS never really had sweating
sickness, just stress from his divided loyalties.
Doug
here:
It looks as if we're basically in agreement about
Lord Thomas; if we can figure out Sir William's motivation/s for turning
traitor, perhaps it will shed some light on who was doing what behind the
scenes?
Doug
* Jenny points a moral with which you
cannot quarrel,
makes a lot of common
sense - -
Jenny and her saga
prove that you are gaga
if you don't keep
sitting on the fence!
lyrics by Ira Gershwin, Saga of
Jenny from Lady in the Dark
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
political weather-vane, that might help? Of course, we'd still need to know what
caused the political winds to shift enough against Richard so as to make the
thought of his supersession a viable possibility. The lack of a firmly
designated heir was undoubtedly a major part of it, but would that have been
enough? I don't know how much influence MB had on her husband, or vice versa for
that matter. What does come across to me is that, come Hell or high water,
Stanley was going to adopt the same Wait and see attitude that he'd previously
displayed usually to his advantage. Perhaps it was simply a matter of not
being able to come to a decision?*
What I find very unusual is that the dedicated
Yorkist, Sir William Stanley switched sides. Why? Going by past
actions, one could almost expect Lord Thomas to stay on the sidelines, but his
brother? The only thing I can currently come up with is that those rumors of the
boys' deaths managed to gain traction for some reason or other. If, as I tend to
believe, the boys were in the Tower and, even if not easily contacted, were
known to be there until after Easter of, say, 1484, might that give enough
time for those rumors to gain a new life, possibly even enough of a one to
influence Sir William's attitude towards Richard? I don't know how apocryphal it
is, but supposedly Sir William was executed for, basically, refusing to fight
against either young Edward or his brother should they still be alive.
IOW, at some point and for some reason, Sir William not only thought the boys
were dead, but Richard apparently wasn't in a position to refute the rumors;
presuming, of course, he knew about them.It think that a political weather-vane is an excellent way of describing Thomas Stanley. He could have been indecisive, but my my guess is that his motivation was about furthering his own interests and perhaps by extension those of his children. That would mean that he would be happy to go along with MB and William Stanley but only if their agenda coincided with his own. They may have been giving him a push all the way up to Bosworth but clearly they weren't getting a commitment.William Stanley confuses me too. He has been said to have been an Edwardian Yorkist, someone who was loyal to Edward IV, but not the House of York in general, but since Richard had always served Edward so loyally, why wouldn't he accept him and be loyal to him as the natural successor when it was revealed that all of Edward's children were illegitimate? The Harrington incident does show evidence of a personality clash, and since both Richard and Stanley were based in the North in the 1470s, there may have been other incidents that exacerbated a personality clash. However, your idea about what he believed about the fate of the Princes is a possibility that is worth examining. It raises a few questions:- The indication that he would not fight against EV or RofS if they were still alive suggests that he didn't know whether they were alive or not, but felt that there was a good chance that they were. - Since he said that during Henry VII's reign; does that mean that he believed they were the heirs to the throne because they had been relegitimized by Henry, or that he never believed in the precontract in the first place. I'm inclined to think the former, but if it was the latter, then that in itself could have turned him against Richard.- What were the chances that he believed the rumours about the Princes being dead? If he did that could also have turned him against Richard if he believed he had them murdered or had acted in a way that caused them to be by someone else. Alternatively, he may have disapproved of how Richard handled the problem of the Princes.- If WS had any serious views about the fate of the Princes, where was he getting his information? Most likely Thomas and MB, who as we know had their own agenda (just not quite what it was), and are also on the suspect list if the Princes were in fact murdered.- Finally, was Sir William Stanley close enough to the either Edward IV to care about the Princes (more than the average member of the nobility at the time), enough to encourage him to commit treason?Nico
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 17:44:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico wrote:
I agree with you about the council power balance, and at least
on EW's part it may have been a ploy to keep as much power as possible on the
council while limiting the powers of Richard as Protector. Even if there was no
threat of the revelation of the precontract, EW and the Woodvilles would be
looking for allies. However, the timing of when the conspiracy began is
important. It was a very risky plot which if uncovered could have been treated
as treason, with the Woodvilles losing everything, even being excluded from the
council and any authority over Edward V. For that reason, I believe it is more
likely that EW was willing to discuss the possibility of marriage between
Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor after there was some threat of the precontract
being revealed (even if it was just rumours not anything formal.) Until then, I
would think that EW promising MB to return HT would be a good enough offer to
draw her in. Possibly the conspiracy started with that an offer to repatriate
HT, but when the precontract became a reality, she raised the stakes to include
the marriage with EofY. Talks between MB and EW for HT's return were less of a
problem as they could be covered up as a general idea for EV's rule, but not
necessarily seditious, but if marriage between a princess and a nobody was being
discussed, something much more dangerous was going
on.
Doug
here:
I've tended to view any
offer of a marriage between one of her daughters and Henry to have been the main
proposition, but your idea of the conversations beginning with simply Tudor's
return certainly makes sense. I wonder if there wasn't even yet another step
in the bargaining; first Tudor's return, then a proposed marriage between Tudor
and one of young Edward's sisters and finally, after the Pre-Contract came
before the Council, EoY being specifically named?
Nico
continued:
Without a in depth look at the general events
of 1484, I can't think of anything that would have changed Stanley's loyalties.
However, he was still married to MB and had to listen to her extolling HT's
virtues and how he would be so generously rewarded once HT returned as whatever
she was planning for him at the time. Also, his brother, William may also have
been pushing his own agenda, which may have included support for HT in some
capacity. I can't be sure when the plan for him to gain some power as EofY's
husband in a restoration of one of the Princes changed to conquering the throne
for himself, but Henry certainly seemed enthusiastic about his prospects of
being King, and if he was corresponding with her, she must have been aware of
his intentions. I am less inclined to think that she pushed him into claiming
the throne than the idea coming from HT himself and possibly Jasper Tudor. When
Edward of Middleham died, that would have created a security gap, especially
when Anne was still alive, but Lincoln was available to fill in, and after Anne
died, Richard clearly planned to remarry as soon as possible.
Doug here:
Perhaps if we viewed Lord Stanley as a sort of
political weather-vane, that might help? Of course, we'd still need to know what
caused the political winds to shift enough against Richard so as to make the
thought of his supersession a viable possibility. The lack of a firmly
designated heir was undoubtedly a major part of it, but would that have been
enough? I don't know how much influence MB had on her husband, or vice versa for
that matter. What does come across to me is that, come Hell or high water,
Stanley was going to adopt the same Wait and see attitude that he'd previously
displayed usually to his advantage. Perhaps it was simply a matter of not
being able to come to a decision?*
What I find very unusual is that the dedicated
Yorkist, Sir William Stanley switched sides. Why? Going by past
actions, one could almost expect Lord Thomas to stay on the sidelines, but his
brother? The only thing I can currently come up with is that those rumors of the
boys' deaths managed to gain traction for some reason or other. If, as I tend to
believe, the boys were in the Tower and, even if not easily contacted, were
known to be there until after Easter of, say, 1484, might that give enough
time for those rumors to gain a new life, possibly even enough of a one to
influence Sir William's attitude towards Richard? I don't know how apocryphal it
is, but supposedly Sir William was executed for, basically, refusing to fight
against either young Edward or his brother should they still be alive.
IOW, at some point and for some reason, Sir William not only thought the boys
were dead, but Richard apparently wasn't in a position to refute the rumors;
presuming, of course, he knew about them.
Nico concluded:
My overall impression of Thomas Stanley is
that he was hedging his bets right up until Bosworth, and may have preferred to
remain loyal to Richard, especially when the odds of victory at Bosworth were
against HT. He didn't have any of the personal issues that William Stanley had
with Richard, which I do think was a resentment that went back to the
Harrington-Hornby incident. I think it was Chris Skidmore's book that outlined
HT's route from Milford Haven up to Bosworth, with letters requesting support
along the way. He could be no more sure of Stanley's loyalty than Richard, and I suspect that TS never really had sweating
sickness, just stress from his divided loyalties.
Doug
here:
It looks as if we're basically in agreement about
Lord Thomas; if we can figure out Sir William's motivation/s for turning
traitor, perhaps it will shed some light on who was doing what behind the
scenes?
Doug
* Jenny points a moral with which you
cannot quarrel,
makes a lot of common
sense - -
Jenny and her saga
prove that you are gaga
if you don't keep
sitting on the fence!
lyrics by Ira Gershwin, Saga of
Jenny from Lady in the Dark
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-05 19:35:53
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I'll check JAH's timeline on the proceedings and the Precontract and come
back.:
Doug
here:
I'm
looking forward to anything you can provide, if only to keep me from making
another error on the level of my Where's Sir William? !
Hilary concluded:
For the rest, I think we're saying roughly the same thing. I have given
more thought to Buckingham though.
As you rightly say, he had no experience in politics whatsoever. The
strength of the Staffords seemed to lie in gathering a large retinue with which
to travel the country in splendour and thus run up huge bills. The focus of the
journeys to London in April 1483 was almost certainly the new young king.
Richard was just someone on his way to do a job. So why would Bucks choose to go
anywhere but in the retinue of young Edward? It was right up his street.
And, of course, he was the
uncle of the new king thanks to his insurance policy of being married to a
Woodville. Might not the thought of a Rivers/Bucks protectorate be attractive?
So why did he change camps? Had he travelled part of the way with Vaughan and
gleaned what was going on? If Rivers was coming from East Anglia, Bucks would
have to cross over to Northampton on his own. And we know he arrived later and
separately. Did he work out that Richard, having been warned, had the upper
hand? Hence he quickly 'did a Stanley'? I don't know; it's
puzzling.
Doug here:
It would all depend on when Buckingham departed
and from where, wouldn't it? Brecon is approximately 50 miles from Ludlow, so if
Buckingham left the former on the same day as young Edward departed Ludlow,
unless Buckingham made a special effort to close the gap, he'd remain about one
day's journey behind during the journey. And, roughly, that's exactly what did
occur. Richard arrived in Northampton quite possibly late on 28 April. Rivers
and Grey met Richard during the day on 29 April and informed him that the royal
party wasn't going to stay at Northampton but would continue on to Stony
Stratford. Then, sometime after the evening meal, in Northampton and attended by
Richard, Rivers and Grey, had commenced, Buckingham
arrived in Norhampton and met with Richard after that meal.
Now, we don't have any direct evidence that
definitely says it, but it certainly appears to me that Richard fully expected
to join young Edward's party in Northampton and had informed Rivers of his
intention. Once Rivers knew that bit of information, if his aim was to get
Edward to London ASAP and crowned immediately on his arrival, the next person to
be informed almost certainly would have been Vaughan, who was actually
accompanying Edward and who needed to know how vital speed was. Which means that
others in the new king's retinue had to know as well. And, I think, this is not
only where Buckingham comes in, but also helps explain his relationship with
Richard after they'd arrived in London.
I think that, somehow, while following in the
train of the royal party, Buckingham learned that the intention was to have
young Edward crowned immediately upon his arrival in London. Or, even
more likely, to have him meet with the Council and remake it so that it would
become a rubber-stamp for the Woodville faction. Actually the latter would be
the most probable and just as effective, regardless of whether Edward had yet
been crowned or not. Once the Council had been remade, the only option for
change would have been to declare that the Woodvilles were an evil influence
on the new, young king and take up arms to remove them.
And it was that outcome being forestalled by the
information Buckingham provided to Richard that led to Richard according him
such prominence.
I really hope that makes sense?
Doug
BTW, it just occurred to me that one possible reason for Buckingham never
quite catching up with the royal party would have been the necessity of finding
enough remounts if he traveled at anything faster than a trot for any distance.
What good would it do for the Duke of Buckingham to arrive in the royal presence
accompanied only by four or five retainers? Conventions must be
maintained!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Doug,
I'll check JAH's timeline on the proceedings and the Precontract and come
back.:
Doug
here:
I'm
looking forward to anything you can provide, if only to keep me from making
another error on the level of my Where's Sir William? !
Hilary concluded:
For the rest, I think we're saying roughly the same thing. I have given
more thought to Buckingham though.
As you rightly say, he had no experience in politics whatsoever. The
strength of the Staffords seemed to lie in gathering a large retinue with which
to travel the country in splendour and thus run up huge bills. The focus of the
journeys to London in April 1483 was almost certainly the new young king.
Richard was just someone on his way to do a job. So why would Bucks choose to go
anywhere but in the retinue of young Edward? It was right up his street.
And, of course, he was the
uncle of the new king thanks to his insurance policy of being married to a
Woodville. Might not the thought of a Rivers/Bucks protectorate be attractive?
So why did he change camps? Had he travelled part of the way with Vaughan and
gleaned what was going on? If Rivers was coming from East Anglia, Bucks would
have to cross over to Northampton on his own. And we know he arrived later and
separately. Did he work out that Richard, having been warned, had the upper
hand? Hence he quickly 'did a Stanley'? I don't know; it's
puzzling.
Doug here:
It would all depend on when Buckingham departed
and from where, wouldn't it? Brecon is approximately 50 miles from Ludlow, so if
Buckingham left the former on the same day as young Edward departed Ludlow,
unless Buckingham made a special effort to close the gap, he'd remain about one
day's journey behind during the journey. And, roughly, that's exactly what did
occur. Richard arrived in Northampton quite possibly late on 28 April. Rivers
and Grey met Richard during the day on 29 April and informed him that the royal
party wasn't going to stay at Northampton but would continue on to Stony
Stratford. Then, sometime after the evening meal, in Northampton and attended by
Richard, Rivers and Grey, had commenced, Buckingham
arrived in Norhampton and met with Richard after that meal.
Now, we don't have any direct evidence that
definitely says it, but it certainly appears to me that Richard fully expected
to join young Edward's party in Northampton and had informed Rivers of his
intention. Once Rivers knew that bit of information, if his aim was to get
Edward to London ASAP and crowned immediately on his arrival, the next person to
be informed almost certainly would have been Vaughan, who was actually
accompanying Edward and who needed to know how vital speed was. Which means that
others in the new king's retinue had to know as well. And, I think, this is not
only where Buckingham comes in, but also helps explain his relationship with
Richard after they'd arrived in London.
I think that, somehow, while following in the
train of the royal party, Buckingham learned that the intention was to have
young Edward crowned immediately upon his arrival in London. Or, even
more likely, to have him meet with the Council and remake it so that it would
become a rubber-stamp for the Woodville faction. Actually the latter would be
the most probable and just as effective, regardless of whether Edward had yet
been crowned or not. Once the Council had been remade, the only option for
change would have been to declare that the Woodvilles were an evil influence
on the new, young king and take up arms to remove them.
And it was that outcome being forestalled by the
information Buckingham provided to Richard that led to Richard according him
such prominence.
I really hope that makes sense?
Doug
BTW, it just occurred to me that one possible reason for Buckingham never
quite catching up with the royal party would have been the necessity of finding
enough remounts if he traveled at anything faster than a trot for any distance.
What good would it do for the Duke of Buckingham to arrive in the royal presence
accompanied only by four or five retainers? Conventions must be
maintained!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-06 11:33:44
Doug, as usual I'm catching up on bits so here's extracts from the JAH timeline:Sun 4th May Edward and Richard received in London7 May meeting of Edward IV's executors at Baynard's Castle10 May Edward V moved to King's Lodings at the Tower13 May Parliament summoned for 25 Jun14 May commission to pursue Edward Woodville15 May grants to Buckingham16 May more grants to Buckingham21 May more grants to Buckingham9 Jun Coronation problem at Council meeting (could be Pre-contract)?10 Jun Richard asks for help from York11 Jun Richard asks for help against Woodville plot(JAH misses arrest of Forster and Burton)13 Jun Hastings attempted coup - and according to JAH was killed by guards. Others arrested17 Jun final entry in CPR naming Edward V as King22 Jun St Paul's sermon preached y Shaa27 Jun last mention of Edward V as King in CCR (in Cambridge)Now for brevity I've missed some things out, for example about EW and ROY and there are conflicts e.g. no mention of Forster, Burton or King. Also no mention of grants given to other people like Stanley so it looks like just Buckingham who profited which it wasn't. Also on the timeline of the journey he has Edward and Rivers leaving Ludlow, but there is no proof Rivers was there. He isn't mentioned in the Garter celebration notes. The Stillington revelation is a bit of an assumption by JAH based on a Stonor letter which I'll let you have the relevant extract.Nico, Doug I'm rushing off again but I'll catch up on the rest hopefully after my commitments today are over. I'm particularly interested in the Brampton/King relationship too. H
On Friday, 5 April 2019, 19:35:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I'll check JAH's timeline on the proceedings and the Precontract and come
back.:
Doug
here:
I'm
looking forward to anything you can provide, if only to keep me from making
another error on the level of my Where's Sir William? !
Hilary concluded:
For the rest, I think we're saying roughly the same thing. I have given
more thought to Buckingham though.
As you rightly say, he had no experience in politics whatsoever. The
strength of the Staffords seemed to lie in gathering a large retinue with which
to travel the country in splendour and thus run up huge bills. The focus of the
journeys to London in April 1483 was almost certainly the new young king.
Richard was just someone on his way to do a job. So why would Bucks choose to go
anywhere but in the retinue of young Edward? It was right up his street.
And, of course, he was the
uncle of the new king thanks to his insurance policy of being married to a
Woodville. Might not the thought of a Rivers/Bucks protectorate be attractive?
So why did he change camps? Had he travelled part of the way with Vaughan and
gleaned what was going on? If Rivers was coming from East Anglia, Bucks would
have to cross over to Northampton on his own. And we know he arrived later and
separately. Did he work out that Richard, having been warned, had the upper
hand? Hence he quickly 'did a Stanley'? I don't know; it's
puzzling.
Doug here:
It would all depend on when Buckingham departed
and from where, wouldn't it? Brecon is approximately 50 miles from Ludlow, so if
Buckingham left the former on the same day as young Edward departed Ludlow,
unless Buckingham made a special effort to close the gap, he'd remain about one
day's journey behind during the journey. And, roughly, that's exactly what did
occur. Richard arrived in Northampton quite possibly late on 28 April. Rivers
and Grey met Richard during the day on 29 April and informed him that the royal
party wasn't going to stay at Northampton but would continue on to Stony
Stratford. Then, sometime after the evening meal, in Northampton and attended by
Richard, Rivers and Grey, had commenced, Buckingham
arrived in Norhampton and met with Richard after that meal.
Now, we don't have any direct evidence that
definitely says it, but it certainly appears to me that Richard fully expected
to join young Edward's party in Northampton and had informed Rivers of his
intention. Once Rivers knew that bit of information, if his aim was to get
Edward to London ASAP and crowned immediately on his arrival, the next person to
be informed almost certainly would have been Vaughan, who was actually
accompanying Edward and who needed to know how vital speed was. Which means that
others in the new king's retinue had to know as well. And, I think, this is not
only where Buckingham comes in, but also helps explain his relationship with
Richard after they'd arrived in London.
I think that, somehow, while following in the
train of the royal party, Buckingham learned that the intention was to have
young Edward crowned immediately upon his arrival in London. Or, even
more likely, to have him meet with the Council and remake it so that it would
become a rubber-stamp for the Woodville faction. Actually the latter would be
the most probable and just as effective, regardless of whether Edward had yet
been crowned or not. Once the Council had been remade, the only option for
change would have been to declare that the Woodvilles were an evil influence
on the new, young king and take up arms to remove them.
And it was that outcome being forestalled by the
information Buckingham provided to Richard that led to Richard according him
such prominence.
I really hope that makes sense?
Doug
BTW, it just occurred to me that one possible reason for Buckingham never
quite catching up with the royal party would have been the necessity of finding
enough remounts if he traveled at anything faster than a trot for any distance.
What good would it do for the Duke of Buckingham to arrive in the royal presence
accompanied only by four or five retainers? Conventions must be
maintained!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 5 April 2019, 19:35:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I'll check JAH's timeline on the proceedings and the Precontract and come
back.:
Doug
here:
I'm
looking forward to anything you can provide, if only to keep me from making
another error on the level of my Where's Sir William? !
Hilary concluded:
For the rest, I think we're saying roughly the same thing. I have given
more thought to Buckingham though.
As you rightly say, he had no experience in politics whatsoever. The
strength of the Staffords seemed to lie in gathering a large retinue with which
to travel the country in splendour and thus run up huge bills. The focus of the
journeys to London in April 1483 was almost certainly the new young king.
Richard was just someone on his way to do a job. So why would Bucks choose to go
anywhere but in the retinue of young Edward? It was right up his street.
And, of course, he was the
uncle of the new king thanks to his insurance policy of being married to a
Woodville. Might not the thought of a Rivers/Bucks protectorate be attractive?
So why did he change camps? Had he travelled part of the way with Vaughan and
gleaned what was going on? If Rivers was coming from East Anglia, Bucks would
have to cross over to Northampton on his own. And we know he arrived later and
separately. Did he work out that Richard, having been warned, had the upper
hand? Hence he quickly 'did a Stanley'? I don't know; it's
puzzling.
Doug here:
It would all depend on when Buckingham departed
and from where, wouldn't it? Brecon is approximately 50 miles from Ludlow, so if
Buckingham left the former on the same day as young Edward departed Ludlow,
unless Buckingham made a special effort to close the gap, he'd remain about one
day's journey behind during the journey. And, roughly, that's exactly what did
occur. Richard arrived in Northampton quite possibly late on 28 April. Rivers
and Grey met Richard during the day on 29 April and informed him that the royal
party wasn't going to stay at Northampton but would continue on to Stony
Stratford. Then, sometime after the evening meal, in Northampton and attended by
Richard, Rivers and Grey, had commenced, Buckingham
arrived in Norhampton and met with Richard after that meal.
Now, we don't have any direct evidence that
definitely says it, but it certainly appears to me that Richard fully expected
to join young Edward's party in Northampton and had informed Rivers of his
intention. Once Rivers knew that bit of information, if his aim was to get
Edward to London ASAP and crowned immediately on his arrival, the next person to
be informed almost certainly would have been Vaughan, who was actually
accompanying Edward and who needed to know how vital speed was. Which means that
others in the new king's retinue had to know as well. And, I think, this is not
only where Buckingham comes in, but also helps explain his relationship with
Richard after they'd arrived in London.
I think that, somehow, while following in the
train of the royal party, Buckingham learned that the intention was to have
young Edward crowned immediately upon his arrival in London. Or, even
more likely, to have him meet with the Council and remake it so that it would
become a rubber-stamp for the Woodville faction. Actually the latter would be
the most probable and just as effective, regardless of whether Edward had yet
been crowned or not. Once the Council had been remade, the only option for
change would have been to declare that the Woodvilles were an evil influence
on the new, young king and take up arms to remove them.
And it was that outcome being forestalled by the
information Buckingham provided to Richard that led to Richard according him
such prominence.
I really hope that makes sense?
Doug
BTW, it just occurred to me that one possible reason for Buckingham never
quite catching up with the royal party would have been the necessity of finding
enough remounts if he traveled at anything faster than a trot for any distance.
What good would it do for the Duke of Buckingham to arrive in the royal presence
accompanied only by four or five retainers? Conventions must be
maintained!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-06 13:01:07
Hi Doug,Nothing is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier, ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the usual circles and Brampton had much to offer. He certainly served Edward and Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and beyond fighting in a battle. One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must have been connected to one of considerable significance. NicoDoug wrote:
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-06 18:46:23
I googled Duarte Brandao and a post came up by the Algarve Historical Society. It said apparently he was the son of a Jewish blacksmith and that he was born about 1440. He was at the Domus Conversum for four years and they cite evidence from their records. It is worth taking a look at Nico it was written by someone called Peter Booker.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-06 19:25:09
Nico,
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive.org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive.org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-07 16:33:09
Nico wrote ":
It think that a political weather-vane is an excellent way of describing
Thomas Stanley. He could have been indecisive, but my my guess is that his
motivation was about furthering his own interests and perhaps by extension those
of his children. That would mean that he would be happy to go along with MB and
William Stanley but only if their agenda coincided with his own. They may have
been giving him a push all the way up to Bosworth but clearly they weren't
getting a commitment.
Doug here:
FWIW, I don't really see Lord Thomas as being
indecisive so much as temporizing when it comes to taking overt actions. That
temporizing undoubtedly was useful when it came to advancing the interests of
himself and his family, but would, or so I think, have basically been done to
protect what the Stanleys already held; if it could be used to advance his
interests, all the better. One thing that has sort of popped out at me is
that, as far as I can tell, Lord Thomas never led men into
battle. He sat out Blore Heath and Bosworth; when he accompanied Richard during
the October Rebellion he was never in a position where he'd actually have to
lead his men into battle. Could it have simply been that Lord Stanley
had, what might be termed, an aversion to physical conflict?
Which he displayed, and used to his advantage as
well, by temporizing?
Nico
concluded:
William Stanley confuses me too. He has been said to have been an
Edwardian Yorkist, someone who was loyal to Edward IV, but not the House of York
in general, but since Richard had always served Edward so loyally, why wouldn't
he accept him and be loyal to him as the natural successor when it was revealed
that all of Edward's children were illegitimate? The Harrington incident does
show evidence of a personality clash, and since both Richard and Stanley were
based in the North in the 1470s, there may have been other incidents that
exacerbated a personality clash. However, your idea about what he believed about
the fate of the Princes is a possibility that is worth examining. It raises a
few questions:
- The indication that he would not fight against EV or RofS if they were
still alive suggests that he didn't know whether they were alive or not, but
felt that there was a good chance that they were.
- Since he said that during Henry VII's reign; does that mean that he
believed they were the heirs to the throne because they had been relegitimized
by Henry, or that he never believed in the precontract in the first place. I'm
inclined to think the former, but if it was the latter, then that in itself
could have turned him against Richard..
- What were the chances that he believed the rumours about the Princes
being dead? If he did that could also have turned him against Richard if he
believed he had them murdered or had acted in a way that caused them to be by
someone else. Alternatively, he may have disapproved of how Richard handled the
problem of the Princes.
- If WS had any serious views about the fate of the Princes, where was he
getting his information? Most likely Thomas and MB, who as we know had their own
agenda (just not quite what it was), and are also on the suspect list if the
Princes were in fact murdered.
- Finally, was Sir William Stanley close enough to the either Edward IV to
care about the Princes (more than the average member of the nobility at the
time), enough to encourage him to commit treason?
Doug here:
Taking your points in order:
- You wrote ...he didn't know whether they were
alive or not, but felt that there was a good chance that they were. I think
exactly the opposite was the case, that Sir William believed the boys were dead,
and likely at Richard's orders. If Sir William thought the boys were still
alive, then why would he have ever supported Tudor? If EoY was indeed
legitimate, then so were her brothers, and they took precedence over
her. Supporting Tudor would only lead to exactly the situation that arose when
Warbeck made his claim.
- Presuming Sir William said what it's claimed he
said, I think it demonstrates the problems Henry faced. It wasn't so much that
Sir William said what he said after Henry had taken the throne, but that he said
after Warbeck had publicly made his claim to be Richard of Shrewsbury.
The boys were presumed dead, but there were no bodies, no tombs, no masses (as
far as we know). Which says to me that Sir William apparently had been taking
someone's claim the boys were dead at face value with, literally, no
proof and, in a moment of clarity, realized that he [Sir William] might just
have been led up the garden path by someone with an ulterior motive when it came
to what happened to Richard's nephews.
- FWIW, I think Sir William came to believe that
Richard had indeed had his nephews killed and it was that belief that led to his
charge into the fighting at Bosworth. It's entirely possible that Sir William
also believed that the whole Pre-Contract affair was a set-up; a belief that
could certainly have made his acceptance of the boys' deaths easier to
believe.
- Once again I think we
have to look at the timing. Even if Sir William had his doubts about
the Pre-Contract's validity, up until Easter 1484, he could easily settle any
doubts about the boys by either talking with someone employed at the Tower or,
if he wanted to make the effort, visit them himself. After Easter 1484,
however, those options were no longer available. The original rumors
about the boys being dead seem to have been associated with the October
Rebellion, but once a rumor starts it's very hard to kill. As long as the boys
were in the Tower it didn't matter, their not being dead could easily
be shown. Once the boys were removed from (semi)public view, however, that rumor
could resurface and run wild with no way for it to be refuted. FWIW, I wonder if
Richard's moving the boys wasn't just because their mother had finally come out
of sanctuary, but also (if only in part) because of that vow Tudor made at
Christmas 1483 to marry EoY? If Henry was planning to use a proposed
marriage between himself and EoY as a stepping-stone to the throne, then the
boys' lives were definitely at risk. We know that one attempt to get to the
boys, supposedly to free them, was made in August 1483. Later escapes from the
Tower, such as Warbeck's, show that getting out wasn't that difficult. Which
meant, or so it seems to me, that unless Richard was going to put the Tower on
the medieval equivalent of a lock-down and examine everyone going in and out
24/7, as long as the boys were at the Tower and known to be there they
were in danger. However, if the boys were to be protected then their whereabouts
needed to be a secret, literally a state secret. Which meant that once the boys
were moved, the number of people who knew where they were would have been
drastically limited; seemingly not even their mother knew (AFAIK). Nor could
their whereabouts be given out in order to demonstrate they were still alive;
thus ruling out settling any doubts Sir William may have had. I don't have any
suspects for leading Sir William astray, though. If Sir William had any doubts
about the Pre-Contract, then it could have been that the rumors he'd heard
earlier which had been disproven may have taken on a different aspect with the
boys disappearance from the Tower.
- I don't think it was so much a matter of how
close Sir William may have been to Edward IV, but more a matter of his refusing
to fight against Edward IV's legitimate male heir. Even if,
strictly speaking, it was treason, if Sir William had supported Tudor in the
belief that there weren't any living heirs who took precedence over EoY, then
his statement makes perfect sense on its' own. Earlier I said I didn't have any
suspects for turning Sir William to the Dark Side, and while I don't have any
particular person in mind, if someone did assist in his being suborned, it
obviously would have had to have been someone Sir William trusted, someone who
supported Tudor and was in a position to speak freely and frankly to Sir William
without fear their conversations would end up in some report on Richard's
desk.
Trouble is, that's a lot of
people...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It think that a political weather-vane is an excellent way of describing
Thomas Stanley. He could have been indecisive, but my my guess is that his
motivation was about furthering his own interests and perhaps by extension those
of his children. That would mean that he would be happy to go along with MB and
William Stanley but only if their agenda coincided with his own. They may have
been giving him a push all the way up to Bosworth but clearly they weren't
getting a commitment.
Doug here:
FWIW, I don't really see Lord Thomas as being
indecisive so much as temporizing when it comes to taking overt actions. That
temporizing undoubtedly was useful when it came to advancing the interests of
himself and his family, but would, or so I think, have basically been done to
protect what the Stanleys already held; if it could be used to advance his
interests, all the better. One thing that has sort of popped out at me is
that, as far as I can tell, Lord Thomas never led men into
battle. He sat out Blore Heath and Bosworth; when he accompanied Richard during
the October Rebellion he was never in a position where he'd actually have to
lead his men into battle. Could it have simply been that Lord Stanley
had, what might be termed, an aversion to physical conflict?
Which he displayed, and used to his advantage as
well, by temporizing?
Nico
concluded:
William Stanley confuses me too. He has been said to have been an
Edwardian Yorkist, someone who was loyal to Edward IV, but not the House of York
in general, but since Richard had always served Edward so loyally, why wouldn't
he accept him and be loyal to him as the natural successor when it was revealed
that all of Edward's children were illegitimate? The Harrington incident does
show evidence of a personality clash, and since both Richard and Stanley were
based in the North in the 1470s, there may have been other incidents that
exacerbated a personality clash. However, your idea about what he believed about
the fate of the Princes is a possibility that is worth examining. It raises a
few questions:
- The indication that he would not fight against EV or RofS if they were
still alive suggests that he didn't know whether they were alive or not, but
felt that there was a good chance that they were.
- Since he said that during Henry VII's reign; does that mean that he
believed they were the heirs to the throne because they had been relegitimized
by Henry, or that he never believed in the precontract in the first place. I'm
inclined to think the former, but if it was the latter, then that in itself
could have turned him against Richard..
- What were the chances that he believed the rumours about the Princes
being dead? If he did that could also have turned him against Richard if he
believed he had them murdered or had acted in a way that caused them to be by
someone else. Alternatively, he may have disapproved of how Richard handled the
problem of the Princes.
- If WS had any serious views about the fate of the Princes, where was he
getting his information? Most likely Thomas and MB, who as we know had their own
agenda (just not quite what it was), and are also on the suspect list if the
Princes were in fact murdered.
- Finally, was Sir William Stanley close enough to the either Edward IV to
care about the Princes (more than the average member of the nobility at the
time), enough to encourage him to commit treason?
Doug here:
Taking your points in order:
- You wrote ...he didn't know whether they were
alive or not, but felt that there was a good chance that they were. I think
exactly the opposite was the case, that Sir William believed the boys were dead,
and likely at Richard's orders. If Sir William thought the boys were still
alive, then why would he have ever supported Tudor? If EoY was indeed
legitimate, then so were her brothers, and they took precedence over
her. Supporting Tudor would only lead to exactly the situation that arose when
Warbeck made his claim.
- Presuming Sir William said what it's claimed he
said, I think it demonstrates the problems Henry faced. It wasn't so much that
Sir William said what he said after Henry had taken the throne, but that he said
after Warbeck had publicly made his claim to be Richard of Shrewsbury.
The boys were presumed dead, but there were no bodies, no tombs, no masses (as
far as we know). Which says to me that Sir William apparently had been taking
someone's claim the boys were dead at face value with, literally, no
proof and, in a moment of clarity, realized that he [Sir William] might just
have been led up the garden path by someone with an ulterior motive when it came
to what happened to Richard's nephews.
- FWIW, I think Sir William came to believe that
Richard had indeed had his nephews killed and it was that belief that led to his
charge into the fighting at Bosworth. It's entirely possible that Sir William
also believed that the whole Pre-Contract affair was a set-up; a belief that
could certainly have made his acceptance of the boys' deaths easier to
believe.
- Once again I think we
have to look at the timing. Even if Sir William had his doubts about
the Pre-Contract's validity, up until Easter 1484, he could easily settle any
doubts about the boys by either talking with someone employed at the Tower or,
if he wanted to make the effort, visit them himself. After Easter 1484,
however, those options were no longer available. The original rumors
about the boys being dead seem to have been associated with the October
Rebellion, but once a rumor starts it's very hard to kill. As long as the boys
were in the Tower it didn't matter, their not being dead could easily
be shown. Once the boys were removed from (semi)public view, however, that rumor
could resurface and run wild with no way for it to be refuted. FWIW, I wonder if
Richard's moving the boys wasn't just because their mother had finally come out
of sanctuary, but also (if only in part) because of that vow Tudor made at
Christmas 1483 to marry EoY? If Henry was planning to use a proposed
marriage between himself and EoY as a stepping-stone to the throne, then the
boys' lives were definitely at risk. We know that one attempt to get to the
boys, supposedly to free them, was made in August 1483. Later escapes from the
Tower, such as Warbeck's, show that getting out wasn't that difficult. Which
meant, or so it seems to me, that unless Richard was going to put the Tower on
the medieval equivalent of a lock-down and examine everyone going in and out
24/7, as long as the boys were at the Tower and known to be there they
were in danger. However, if the boys were to be protected then their whereabouts
needed to be a secret, literally a state secret. Which meant that once the boys
were moved, the number of people who knew where they were would have been
drastically limited; seemingly not even their mother knew (AFAIK). Nor could
their whereabouts be given out in order to demonstrate they were still alive;
thus ruling out settling any doubts Sir William may have had. I don't have any
suspects for leading Sir William astray, though. If Sir William had any doubts
about the Pre-Contract, then it could have been that the rumors he'd heard
earlier which had been disproven may have taken on a different aspect with the
boys disappearance from the Tower.
- I don't think it was so much a matter of how
close Sir William may have been to Edward IV, but more a matter of his refusing
to fight against Edward IV's legitimate male heir. Even if,
strictly speaking, it was treason, if Sir William had supported Tudor in the
belief that there weren't any living heirs who took precedence over EoY, then
his statement makes perfect sense on its' own. Earlier I said I didn't have any
suspects for turning Sir William to the Dark Side, and while I don't have any
particular person in mind, if someone did assist in his being suborned, it
obviously would have had to have been someone Sir William trusted, someone who
supported Tudor and was in a position to speak freely and frankly to Sir William
without fear their conversations would end up in some report on Richard's
desk.
Trouble is, that's a lot of
people...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-08 10:18:24
This is a good alternative article Mary. It's interesting that very little is ever said about the fate of Brampton's children, other than the mention of the knighthood.I can see why he appealed to Edward, there is a lot of Warwick the buccaneer about him. He's comes across as someone who acted in his own interests first and foremost, so all these travels were a great opportunity for others to glean information from him - says she thinking of Louis XI. He seems to have quite happily pursued his sponsor's brother-in-law.Couple of things: firstly it was his wife, not himself, who travelled with PW and secondly I think he took his surname from the Bramptons in London, who had produced a famous Mayor earlier in the century. You can be pretty certain also that he moved in the same circles as Vaughan, King and Beaumont. H
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 18:46:31 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I googled Duarte Brandao and a post came up by the Algarve Historical Society. It said apparently he was the son of a Jewish blacksmith and that he was born about 1440. He was at the Domus Conversum for four years and they cite evidence from their records. It is worth taking a look at Nico it was written by someone called Peter Booker.Mary
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 18:46:31 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I googled Duarte Brandao and a post came up by the Algarve Historical Society. It said apparently he was the son of a Jewish blacksmith and that he was born about 1440. He was at the Domus Conversum for four years and they cite evidence from their records. It is worth taking a look at Nico it was written by someone called Peter Booker.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-08 10:48:25
Doug I'll let Nico answer the rest but I just wanted to pick up on your last point about Sir William being 'got at'.What I'm learning more and more from all this is that we're not dealing with the 'Ivanhoe' model of plotting - you know, the mighty barons sitting in their castles and deciding to support Richard or HT. For a start there weren't many of them left!What we have is a much more modern model of clergy and gentry/merchants scuttling down dark corridors. And this is not to do with who is God's chosen king; it's to do with from whom they stand to gain the most, or who poses the greatest threat to their comfortable lifestyle. And these are people who are in just the right position to take bribes from abroad, to manipulate, to spread rumour, because quite frankly no-one notices them. Travel under the guise of the Church or the Staple and no-one cares. If Stanley, Buckingham or Howard takes to the seas or goes travelling everyone notices.I doubt there was one mastermind manipulating all this, it just so happened that the interests of a few - the French, HT, the Scots, coincided at a particular point. So I don't doubt Sir William, as a fervent Edwardian Yorkist (one of the very few) was very useful to suborn and eventually to get out of the way - just like Hastings.One has to ask why they were so against Richard. Well for a start he was not a minor, he had a reputation as a military leader, (as the Scots knew to their cost), but above all he was extremely competent. As we've said before he'd served the most marvellous apprenticeship; he knew all the dodges, the exploitations, the false claims, that Edward as King had just floated above. And people confided in the deputy when they couldn't get at the King. So I wonder how many things Richard knew that they now rather wished he didn't?Finally, on a slightly different tack, I think we neglect the records of the Hansa in all this. Their headquarters, the Steelyard, was right close to Baynards Castle and they had the right to put a representative on the Council. Surely someone there must have recorded the rumours/goings on of 1483/4? H
On Sunday, 7 April 2019, 16:33:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico wrote ":
It think that a political weather-vane is an excellent way of describing
Thomas Stanley. He could have been indecisive, but my my guess is that his
motivation was about furthering his own interests and perhaps by extension those
of his children. That would mean that he would be happy to go along with MB and
William Stanley but only if their agenda coincided with his own. They may have
been giving him a push all the way up to Bosworth but clearly they weren't
getting a commitment.
Doug here:
FWIW, I don't really see Lord Thomas as being
indecisive so much as temporizing when it comes to taking overt actions. That
temporizing undoubtedly was useful when it came to advancing the interests of
himself and his family, but would, or so I think, have basically been done to
protect what the Stanleys already held; if it could be used to advance his
interests, all the better. One thing that has sort of popped out at me is
that, as far as I can tell, Lord Thomas never led men into
battle. He sat out Blore Heath and Bosworth; when he accompanied Richard during
the October Rebellion he was never in a position where he'd actually have to
lead his men into battle. Could it have simply been that Lord Stanley
had, what might be termed, an aversion to physical conflict?
Which he displayed, and used to his advantage as
well, by temporizing?
Nico
concluded:
William Stanley confuses me too. He has been said to have been an
Edwardian Yorkist, someone who was loyal to Edward IV, but not the House of York
in general, but since Richard had always served Edward so loyally, why wouldn't
he accept him and be loyal to him as the natural successor when it was revealed
that all of Edward's children were illegitimate? The Harrington incident does
show evidence of a personality clash, and since both Richard and Stanley were
based in the North in the 1470s, there may have been other incidents that
exacerbated a personality clash. However, your idea about what he believed about
the fate of the Princes is a possibility that is worth examining. It raises a
few questions:
- The indication that he would not fight against EV or RofS if they were
still alive suggests that he didn't know whether they were alive or not, but
felt that there was a good chance that they were.
- Since he said that during Henry VII's reign; does that mean that he
believed they were the heirs to the throne because they had been relegitimized
by Henry, or that he never believed in the precontract in the first place. I'm
inclined to think the former, but if it was the latter, then that in itself
could have turned him against Richard..
- What were the chances that he believed the rumours about the Princes
being dead? If he did that could also have turned him against Richard if he
believed he had them murdered or had acted in a way that caused them to be by
someone else. Alternatively, he may have disapproved of how Richard handled the
problem of the Princes.
- If WS had any serious views about the fate of the Princes, where was he
getting his information? Most likely Thomas and MB, who as we know had their own
agenda (just not quite what it was), and are also on the suspect list if the
Princes were in fact murdered.
- Finally, was Sir William Stanley close enough to the either Edward IV to
care about the Princes (more than the average member of the nobility at the
time), enough to encourage him to commit treason?
Doug here:
Taking your points in order:
- You wrote ...he didn't know whether they were
alive or not, but felt that there was a good chance that they were. I think
exactly the opposite was the case, that Sir William believed the boys were dead,
and likely at Richard's orders. If Sir William thought the boys were still
alive, then why would he have ever supported Tudor? If EoY was indeed
legitimate, then so were her brothers, and they took precedence over
her. Supporting Tudor would only lead to exactly the situation that arose when
Warbeck made his claim.
- Presuming Sir William said what it's claimed he
said, I think it demonstrates the problems Henry faced. It wasn't so much that
Sir William said what he said after Henry had taken the throne, but that he said
after Warbeck had publicly made his claim to be Richard of Shrewsbury.
The boys were presumed dead, but there were no bodies, no tombs, no masses (as
far as we know). Which says to me that Sir William apparently had been taking
someone's claim the boys were dead at face value with, literally, no
proof and, in a moment of clarity, realized that he [Sir William] might just
have been led up the garden path by someone with an ulterior motive when it came
to what happened to Richard's nephews.
- FWIW, I think Sir William came to believe that
Richard had indeed had his nephews killed and it was that belief that led to his
charge into the fighting at Bosworth. It's entirely possible that Sir William
also believed that the whole Pre-Contract affair was a set-up; a belief that
could certainly have made his acceptance of the boys' deaths easier to
believe.
- Once again I think we
have to look at the timing. Even if Sir William had his doubts about
the Pre-Contract's validity, up until Easter 1484, he could easily settle any
doubts about the boys by either talking with someone employed at the Tower or,
if he wanted to make the effort, visit them himself. After Easter 1484,
however, those options were no longer available. The original rumors
about the boys being dead seem to have been associated with the October
Rebellion, but once a rumor starts it's very hard to kill. As long as the boys
were in the Tower it didn't matter, their not being dead could easily
be shown. Once the boys were removed from (semi)public view, however, that rumor
could resurface and run wild with no way for it to be refuted. FWIW, I wonder if
Richard's moving the boys wasn't just because their mother had finally come out
of sanctuary, but also (if only in part) because of that vow Tudor made at
Christmas 1483 to marry EoY? If Henry was planning to use a proposed
marriage between himself and EoY as a stepping-stone to the throne, then the
boys' lives were definitely at risk. We know that one attempt to get to the
boys, supposedly to free them, was made in August 1483. Later escapes from the
Tower, such as Warbeck's, show that getting out wasn't that difficult. Which
meant, or so it seems to me, that unless Richard was going to put the Tower on
the medieval equivalent of a lock-down and examine everyone going in and out
24/7, as long as the boys were at the Tower and known to be there they
were in danger. However, if the boys were to be protected then their whereabouts
needed to be a secret, literally a state secret. Which meant that once the boys
were moved, the number of people who knew where they were would have been
drastically limited; seemingly not even their mother knew (AFAIK). Nor could
their whereabouts be given out in order to demonstrate they were still alive;
thus ruling out settling any doubts Sir William may have had. I don't have any
suspects for leading Sir William astray, though. If Sir William had any doubts
about the Pre-Contract, then it could have been that the rumors he'd heard
earlier which had been disproven may have taken on a different aspect with the
boys disappearance from the Tower.
- I don't think it was so much a matter of how
close Sir William may have been to Edward IV, but more a matter of his refusing
to fight against Edward IV's legitimate male heir. Even if,
strictly speaking, it was treason, if Sir William had supported Tudor in the
belief that there weren't any living heirs who took precedence over EoY, then
his statement makes perfect sense on its' own. Earlier I said I didn't have any
suspects for turning Sir William to the Dark Side, and while I don't have any
particular person in mind, if someone did assist in his being suborned, it
obviously would have had to have been someone Sir William trusted, someone who
supported Tudor and was in a position to speak freely and frankly to Sir William
without fear their conversations would end up in some report on Richard's
desk.
Trouble is, that's a lot of
people...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Sunday, 7 April 2019, 16:33:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico wrote ":
It think that a political weather-vane is an excellent way of describing
Thomas Stanley. He could have been indecisive, but my my guess is that his
motivation was about furthering his own interests and perhaps by extension those
of his children. That would mean that he would be happy to go along with MB and
William Stanley but only if their agenda coincided with his own. They may have
been giving him a push all the way up to Bosworth but clearly they weren't
getting a commitment.
Doug here:
FWIW, I don't really see Lord Thomas as being
indecisive so much as temporizing when it comes to taking overt actions. That
temporizing undoubtedly was useful when it came to advancing the interests of
himself and his family, but would, or so I think, have basically been done to
protect what the Stanleys already held; if it could be used to advance his
interests, all the better. One thing that has sort of popped out at me is
that, as far as I can tell, Lord Thomas never led men into
battle. He sat out Blore Heath and Bosworth; when he accompanied Richard during
the October Rebellion he was never in a position where he'd actually have to
lead his men into battle. Could it have simply been that Lord Stanley
had, what might be termed, an aversion to physical conflict?
Which he displayed, and used to his advantage as
well, by temporizing?
Nico
concluded:
William Stanley confuses me too. He has been said to have been an
Edwardian Yorkist, someone who was loyal to Edward IV, but not the House of York
in general, but since Richard had always served Edward so loyally, why wouldn't
he accept him and be loyal to him as the natural successor when it was revealed
that all of Edward's children were illegitimate? The Harrington incident does
show evidence of a personality clash, and since both Richard and Stanley were
based in the North in the 1470s, there may have been other incidents that
exacerbated a personality clash. However, your idea about what he believed about
the fate of the Princes is a possibility that is worth examining. It raises a
few questions:
- The indication that he would not fight against EV or RofS if they were
still alive suggests that he didn't know whether they were alive or not, but
felt that there was a good chance that they were.
- Since he said that during Henry VII's reign; does that mean that he
believed they were the heirs to the throne because they had been relegitimized
by Henry, or that he never believed in the precontract in the first place. I'm
inclined to think the former, but if it was the latter, then that in itself
could have turned him against Richard..
- What were the chances that he believed the rumours about the Princes
being dead? If he did that could also have turned him against Richard if he
believed he had them murdered or had acted in a way that caused them to be by
someone else. Alternatively, he may have disapproved of how Richard handled the
problem of the Princes.
- If WS had any serious views about the fate of the Princes, where was he
getting his information? Most likely Thomas and MB, who as we know had their own
agenda (just not quite what it was), and are also on the suspect list if the
Princes were in fact murdered.
- Finally, was Sir William Stanley close enough to the either Edward IV to
care about the Princes (more than the average member of the nobility at the
time), enough to encourage him to commit treason?
Doug here:
Taking your points in order:
- You wrote ...he didn't know whether they were
alive or not, but felt that there was a good chance that they were. I think
exactly the opposite was the case, that Sir William believed the boys were dead,
and likely at Richard's orders. If Sir William thought the boys were still
alive, then why would he have ever supported Tudor? If EoY was indeed
legitimate, then so were her brothers, and they took precedence over
her. Supporting Tudor would only lead to exactly the situation that arose when
Warbeck made his claim.
- Presuming Sir William said what it's claimed he
said, I think it demonstrates the problems Henry faced. It wasn't so much that
Sir William said what he said after Henry had taken the throne, but that he said
after Warbeck had publicly made his claim to be Richard of Shrewsbury.
The boys were presumed dead, but there were no bodies, no tombs, no masses (as
far as we know). Which says to me that Sir William apparently had been taking
someone's claim the boys were dead at face value with, literally, no
proof and, in a moment of clarity, realized that he [Sir William] might just
have been led up the garden path by someone with an ulterior motive when it came
to what happened to Richard's nephews.
- FWIW, I think Sir William came to believe that
Richard had indeed had his nephews killed and it was that belief that led to his
charge into the fighting at Bosworth. It's entirely possible that Sir William
also believed that the whole Pre-Contract affair was a set-up; a belief that
could certainly have made his acceptance of the boys' deaths easier to
believe.
- Once again I think we
have to look at the timing. Even if Sir William had his doubts about
the Pre-Contract's validity, up until Easter 1484, he could easily settle any
doubts about the boys by either talking with someone employed at the Tower or,
if he wanted to make the effort, visit them himself. After Easter 1484,
however, those options were no longer available. The original rumors
about the boys being dead seem to have been associated with the October
Rebellion, but once a rumor starts it's very hard to kill. As long as the boys
were in the Tower it didn't matter, their not being dead could easily
be shown. Once the boys were removed from (semi)public view, however, that rumor
could resurface and run wild with no way for it to be refuted. FWIW, I wonder if
Richard's moving the boys wasn't just because their mother had finally come out
of sanctuary, but also (if only in part) because of that vow Tudor made at
Christmas 1483 to marry EoY? If Henry was planning to use a proposed
marriage between himself and EoY as a stepping-stone to the throne, then the
boys' lives were definitely at risk. We know that one attempt to get to the
boys, supposedly to free them, was made in August 1483. Later escapes from the
Tower, such as Warbeck's, show that getting out wasn't that difficult. Which
meant, or so it seems to me, that unless Richard was going to put the Tower on
the medieval equivalent of a lock-down and examine everyone going in and out
24/7, as long as the boys were at the Tower and known to be there they
were in danger. However, if the boys were to be protected then their whereabouts
needed to be a secret, literally a state secret. Which meant that once the boys
were moved, the number of people who knew where they were would have been
drastically limited; seemingly not even their mother knew (AFAIK). Nor could
their whereabouts be given out in order to demonstrate they were still alive;
thus ruling out settling any doubts Sir William may have had. I don't have any
suspects for leading Sir William astray, though. If Sir William had any doubts
about the Pre-Contract, then it could have been that the rumors he'd heard
earlier which had been disproven may have taken on a different aspect with the
boys disappearance from the Tower.
- I don't think it was so much a matter of how
close Sir William may have been to Edward IV, but more a matter of his refusing
to fight against Edward IV's legitimate male heir. Even if,
strictly speaking, it was treason, if Sir William had supported Tudor in the
belief that there weren't any living heirs who took precedence over EoY, then
his statement makes perfect sense on its' own. Earlier I said I didn't have any
suspects for turning Sir William to the Dark Side, and while I don't have any
particular person in mind, if someone did assist in his being suborned, it
obviously would have had to have been someone Sir William trusted, someone who
supported Tudor and was in a position to speak freely and frankly to Sir William
without fear their conversations would end up in some report on Richard's
desk.
Trouble is, that's a lot of
people...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-08 10:57:47
I agree with you about the Domus Nico; as you say it's difficult to come up with anyone else of note who was a product of there.Brampton has houses in London, Vaughan has houses in London, King, Cosyn and Beaumont all come from there and Stillington is just down the road at St Martin's. I know London's a big place but it's all rather cosy. It's interesting that Oliver King is promoted at about the time when Louis XI must have been considering revoking Edward's pension. It would be useful for him to know whether Edward was in a position to retaliate - in fact it might have been that inside knowledge of Edward's health led him to choose that moment?It wouldn't surprise me if Brampton was a double agent, working for Edward, but also on the quiet for anyone willing to pay him. As you say, he was certainly held in high esteem by the end of the century and one really can't ascertain why, apart from his earlier penchant for buccaneering. H
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 13:01:13 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Nothing is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier, ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and beyond fighting in a battle. One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must have been connected to one of considerable significance. NicoDoug wrote:
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 13:01:13 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Nothing is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier, ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and beyond fighting in a battle. One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must have been connected to one of considerable significance. NicoDoug wrote:
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-08 17:05:39
Hilary,
I've
been proceeding on the presumption that the Pre-Contract wouldn't, almost
certainly couldn't, have been taken care of immediately upon its presentation to
the Council. Well, unless it was immediately dismissed and, depending on who
brought it forward, that might not have been that easy! I've also presumed there
were two Councils, the one handling day-to-day governmental affairs and the
one assigned to manage the coronation celebrations, but for a matter as
important as that represented by the Pre-Contract, the united Council would have
to be involved.
We
know that some of those present at the Council meeting on 13 June were also on
the coronation committee, so it's safe to think that particular Council meeting
was especially important, important enough to require the presence of
all the Council members. While it's entirely possible that a
final decision wasn't to be made that day; simply because of the date itself
(one week before the planned coronation), I think it was. And, as I mentioned
earlier, since I don't think the subject was one that could be decided in one
session of the Council, that would mean that the Pre-Contract was brought before
the Tower Council at least one week earlier at the previous Tower Council's
meeting. If that's accurate, then we're back to 6 June or 30 May, possibly even
23 May.
Now
it gets a bit complicated. If Richard is writing to York on 10 and 11 June, then
then 10 June is the absolute latest date on which he could have been informed of
any plot. However, unless his information came from someone directly involved in
the plot and was passed to him immediately upon the decision being made, then
Richard being informed of a plot on 10 June means that the plot originated at an
undetermined time before that date.
While
it's entirely possible any plot against Richard was simply because of the
position he currently held as Protector (the Stony Stratford ambush, for
example), the involvement of Hastings leads me to the conclusion that something
else had, if not triggered the plot, then secured Hastings' adherence to it. The
only other thing I can think of that might elicit such a drastic response from a
former ally is the prospect of Edward V being removed from the throne. Which
also means that, at some point prior to 13 June, the topic of the Pre-Contract
was broached before the Tower Council, then brought before a meeting of the
entire Council with a Yes-or-No vote on the subject scheduled for no later
than 13 June.
I
hadn't known about that 9 June meeting concerning a Coronation problem. It
could represent either a first attempt to make a decision on what the
whole Council's position on the Pre-Contract was to be or it may have
represented the first time the matter was brought before the
entire Council, both the Tower group and the Coronation
committee. If the former, then the date for when the Pre-Contract was first
brought before the Tower Council would have to be moved back to 30 May at the
latest. If the latter, then I think the previous Friday, 6 June, would be the
most likely date for the Pre-Contract being brought before the Tower Council. My
personal view at this time is that the 9 June meeting was likely to have been a
vote for or against accepting the Pre-Contract but there was enough opposition
so that, while a vote at that time would have accepted the Pre-Contract, a
final vote was delayed until the meeting scheduled for 13 June
to allow more time to convince more Council members to agree.
I
have absolutely no proof, but I don't doubt there were several plots against
Richard being considered, likely commencing with his entry into London. Just
because Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were under arrest doesn't mean others weren't
still active. We know Forster et al were arrested 10 June, which
supports the idea that was when Richard first discovered that particular plot.
What we don't know is when the plot Forster was associated with originated. It
may very well have had its' origins, however nebulous, with the arrests
mentioned above. A Plan B so to speak? What we also don't know is when
Hastings became involved and I'm wondering if it wasn't after that 9 June
meeting? If 9 June was when the Council was first scheduled to
vote on the Pre-Contract, what would Hastings' attitude be if he saw that the
vote would be in favor of accepting it? Even if the vote was delayed until 13
June, barring further evidence being brought forward, if there was already a
majority on the Council in favor of accepting the Pre-Contract then, people
being what they were, those numbers would only likely increase. After all,
doesn't everyone want to be on the winning side?
Whether
or not anything was planned to actually take place on 13 June, I don't know.
Hastings' position as Master of the Mint would give him, and anyone he brought
with him, easy access to the Tower so that's almost certainly Why he was
recruited. I don't know the Who, even though there are the usual suspects,
Morton for example, but recruited he was and it was that which led to
his execution.
Doug
Who
apologizes for going off-topic, but I think it fits in...
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as usual I'm catching up on bits so here's extracts from the JAH
timeline:
Sun 4th May Edward and Richard received in London
7 May meeting of Edward IV's executors at Baynard's Castle
10 May Edward V moved to King's Lodings at the Tower
13
May Parliament summoned for 25 Jun
14 May commission to pursue Edward Woodville
15 May grants to Buckingham
16 May more grants to Buckingham
21 May more grants to Buckingham
9 Jun Coronation problem at Council meeting (could be Pre-contract)?
10 Jun Richard asks for help from York
11 Jun Richard asks for help against Woodville plot
(JAH misses arrest of Forster and Burton)
13 Jun Hastings attempted coup - and according to JAH was killed by guards.
Others arrested
17 Jun final entry in CPR naming Edward V as King
22 Jun St Paul's sermon preached y Shaa
27 Jun last mention of Edward V as King in CCR (in Cambridge)
Now for brevity I've missed some things out, for example about EW and ROY
and there are conflicts e.g. no mention of Forster, Burton or King. Also no
mention of grants given to other people like Stanley so it looks like just
Buckingham who profited which it wasn't. Also on the timeline of the journey he
has Edward and Rivers leaving Ludlow, but there is no proof Rivers was there. He
isn't mentioned in the Garter celebration notes. The Stillington revelation is a
bit of an assumption by JAH based on a Stonor letter which I'll let you have the
relevant extract.
Nico, Doug I'm rushing off again but I'll catch up on the rest hopefully
after my commitments today are over. I'm particularly interested in the
Brampton/King relationship too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I've
been proceeding on the presumption that the Pre-Contract wouldn't, almost
certainly couldn't, have been taken care of immediately upon its presentation to
the Council. Well, unless it was immediately dismissed and, depending on who
brought it forward, that might not have been that easy! I've also presumed there
were two Councils, the one handling day-to-day governmental affairs and the
one assigned to manage the coronation celebrations, but for a matter as
important as that represented by the Pre-Contract, the united Council would have
to be involved.
We
know that some of those present at the Council meeting on 13 June were also on
the coronation committee, so it's safe to think that particular Council meeting
was especially important, important enough to require the presence of
all the Council members. While it's entirely possible that a
final decision wasn't to be made that day; simply because of the date itself
(one week before the planned coronation), I think it was. And, as I mentioned
earlier, since I don't think the subject was one that could be decided in one
session of the Council, that would mean that the Pre-Contract was brought before
the Tower Council at least one week earlier at the previous Tower Council's
meeting. If that's accurate, then we're back to 6 June or 30 May, possibly even
23 May.
Now
it gets a bit complicated. If Richard is writing to York on 10 and 11 June, then
then 10 June is the absolute latest date on which he could have been informed of
any plot. However, unless his information came from someone directly involved in
the plot and was passed to him immediately upon the decision being made, then
Richard being informed of a plot on 10 June means that the plot originated at an
undetermined time before that date.
While
it's entirely possible any plot against Richard was simply because of the
position he currently held as Protector (the Stony Stratford ambush, for
example), the involvement of Hastings leads me to the conclusion that something
else had, if not triggered the plot, then secured Hastings' adherence to it. The
only other thing I can think of that might elicit such a drastic response from a
former ally is the prospect of Edward V being removed from the throne. Which
also means that, at some point prior to 13 June, the topic of the Pre-Contract
was broached before the Tower Council, then brought before a meeting of the
entire Council with a Yes-or-No vote on the subject scheduled for no later
than 13 June.
I
hadn't known about that 9 June meeting concerning a Coronation problem. It
could represent either a first attempt to make a decision on what the
whole Council's position on the Pre-Contract was to be or it may have
represented the first time the matter was brought before the
entire Council, both the Tower group and the Coronation
committee. If the former, then the date for when the Pre-Contract was first
brought before the Tower Council would have to be moved back to 30 May at the
latest. If the latter, then I think the previous Friday, 6 June, would be the
most likely date for the Pre-Contract being brought before the Tower Council. My
personal view at this time is that the 9 June meeting was likely to have been a
vote for or against accepting the Pre-Contract but there was enough opposition
so that, while a vote at that time would have accepted the Pre-Contract, a
final vote was delayed until the meeting scheduled for 13 June
to allow more time to convince more Council members to agree.
I
have absolutely no proof, but I don't doubt there were several plots against
Richard being considered, likely commencing with his entry into London. Just
because Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were under arrest doesn't mean others weren't
still active. We know Forster et al were arrested 10 June, which
supports the idea that was when Richard first discovered that particular plot.
What we don't know is when the plot Forster was associated with originated. It
may very well have had its' origins, however nebulous, with the arrests
mentioned above. A Plan B so to speak? What we also don't know is when
Hastings became involved and I'm wondering if it wasn't after that 9 June
meeting? If 9 June was when the Council was first scheduled to
vote on the Pre-Contract, what would Hastings' attitude be if he saw that the
vote would be in favor of accepting it? Even if the vote was delayed until 13
June, barring further evidence being brought forward, if there was already a
majority on the Council in favor of accepting the Pre-Contract then, people
being what they were, those numbers would only likely increase. After all,
doesn't everyone want to be on the winning side?
Whether
or not anything was planned to actually take place on 13 June, I don't know.
Hastings' position as Master of the Mint would give him, and anyone he brought
with him, easy access to the Tower so that's almost certainly Why he was
recruited. I don't know the Who, even though there are the usual suspects,
Morton for example, but recruited he was and it was that which led to
his execution.
Doug
Who
apologizes for going off-topic, but I think it fits in...
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as usual I'm catching up on bits so here's extracts from the JAH
timeline:
Sun 4th May Edward and Richard received in London
7 May meeting of Edward IV's executors at Baynard's Castle
10 May Edward V moved to King's Lodings at the Tower
13
May Parliament summoned for 25 Jun
14 May commission to pursue Edward Woodville
15 May grants to Buckingham
16 May more grants to Buckingham
21 May more grants to Buckingham
9 Jun Coronation problem at Council meeting (could be Pre-contract)?
10 Jun Richard asks for help from York
11 Jun Richard asks for help against Woodville plot
(JAH misses arrest of Forster and Burton)
13 Jun Hastings attempted coup - and according to JAH was killed by guards.
Others arrested
17 Jun final entry in CPR naming Edward V as King
22 Jun St Paul's sermon preached y Shaa
27 Jun last mention of Edward V as King in CCR (in Cambridge)
Now for brevity I've missed some things out, for example about EW and ROY
and there are conflicts e.g. no mention of Forster, Burton or King. Also no
mention of grants given to other people like Stanley so it looks like just
Buckingham who profited which it wasn't. Also on the timeline of the journey he
has Edward and Rivers leaving Ludlow, but there is no proof Rivers was there. He
isn't mentioned in the Garter celebration notes. The Stillington revelation is a
bit of an assumption by JAH based on a Stonor letter which I'll let you have the
relevant extract.
Nico, Doug I'm rushing off again but I'll catch up on the rest hopefully
after my commitments today are over. I'm particularly interested in the
Brampton/King relationship too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-09 14:15:08
Hi Doug,Sorry to take a while to get back on this; I am a bit slow at the moment due to school holiday interruptions. Part of the problem with the Wilford affair is that is mired in confusion between the accounts of Vergil and Fabyan's chronicle, which are very different. Fabyan puts it on the Norfolk/Suffolk border and Vergil says it was Kent (a Wilford area). Perhaps there was rebellious activity in both areas. I can't find the relevant originals online, and J-AH's dates for the origin of the claim can't be right, but here is the essence of both accounts:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QeQgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=ralph+wilford+vergil&source=bl&ots=1WHyQSAgVp&sig=ACfU3U1G5pxAQ_e6 As you say, Wilford could not be anyone who could reasonably present a claim to the Warwick estates nor any of the the pretenders. I can't be sure about Simnel. That particular conspiracy occurred early in HT's reign and Margaret of Burgundy, the Earl of Lincoln and Lovell clearly supported it, and were able to raise an army for Stoke Field. There are a lot of mysteries about who Simnel actually was and even how many imposters played the part, but it does seem to be a genuine attempt to unseat HT in favour of Warwick.However, the Wilford plot is entirely different. There was no foreign backing or even interest from any prominent individuals, which leads me to agree with J-AH that this particular 'conspiracy' may have been at the instigation of HT in order to facilitate the marriage of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, which was in danger at this point. Vergil's assertion that the purpose was to make Warwick 'unpopular' certainly fits in with this. Unlike Warbeck, Warwick's claim couldn't be discredited, and HT needed an excuse to get rid of him.Vergil and Fabyan didn't name the 'new mawmet,' Bacon gives the name Ralph Wilford, but his source is unknown. The question is what actually happened. The two accounts suggest that may have been some sedition in Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk. The Wilfords were associated with Kent and London (around Bishopsgate). Could it be that there was really was a Ralph Wilford who was involved with a Yorkist based plot centred around the Earl of Warwick - perhaps a forerunner of the Tower plots surrounding Warbeck, and Ralph Wilford was a protagonist. The fact that and Partrick the friar claimed that he was Warwick or the heir to Warwick's land's may be a Tudor misrepresentation of support for the actual Earl of Warwick. It would be dangerous to report that a pro-Warwick plot was being taken seriously and much better for HT to dismiss an unrest as an absurd fantasy of an unbalanced and misguided boy. However, the public execution of a vulnerable and manipulated person is a serious deviation from HT's treatment of Simnel and Warbeck, which leads me to suspect that Ralph Wilford was involved more deeply in a conspiracy that was exposed by someone who was aware of the activities of the Wilford family and their associates in Kent. Thomas Beaumont was very well placed to know that. As you say, another factor was that the support of the merchants was also of prime importance to HT. If the economy was failing due to the instability of the crown that didn't bode well for him, especially if their discontent spread to the gentry and nobility.Nico
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 19:29:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive.org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 19:29:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive.org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-09 14:16:19
Hi,Thanks Mary for the Algarve article. I have come across it before and it is a excellent overview of Brampton's life and career. I agree with you Hilary that he could have been a double agent, and I suspect the same could be true of Oliver King. There are various versions of his background, one being that he was the son of Ruy Barba, the govenor of Leiria and Mariana, the wife of a Jewish blacksmith who lived in Lisbon (not clear if she is Jewish herself). Another account connects him to a nephew of a nobleman named George Correia, a distinguished soldier. There was a Jewish community in Leiria, but I can't find any information on individuals that could give an indication of his early life, but there could be truth in the account. Perhaps Ruy Barba had a mistress from the local Jewish community; which would explain his ability to fit in seamlessly with Royalty, while being aware of Jewish customs. However talented he may have been, a blacksmith's son (with no other connections) having such a distinguished diplomatic career doesn't fit. So who was the the man who the Kings of England, Portugal and France's distinguished associate, who may well have been the last custodian of Richard of Shrewsbury? The incident of his financing the Alfonso of Portugal's release from Louis XI is particularly interesting, especially in relation to possible links between Louis and King.If he was a spy or double agent, how and when did the spying begin, and for who? Did he arrive in England as a spy for Portugal (posing perhaps as a converted Jew)? Was he Jewish at all (there was no record of his conversion at the Domus, the King as godfather was nominal for all residents). Was he a soldier, ship's captain or a merchant? He was certainly an adventurer, but few people manage all three. I would love to answer all these questions as I believe his importance has been so underestimated.Nico
On Monday, 8 April 2019, 11:16:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I agree with you about the Domus Nico; as you say it's difficult to come up with anyone else of note who was a product of there.Brampton has houses in London, Vaughan has houses in London, King, Cosyn and Beaumont all come from there and Stillington is just down the road at St Martin's. I know London's a big place but it's all rather cosy. It's interesting that Oliver King is promoted at about the time when Louis XI must have been considering revoking Edward's pension. It would be useful for him to know whether Edward was in a position to retaliate - in fact it might have been that inside knowledge of Edward's health led him to choose that moment?It wouldn't surprise me if Brampton was a double agent, working for Edward, but also on the quiet for anyone willing to pay him. As you say, he was certainly held in high esteem by the end of the century and one really can't ascertain why, apart from his earlier penchant for buccaneering. H
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 13:01:13 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Nothing is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier, ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and beyond fighting in a battle. One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must have been connected to one of considerable significance. NicoDoug wrote:
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 8 April 2019, 11:16:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I agree with you about the Domus Nico; as you say it's difficult to come up with anyone else of note who was a product of there.Brampton has houses in London, Vaughan has houses in London, King, Cosyn and Beaumont all come from there and Stillington is just down the road at St Martin's. I know London's a big place but it's all rather cosy. It's interesting that Oliver King is promoted at about the time when Louis XI must have been considering revoking Edward's pension. It would be useful for him to know whether Edward was in a position to retaliate - in fact it might have been that inside knowledge of Edward's health led him to choose that moment?It wouldn't surprise me if Brampton was a double agent, working for Edward, but also on the quiet for anyone willing to pay him. As you say, he was certainly held in high esteem by the end of the century and one really can't ascertain why, apart from his earlier penchant for buccaneering. H
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 13:01:13 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Nothing is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier, ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and beyond fighting in a battle. One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must have been connected to one of considerable significance. NicoDoug wrote:
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-09 14:45:48
Do we know where the Portuguese stood on the Yorkist monarchy in 1471? Alfonso's father was of course another Edward (in English) and he was the nephew of our Henry IV. So the taking of the name Edward could have double connotations. By the time Brampton was embarking on diplomacy for a Richard marriage the Yorkist monarchy was well-established and then of course Brampton wooed Henry VII when all that fell to bits.I have him as someone who took money from whoever would provide it but, as you say, with his original background how on earth was he feasible on the diplomatic scene? All this is like a fifteenth century version of the Cambridge spies. H
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 14:18:05 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,Thanks Mary for the Algarve article. I have come across it before and it is a excellent overview of Brampton's life and career. I agree with you Hilary that he could have been a double agent, and I suspect the same could be true of Oliver King. There are various versions of his background, one being that he was the son of Ruy Barba, the govenor of Leiria and Mariana, the wife of a Jewish blacksmith who lived in Lisbon (not clear if she is Jewish herself). Another account connects him to a nephew of a nobleman named George Correia, a distinguished soldier. There was a Jewish community in Leiria, but I can't find any information on individuals that could give an indication of his early life, but there could be truth in the account. Perhaps Ruy Barba had a mistress from the local Jewish community; which would explain his ability to fit in seamlessly with Royalty, while being aware of Jewish customs. However talented he may have been, a blacksmith's son (with no other connections) having such a distinguished diplomatic career doesn't fit. So who was the the man who the Kings of England, Portugal and France's distinguished associate, who may well have been the last custodian of Richard of Shrewsbury? The incident of his financing the Alfonso of Portugal's release from Louis XI is particularly interesting, especially in relation to possible links between Louis and King.If he was a spy or double agent, how and when did the spying begin, and for who? Did he arrive in England as a spy for Portugal (posing perhaps as a converted Jew)? Was he Jewish at all (there was no record of his conversion at the Domus, the King as godfather was nominal for all residents). Was he a soldier, ship's captain or a merchant? He was certainly an adventurer, but few people manage all three. I would love to answer all these questions as I believe his importance has been so underestimated.Nico
On Monday, 8 April 2019, 11:16:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I agree with you about the Domus Nico; as you say it's difficult to come up with anyone else of note who was a product of there.Brampton has houses in London, Vaughan has houses in London, King, Cosyn and Beaumont all come from there and Stillington is just down the road at St Martin's. I know London's a big place but it's all rather cosy. It's interesting that Oliver King is promoted at about the time when Louis XI must have been considering revoking Edward's pension. It would be useful for him to know whether Edward was in a position to retaliate - in fact it might have been that inside knowledge of Edward's health led him to choose that moment?It wouldn't surprise me if Brampton was a double agent, working for Edward, but also on the quiet for anyone willing to pay him. As you say, he was certainly held in high esteem by the end of the century and one really can't ascertain why, apart from his earlier penchant for buccaneering. H
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 13:01:13 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Nothing is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier, ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and beyond fighting in a battle. One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must have been connected to one of considerable significance. NicoDoug wrote:
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 14:18:05 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,Thanks Mary for the Algarve article. I have come across it before and it is a excellent overview of Brampton's life and career. I agree with you Hilary that he could have been a double agent, and I suspect the same could be true of Oliver King. There are various versions of his background, one being that he was the son of Ruy Barba, the govenor of Leiria and Mariana, the wife of a Jewish blacksmith who lived in Lisbon (not clear if she is Jewish herself). Another account connects him to a nephew of a nobleman named George Correia, a distinguished soldier. There was a Jewish community in Leiria, but I can't find any information on individuals that could give an indication of his early life, but there could be truth in the account. Perhaps Ruy Barba had a mistress from the local Jewish community; which would explain his ability to fit in seamlessly with Royalty, while being aware of Jewish customs. However talented he may have been, a blacksmith's son (with no other connections) having such a distinguished diplomatic career doesn't fit. So who was the the man who the Kings of England, Portugal and France's distinguished associate, who may well have been the last custodian of Richard of Shrewsbury? The incident of his financing the Alfonso of Portugal's release from Louis XI is particularly interesting, especially in relation to possible links between Louis and King.If he was a spy or double agent, how and when did the spying begin, and for who? Did he arrive in England as a spy for Portugal (posing perhaps as a converted Jew)? Was he Jewish at all (there was no record of his conversion at the Domus, the King as godfather was nominal for all residents). Was he a soldier, ship's captain or a merchant? He was certainly an adventurer, but few people manage all three. I would love to answer all these questions as I believe his importance has been so underestimated.Nico
On Monday, 8 April 2019, 11:16:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I agree with you about the Domus Nico; as you say it's difficult to come up with anyone else of note who was a product of there.Brampton has houses in London, Vaughan has houses in London, King, Cosyn and Beaumont all come from there and Stillington is just down the road at St Martin's. I know London's a big place but it's all rather cosy. It's interesting that Oliver King is promoted at about the time when Louis XI must have been considering revoking Edward's pension. It would be useful for him to know whether Edward was in a position to retaliate - in fact it might have been that inside knowledge of Edward's health led him to choose that moment?It wouldn't surprise me if Brampton was a double agent, working for Edward, but also on the quiet for anyone willing to pay him. As you say, he was certainly held in high esteem by the end of the century and one really can't ascertain why, apart from his earlier penchant for buccaneering. H
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 13:01:13 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Nothing is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier, ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and beyond fighting in a battle. One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must have been connected to one of considerable significance. NicoDoug wrote:
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
On Thursday, 4 April 2019, 01:30:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
Regarding
Brampton and his rise, perhaps it went something such as this: Edward was known
for enjoying the company of the merchants of London (and their wives). Merchants
were involved in trade with foreign countries. Brampton himself came from a
foreign country. So perhaps what led to Edward to Brampton, at least originally,
was the simple fact that Brampton came from Portugal and thus could help satisfy
Edward's interest in foreign countries?
We
also know Brampton was born around 1440, which would make him contemporaneous
with Edward, so perhaps that was another link? We don't know why Brampton left
Portugal, but it's entirely possible his departure wasn't completely voluntary,
which could provide yet another bond with Edward, who also had to leave his home
country involuntarily. Nor can we rule out the simplest explanation; that
Brampton, as a person, had something in his make-up that appealed to Edward and,
once they'd met, acquaintanceship turned to something approaching friendship?
You
mentioned Brampton ...had the respect of foreign royalty... , but was that
before or after he became acquainted with Edward? There weren't any
regular ambassadors at that time, they were ad hoc appointees by the
king appointed at times to handle certain matters. Whether the ambassador was
noble or not would usually depend on to whom they were accredited and what the
matter under discussion was. If I understand it correctly, Edward was greatly
interested in England's foreign trade and it would make sense that trade would
be the subject under discussion by most of those ambassadors. Brampton would fit
the bill nicely, wouldn't he? And while carrying out what we'd nowadays term
trade negotiations, Brampton would also be expanding his contacts amongst the
merchants, nobility and possibly even royalty of whichever country he was
visiting. IOW, the Domus Conversorum may very well have provided a spy
for Edward Brampton.
The
high point in Brampton's employment by Edward apparently culminated in his being
appointed Governor of Guernsey in 1482, an appointment re-confirmed by Richard,
but that appointment occurred nearly two decades after Brampton and Edward
likely first met and after the same period of service to Edward and
Richard.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
I would be really interested to know what you have on the Wilfords and
Beaumonts in Devon. Are these the Gittisham Beaumonts rather than London
Bonauntre family? I could never find a connection between two, but it may be
there. I will keep looking myself. I had hit a wall with the Wilfords, but with
Oliver King et al there may be other leads too poor Ralph Wilford and what
really happened there as well as Henry VII's well known, but under investigated
spy network.
The Victorians may have been in love with the idea of humble people getting
the highest places through there own hard work and virtue, but it is an
anachronism when you apply it the 15th century when you needed a powerful
contact to set you on your way. This mentality may have led to the presumption
that trade was somehow inferior, which led to the the power of merchant families
being virtually ignored. Looking at the names, a lot of them did have links to
the noble families which suggests that it was acceptable for younger sons of the
gentry to take up a trade, even taking their families' allegiances with them to
London.
This particular thread started with Brampton, who seems to just pop up out
of nowhere after the readeption marrying into a powerful families and amassing
huge wealth. No other resident of the Domus Conversorum ever had that sort of
success, which made me wonder why he was actually at the Domus. He also had the
respect of foreign royalty, so he must have had a very privileged start in life,
and it was my initial suspicion that he could have been a spy. Could Oliver King
have been an early associate of his? King was a linguist and they were both
about the same age with careers on the ascendent at the same time in the 1470s.
If King was a spy, is this where Brampton came in, and eventually Thomas
Beaumont? There may be a lot of clues to early Tudor mysteries buried in the
city of London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-09 14:58:37
Hi Nico, sorry to nudge in. I, like all of you, am mystified by the Wilsford affair. The London family hails from Exeter, where they were mayors and MPs in the previous century as well. William Wilsford, Mayor of Exeter and MP (d. 1413) married Margaret le Cornu of Thornbury Devon. Her nephew, Nicholas Cornu married Alice Beaumont, daughter of Sir Thomas of Gittisham. The Wilsfords continued to operate in Exeter as well as London.There is clearly a West Country connection with all this - interesting that King was posted to Bath & Wells and took Cosyn and Beaumont with him. And of course he succeeded Stillington who also continues to intrigue me ....... H
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 14:27:10 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Sorry to take a while to get back on this; I am a bit slow at the moment due to school holiday interruptions. Part of the problem with the Wilford affair is that is mired in confusion between the accounts of Vergil and Fabyan's chronicle, which are very different. Fabyan puts it on the Norfolk/Suffolk border and Vergil says it was Kent (a Wilford area). Perhaps there was rebellious activity in both areas. I can't find the relevant originals online, and J-AH's dates for the origin of the claim can't be right, but here is the essence of both accounts:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QeQgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=ralph+wilford+vergil&source=bl&ots=1WHyQSAgVp&sig=ACfU3U1G5pxAQ_e6 As you say, Wilford could not be anyone who could reasonably present a claim to the Warwick estates nor any of the the pretenders. I can't be sure about Simnel. That particular conspiracy occurred early in HT's reign and Margaret of Burgundy, the Earl of Lincoln and Lovell clearly supported it, and were able to raise an army for Stoke Field. There are a lot of mysteries about who Simnel actually was and even how many imposters played the part, but it does seem to be a genuine attempt to unseat HT in favour of Warwick.However, the Wilford plot is entirely different. There was no foreign backing or even interest from any prominent individuals, which leads me to agree with J-AH that this particular 'conspiracy' may have been at the instigation of HT in order to facilitate the marriage of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, which was in danger at this point. Vergil's assertion that the purpose was to make Warwick 'unpopular' certainly fits in with this. Unlike Warbeck, Warwick's claim couldn't be discredited, and HT needed an excuse to get rid of him.Vergil and Fabyan didn't name the 'new mawmet,' Bacon gives the name Ralph Wilford, but his source is unknown. The question is what actually happened. The two accounts suggest that may have been some sedition in Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk. The Wilfords were associated with Kent and London (around Bishopsgate). Could it be that there was really was a Ralph Wilford who was involved with a Yorkist based plot centred around the Earl of Warwick - perhaps a forerunner of the Tower plots surrounding Warbeck, and Ralph Wilford was a protagonist. The fact that and Partrick the friar claimed that he was Warwick or the heir to Warwick's land's may be a Tudor misrepresentation of support for the actual Earl of Warwick. It would be dangerous to report that a pro-Warwick plot was being taken seriously and much better for HT to dismiss an unrest as an absurd fantasy of an unbalanced and misguided boy. However, the public execution of a vulnerable and manipulated person is a serious deviation from HT's treatment of Simnel and Warbeck, which leads me to suspect that Ralph Wilford was involved more deeply in a conspiracy that was exposed by someone who was aware of the activities of the Wilford family and their associates in Kent. Thomas Beaumont was very well placed to know that. As you say, another factor was that the support of the merchants was also of prime importance to HT. If the economy was failing due to the instability of the crown that didn't bode well for him, especially if their discontent spread to the gentry and nobility.Nico
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 19:29:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive..org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 14:27:10 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Sorry to take a while to get back on this; I am a bit slow at the moment due to school holiday interruptions. Part of the problem with the Wilford affair is that is mired in confusion between the accounts of Vergil and Fabyan's chronicle, which are very different. Fabyan puts it on the Norfolk/Suffolk border and Vergil says it was Kent (a Wilford area). Perhaps there was rebellious activity in both areas. I can't find the relevant originals online, and J-AH's dates for the origin of the claim can't be right, but here is the essence of both accounts:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QeQgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=ralph+wilford+vergil&source=bl&ots=1WHyQSAgVp&sig=ACfU3U1G5pxAQ_e6 As you say, Wilford could not be anyone who could reasonably present a claim to the Warwick estates nor any of the the pretenders. I can't be sure about Simnel. That particular conspiracy occurred early in HT's reign and Margaret of Burgundy, the Earl of Lincoln and Lovell clearly supported it, and were able to raise an army for Stoke Field. There are a lot of mysteries about who Simnel actually was and even how many imposters played the part, but it does seem to be a genuine attempt to unseat HT in favour of Warwick.However, the Wilford plot is entirely different. There was no foreign backing or even interest from any prominent individuals, which leads me to agree with J-AH that this particular 'conspiracy' may have been at the instigation of HT in order to facilitate the marriage of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, which was in danger at this point. Vergil's assertion that the purpose was to make Warwick 'unpopular' certainly fits in with this. Unlike Warbeck, Warwick's claim couldn't be discredited, and HT needed an excuse to get rid of him.Vergil and Fabyan didn't name the 'new mawmet,' Bacon gives the name Ralph Wilford, but his source is unknown. The question is what actually happened. The two accounts suggest that may have been some sedition in Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk. The Wilfords were associated with Kent and London (around Bishopsgate). Could it be that there was really was a Ralph Wilford who was involved with a Yorkist based plot centred around the Earl of Warwick - perhaps a forerunner of the Tower plots surrounding Warbeck, and Ralph Wilford was a protagonist. The fact that and Partrick the friar claimed that he was Warwick or the heir to Warwick's land's may be a Tudor misrepresentation of support for the actual Earl of Warwick. It would be dangerous to report that a pro-Warwick plot was being taken seriously and much better for HT to dismiss an unrest as an absurd fantasy of an unbalanced and misguided boy. However, the public execution of a vulnerable and manipulated person is a serious deviation from HT's treatment of Simnel and Warbeck, which leads me to suspect that Ralph Wilford was involved more deeply in a conspiracy that was exposed by someone who was aware of the activities of the Wilford family and their associates in Kent. Thomas Beaumont was very well placed to know that. As you say, another factor was that the support of the merchants was also of prime importance to HT. If the economy was failing due to the instability of the crown that didn't bode well for him, especially if their discontent spread to the gentry and nobility.Nico
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 19:29:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive..org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-09 19:53:12
Nico
wrote
Nothing
is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident
at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him
leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof
of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier,
ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and
Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was
commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the
usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and
Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep
an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested
the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he
was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the
rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with
Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear
if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received
were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and
beyond fighting in a battle.
Doug
here:
Lacking
further information, currently I tend towards the view that Brampton's rise in
England was due to his acquaintanceship with Edward IV. Just how they first met,
I haven't a clue. It may simply have been a case of Edward, as the official
godfather of those living in the Domus, meeting with them, much as the
present Queen will visit some charitable institution. If, say, while still
residing in Portugal, Brampton was involved in some way with the merchant
community that may have sparked Edward's interest in him on their first meeting.
If, as you mentioned, Brampton possibly performed some espionage for Edward
during the Re-Adeption, that may account for his rise after 1471. Undoubtedly
there were, more or less, professional spies during this period, most of the
intelligence received by kings and their advisers came from merchants tasked
with keeping their eyes open as they sailed from port to port or rode from city
to city. Besides being an excellent cover, being a merchant could make one
very wealthy (ask the de la Poles!) and at little or no cost to the
king.
Nico
concluded:
One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was
actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his
cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary
shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had
little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he
had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His
purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much
better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low
profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying
centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the
Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good
place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family
background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's
marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in
discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must
have been connected to one of considerable significance.
Doug here:
Well, if Brampton was indeed
illegitimate and of Jewish descent, that may explain his leaving Portugal,
mightn't it? Apparently he was born around 1440, which would make him 28 when he
arrived in London. IOW, he'd spent the first decade of his adulthood in Portugal
and may have discovered that his Jewish descent was a bar in any association
with the majority Christian population, while his illegitimacy would act in the
same manner with his co-religionists. So he hopped the medieval equivalent of a
freighter and left. My understanding was that, while in the Domus from
1468 to 1472, Brampton had nothing more than any of the other residents so your
...far wealthier than other
residents of the Domus... is new to me. Is that a reference to when he
returned there in 1487-8?
FWIW, I don't know if I'd call
checking in to someplace under the purview of the Master of the Rolls as keeping
a low profile. What it suggests to me is that Sir Edward may have been
advertising his lack of wealth; certainly wealth based on anything in
England. His Attainder had taken the lands I believe he'd inherited from his
first wife and Tudor had cancelled those grants of Lancastrian properties to him
by Edward IV. Staying in any nicer (read: more expensive) place might not fit
the impression Brampton was trying to make that of someone who, while perhaps
not penniless, didn't have money to spare and wasn't a threat to the new king,
regardless of how close he may have been to Edward IV and Richard
III?
Because of their trans-national
connections, both members of the clergy and merchants would have served
as excellent information-gatherers, just how organized it was, I don't know. It
may have been a case of Oliver King handling the clergy/official side, while
Brampton handled the merchant/unofficial side. Or, perhaps, simply Brampton
working for/with whoever was serving as Edward's
M(erchant) ?
I wonder if Brampton isn't just an example of how valuable
an acquaintanceship with a monarch really could be? We don't know exactly when
or how Brampton first met Edward IV. We do know they'd met by 1475, because
Brampton accompanied Edward to Pequiny (sp?). Brampton's denization papers were
made out in October 1472, so that moves their meeting to then, at least. I do
wonder though if It's possible that Brampton's first marriage was arranged at
Edward's behest in order to provide for someone who'd done him a service of some
sort? The timing could support such an idea. If Brampton's first marriage was
indeed arranged, that might explain why Edward issued denization papers for
Brampton, mightn't it? I discovered that
one of the rights granted under denization was the right to
own land or to inherit, which caused me to wonder if that wasn't the
reason for their being issued?
Minus that grant, could Brampton have inherited his first
wife's property? For that matter, could Edward have granted Brampton those
Lancastrian properties?
As for that how of their meeting, it
may have been at what could be termed a social event
related to the Domus as I suggested above or he may have met the king
in order to be specifically thanked for some service Brampton had rendered
Edward. A post of Marie's from 22 July 2018 may have something to bear on this.
In her
post, Marie reported that Brampton received his denization in October 1472
and also mentioned that Brampton had been commissioned to go to sea during the
summer of 1472. That last says to me that, whether or not the two had met prior
to the issuing of the commission, at the very least Edward had heard
enough about Brampton by that point to entrust him with one.
In any case, once they'd met, Edward seemingly took a liking
to Brampton and once that became apparent to those around Edward I don't doubt
door after door swung open. Brampton does seem to have been a competent
merchant, so he steadily made his way up the economic ladder while his
friendship with Edward moved him up the social ladder. Once headed upward, and
as long as he made no missteps, Brampton then became someone with sufficient
mercantile interests to necessitate his traveling out of the kingdom and and
sufficient social standing to act as an ambassador if called on. After the death
of Richard, and most likely because of his stay in England, Brampton became
useful to the King of Portugal as well as retaining his Yorkist connections
elsewhere.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote
Nothing
is known for certain about Brampton's life before he is recorded as a resident
at the Domus Conversorum in 1468. There was an unconfirmed story about him
leaving Portugal after killing someone who insulted him, but there is no proof
of it. Whatever he was, he had many talents that were useful to Edward, soldier,
ship's captain, merchant and was probably very interesting to know. He and
Edward were of similar age, so perhaps they were friends. Edward was
commercially minded and progessive in cultivating useful people outside of the
usual circles and Brampton had much to offer.. He certainly served Edward and
Richard well in the positions he held and if he was able, as a foreigner to keep
an eye on other foreigners that would be an added bonus. Cecil Roth suggested
the possibility that he may have spied for Edward during the readeption. If he
was a spy then, he would most likely have continued the service throughout the
rest of Edward's reign. There is a good chance that he became acquainted with
Oliver King who was Edward's French translator around this time. It isn't clear
if he fought at Barnet or Tewkesbury, but even if he did the rewards he received
were certainly in line with someone who had made a major contribution above and
beyond fighting in a battle.
Doug
here:
Lacking
further information, currently I tend towards the view that Brampton's rise in
England was due to his acquaintanceship with Edward IV. Just how they first met,
I haven't a clue. It may simply have been a case of Edward, as the official
godfather of those living in the Domus, meeting with them, much as the
present Queen will visit some charitable institution. If, say, while still
residing in Portugal, Brampton was involved in some way with the merchant
community that may have sparked Edward's interest in him on their first meeting.
If, as you mentioned, Brampton possibly performed some espionage for Edward
during the Re-Adeption, that may account for his rise after 1471. Undoubtedly
there were, more or less, professional spies during this period, most of the
intelligence received by kings and their advisers came from merchants tasked
with keeping their eyes open as they sailed from port to port or rode from city
to city. Besides being an excellent cover, being a merchant could make one
very wealthy (ask the de la Poles!) and at little or no cost to the
king.
Nico
concluded:
One of the questions I had about his residence at the Domus is why is was
actually there. Could he come to England on a spy mission, and that was his
cover story? If he left Portugal in a rush, he may have needed temporary
shelter, but he also be far wealthier than other residents of the Domus, who had
little means of supporting themselves. He even returned there in 1487-8 after he
had received generous rewards to his service to the King of Portugal. His
purpose in London wasn't known, but he had enough wealth to stay somewhere much
better, which suggests that his mission in London required keeping a low
profile. He even used different spelling of his name on the register. If spying
centred around Churchmen like Oliver King, the Domus, with its connection to the
Church through the Church through the Master of the Rolls may have been a good
place for those connected with espionage to meet unnoticed. His family
background is unknown, but if he served in a diplomatic capacity for Richard's
marriage negotiations and later as an ambassador for the King of Portugal in
discussions with Emperor Frederick about Princess Eleanor's dowry, it he must
have been connected to one of considerable significance.
Doug here:
Well, if Brampton was indeed
illegitimate and of Jewish descent, that may explain his leaving Portugal,
mightn't it? Apparently he was born around 1440, which would make him 28 when he
arrived in London. IOW, he'd spent the first decade of his adulthood in Portugal
and may have discovered that his Jewish descent was a bar in any association
with the majority Christian population, while his illegitimacy would act in the
same manner with his co-religionists. So he hopped the medieval equivalent of a
freighter and left. My understanding was that, while in the Domus from
1468 to 1472, Brampton had nothing more than any of the other residents so your
...far wealthier than other
residents of the Domus... is new to me. Is that a reference to when he
returned there in 1487-8?
FWIW, I don't know if I'd call
checking in to someplace under the purview of the Master of the Rolls as keeping
a low profile. What it suggests to me is that Sir Edward may have been
advertising his lack of wealth; certainly wealth based on anything in
England. His Attainder had taken the lands I believe he'd inherited from his
first wife and Tudor had cancelled those grants of Lancastrian properties to him
by Edward IV. Staying in any nicer (read: more expensive) place might not fit
the impression Brampton was trying to make that of someone who, while perhaps
not penniless, didn't have money to spare and wasn't a threat to the new king,
regardless of how close he may have been to Edward IV and Richard
III?
Because of their trans-national
connections, both members of the clergy and merchants would have served
as excellent information-gatherers, just how organized it was, I don't know. It
may have been a case of Oliver King handling the clergy/official side, while
Brampton handled the merchant/unofficial side. Or, perhaps, simply Brampton
working for/with whoever was serving as Edward's
M(erchant) ?
I wonder if Brampton isn't just an example of how valuable
an acquaintanceship with a monarch really could be? We don't know exactly when
or how Brampton first met Edward IV. We do know they'd met by 1475, because
Brampton accompanied Edward to Pequiny (sp?). Brampton's denization papers were
made out in October 1472, so that moves their meeting to then, at least. I do
wonder though if It's possible that Brampton's first marriage was arranged at
Edward's behest in order to provide for someone who'd done him a service of some
sort? The timing could support such an idea. If Brampton's first marriage was
indeed arranged, that might explain why Edward issued denization papers for
Brampton, mightn't it? I discovered that
one of the rights granted under denization was the right to
own land or to inherit, which caused me to wonder if that wasn't the
reason for their being issued?
Minus that grant, could Brampton have inherited his first
wife's property? For that matter, could Edward have granted Brampton those
Lancastrian properties?
As for that how of their meeting, it
may have been at what could be termed a social event
related to the Domus as I suggested above or he may have met the king
in order to be specifically thanked for some service Brampton had rendered
Edward. A post of Marie's from 22 July 2018 may have something to bear on this.
In her
post, Marie reported that Brampton received his denization in October 1472
and also mentioned that Brampton had been commissioned to go to sea during the
summer of 1472. That last says to me that, whether or not the two had met prior
to the issuing of the commission, at the very least Edward had heard
enough about Brampton by that point to entrust him with one.
In any case, once they'd met, Edward seemingly took a liking
to Brampton and once that became apparent to those around Edward I don't doubt
door after door swung open. Brampton does seem to have been a competent
merchant, so he steadily made his way up the economic ladder while his
friendship with Edward moved him up the social ladder. Once headed upward, and
as long as he made no missteps, Brampton then became someone with sufficient
mercantile interests to necessitate his traveling out of the kingdom and and
sufficient social standing to act as an ambassador if called on. After the death
of Richard, and most likely because of his stay in England, Brampton became
useful to the King of Portugal as well as retaining his Yorkist connections
elsewhere.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-10 11:53:50
Hi Doug, as part of this I promised earlier that I'd get back about the JAH claim that Stillington revealed the Pre-Contract on 9 June.Now the one area where JAH and I part company is on the subject of Stillington and his role in the Pre-Contract. For a start. JAH has always claimed that Edward promoted him as a reward for concealing it. In fact Stillington had held exactly the same office and the same salary under Henry VI. He had been well-liked by Henry VI and undertaken diplomatic missions for him. With his passion for founding schools S was probably much more of a mind with HVI than with Edward. And in that he was a natural successor to Bishop Beckington, the co-founder of Eton.JAH now claims that S left London after 1473, when he resigned the Privy Seal and went to the West Country. In fact from the Registers at Wells we know that he was there very little and is much more likely to have been in London as he was still Dean of St Martin le Grand and remained so until 1485. So JAH is saying that Stillington must have been the one who revealed the Pre-Contract because he happened to be in London at a coronation meeting on 9 June. Sorry JAH!I do think that Stillington had a role in drafting TR as he probably had the most astute legal mind on the Council, but I don't think we can take 9 June as a definitive date for the revelation on this basis. And why were half the Council still planning the Coronation on 13th?There is one question I would ask. Whoever knew about the Pre-Contract knew they were holding a hot potato from the day of Edward's death. The coronation was originally fixed for 4 May. Why did their conscience not kick in till June? I haven't got an answer unless it was someone fed up with the Woodville plots - or it was Buckingham who'd manoeuvred himself into an important position in the interim.I know I haven't really answered your question but that's why I think the revelation didn't happen until after Hastings's death. JAH himself says that the Plumptons didn't mention it in their correspondence on 23 June and one would have thought they would.Finally, the Tower was extremely accessible; it was no more a prison then than any other castle or royal residence. For a start about 100 people lived there and in its grounds. It held not just the Mint but the Royal Armoury and the Menagerie - which was open to the public. In Richard's day there was nothing forbidding coming and going to the Tower; thank the Tudors for that. H On Monday, 8 April 2019, 17:20:39 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I've
been proceeding on the presumption that the Pre-Contract wouldn't, almost
certainly couldn't, have been taken care of immediately upon its presentation to
the Council. Well, unless it was immediately dismissed and, depending on who
brought it forward, that might not have been that easy! I've also presumed there
were two Councils, the one handling day-to-day governmental affairs and the
one assigned to manage the coronation celebrations, but for a matter as
important as that represented by the Pre-Contract, the united Council would have
to be involved.
We
know that some of those present at the Council meeting on 13 June were also on
the coronation committee, so it's safe to think that particular Council meeting
was especially important, important enough to require the presence of
all the Council members. While it's entirely possible that a
final decision wasn't to be made that day; simply because of the date itself
(one week before the planned coronation), I think it was. And, as I mentioned
earlier, since I don't think the subject was one that could be decided in one
session of the Council, that would mean that the Pre-Contract was brought before
the Tower Council at least one week earlier at the previous Tower Council's
meeting. If that's accurate, then we're back to 6 June or 30 May, possibly even
23 May.
Now
it gets a bit complicated. If Richard is writing to York on 10 and 11 June, then
then 10 June is the absolute latest date on which he could have been informed of
any plot. However, unless his information came from someone directly involved in
the plot and was passed to him immediately upon the decision being made, then
Richard being informed of a plot on 10 June means that the plot originated at an
undetermined time before that date.
While
it's entirely possible any plot against Richard was simply because of the
position he currently held as Protector (the Stony Stratford ambush, for
example), the involvement of Hastings leads me to the conclusion that something
else had, if not triggered the plot, then secured Hastings' adherence to it. The
only other thing I can think of that might elicit such a drastic response from a
former ally is the prospect of Edward V being removed from the throne. Which
also means that, at some point prior to 13 June, the topic of the Pre-Contract
was broached before the Tower Council, then brought before a meeting of the
entire Council with a Yes-or-No vote on the subject scheduled for no later
than 13 June.
I
hadn't known about that 9 June meeting concerning a Coronation problem. It
could represent either a first attempt to make a decision on what the
whole Council's position on the Pre-Contract was to be or it may have
represented the first time the matter was brought before the
entire Council, both the Tower group and the Coronation
committee. If the former, then the date for when the Pre-Contract was first
brought before the Tower Council would have to be moved back to 30 May at the
latest. If the latter, then I think the previous Friday, 6 June, would be the
most likely date for the Pre-Contract being brought before the Tower Council. My
personal view at this time is that the 9 June meeting was likely to have been a
vote for or against accepting the Pre-Contract but there was enough opposition
so that, while a vote at that time would have accepted the Pre-Contract, a
final vote was delayed until the meeting scheduled for 13 June
to allow more time to convince more Council members to agree.
I
have absolutely no proof, but I don't doubt there were several plots against
Richard being considered, likely commencing with his entry into London. Just
because Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were under arrest doesn't mean others weren't
still active. We know Forster et al were arrested 10 June, which
supports the idea that was when Richard first discovered that particular plot.
What we don't know is when the plot Forster was associated with originated. It
may very well have had its' origins, however nebulous, with the arrests
mentioned above. A Plan B so to speak? What we also don't know is when
Hastings became involved and I'm wondering if it wasn't after that 9 June
meeting? If 9 June was when the Council was first scheduled to
vote on the Pre-Contract, what would Hastings' attitude be if he saw that the
vote would be in favor of accepting it? Even if the vote was delayed until 13
June, barring further evidence being brought forward, if there was already a
majority on the Council in favor of accepting the Pre-Contract then, people
being what they were, those numbers would only likely increase. After all,
doesn't everyone want to be on the winning side?
Whether
or not anything was planned to actually take place on 13 June, I don't know.
Hastings' position as Master of the Mint would give him, and anyone he brought
with him, easy access to the Tower so that's almost certainly Why he was
recruited. I don't know the Who, even though there are the usual suspects,
Morton for example, but recruited he was and it was that which led to
his execution.
Doug
Who
apologizes for going off-topic, but I think it fits in...
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as usual I'm catching up on bits so here's extracts from the JAH
timeline:
Sun 4th May Edward and Richard received in London
7 May meeting of Edward IV's executors at Baynard's Castle
10 May Edward V moved to King's Lodings at the Tower
13
May Parliament summoned for 25 Jun
14 May commission to pursue Edward Woodville
15 May grants to Buckingham
16 May more grants to Buckingham
21 May more grants to Buckingham
9 Jun Coronation problem at Council meeting (could be Pre-contract)?
10 Jun Richard asks for help from York
11 Jun Richard asks for help against Woodville plot
(JAH misses arrest of Forster and Burton)
13 Jun Hastings attempted coup - and according to JAH was killed by guards.
Others arrested
17 Jun final entry in CPR naming Edward V as King
22 Jun St Paul's sermon preached y Shaa
27 Jun last mention of Edward V as King in CCR (in Cambridge)
Now for brevity I've missed some things out, for example about EW and ROY
and there are conflicts e.g. no mention of Forster, Burton or King. Also no
mention of grants given to other people like Stanley so it looks like just
Buckingham who profited which it wasn't. Also on the timeline of the journey he
has Edward and Rivers leaving Ludlow, but there is no proof Rivers was there. He
isn't mentioned in the Garter celebration notes. The Stillington revelation is a
bit of an assumption by JAH based on a Stonor letter which I'll let you have the
relevant extract.
Nico, Doug I'm rushing off again but I'll catch up on the rest hopefully
after my commitments today are over. I'm particularly interested in the
Brampton/King relationship too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Hilary,
I've
been proceeding on the presumption that the Pre-Contract wouldn't, almost
certainly couldn't, have been taken care of immediately upon its presentation to
the Council. Well, unless it was immediately dismissed and, depending on who
brought it forward, that might not have been that easy! I've also presumed there
were two Councils, the one handling day-to-day governmental affairs and the
one assigned to manage the coronation celebrations, but for a matter as
important as that represented by the Pre-Contract, the united Council would have
to be involved.
We
know that some of those present at the Council meeting on 13 June were also on
the coronation committee, so it's safe to think that particular Council meeting
was especially important, important enough to require the presence of
all the Council members. While it's entirely possible that a
final decision wasn't to be made that day; simply because of the date itself
(one week before the planned coronation), I think it was. And, as I mentioned
earlier, since I don't think the subject was one that could be decided in one
session of the Council, that would mean that the Pre-Contract was brought before
the Tower Council at least one week earlier at the previous Tower Council's
meeting. If that's accurate, then we're back to 6 June or 30 May, possibly even
23 May.
Now
it gets a bit complicated. If Richard is writing to York on 10 and 11 June, then
then 10 June is the absolute latest date on which he could have been informed of
any plot. However, unless his information came from someone directly involved in
the plot and was passed to him immediately upon the decision being made, then
Richard being informed of a plot on 10 June means that the plot originated at an
undetermined time before that date.
While
it's entirely possible any plot against Richard was simply because of the
position he currently held as Protector (the Stony Stratford ambush, for
example), the involvement of Hastings leads me to the conclusion that something
else had, if not triggered the plot, then secured Hastings' adherence to it. The
only other thing I can think of that might elicit such a drastic response from a
former ally is the prospect of Edward V being removed from the throne. Which
also means that, at some point prior to 13 June, the topic of the Pre-Contract
was broached before the Tower Council, then brought before a meeting of the
entire Council with a Yes-or-No vote on the subject scheduled for no later
than 13 June.
I
hadn't known about that 9 June meeting concerning a Coronation problem. It
could represent either a first attempt to make a decision on what the
whole Council's position on the Pre-Contract was to be or it may have
represented the first time the matter was brought before the
entire Council, both the Tower group and the Coronation
committee. If the former, then the date for when the Pre-Contract was first
brought before the Tower Council would have to be moved back to 30 May at the
latest. If the latter, then I think the previous Friday, 6 June, would be the
most likely date for the Pre-Contract being brought before the Tower Council. My
personal view at this time is that the 9 June meeting was likely to have been a
vote for or against accepting the Pre-Contract but there was enough opposition
so that, while a vote at that time would have accepted the Pre-Contract, a
final vote was delayed until the meeting scheduled for 13 June
to allow more time to convince more Council members to agree.
I
have absolutely no proof, but I don't doubt there were several plots against
Richard being considered, likely commencing with his entry into London. Just
because Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were under arrest doesn't mean others weren't
still active. We know Forster et al were arrested 10 June, which
supports the idea that was when Richard first discovered that particular plot.
What we don't know is when the plot Forster was associated with originated. It
may very well have had its' origins, however nebulous, with the arrests
mentioned above. A Plan B so to speak? What we also don't know is when
Hastings became involved and I'm wondering if it wasn't after that 9 June
meeting? If 9 June was when the Council was first scheduled to
vote on the Pre-Contract, what would Hastings' attitude be if he saw that the
vote would be in favor of accepting it? Even if the vote was delayed until 13
June, barring further evidence being brought forward, if there was already a
majority on the Council in favor of accepting the Pre-Contract then, people
being what they were, those numbers would only likely increase. After all,
doesn't everyone want to be on the winning side?
Whether
or not anything was planned to actually take place on 13 June, I don't know.
Hastings' position as Master of the Mint would give him, and anyone he brought
with him, easy access to the Tower so that's almost certainly Why he was
recruited. I don't know the Who, even though there are the usual suspects,
Morton for example, but recruited he was and it was that which led to
his execution.
Doug
Who
apologizes for going off-topic, but I think it fits in...
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as usual I'm catching up on bits so here's extracts from the JAH
timeline:
Sun 4th May Edward and Richard received in London
7 May meeting of Edward IV's executors at Baynard's Castle
10 May Edward V moved to King's Lodings at the Tower
13
May Parliament summoned for 25 Jun
14 May commission to pursue Edward Woodville
15 May grants to Buckingham
16 May more grants to Buckingham
21 May more grants to Buckingham
9 Jun Coronation problem at Council meeting (could be Pre-contract)?
10 Jun Richard asks for help from York
11 Jun Richard asks for help against Woodville plot
(JAH misses arrest of Forster and Burton)
13 Jun Hastings attempted coup - and according to JAH was killed by guards.
Others arrested
17 Jun final entry in CPR naming Edward V as King
22 Jun St Paul's sermon preached y Shaa
27 Jun last mention of Edward V as King in CCR (in Cambridge)
Now for brevity I've missed some things out, for example about EW and ROY
and there are conflicts e.g. no mention of Forster, Burton or King. Also no
mention of grants given to other people like Stanley so it looks like just
Buckingham who profited which it wasn't. Also on the timeline of the journey he
has Edward and Rivers leaving Ludlow, but there is no proof Rivers was there. He
isn't mentioned in the Garter celebration notes. The Stillington revelation is a
bit of an assumption by JAH based on a Stonor letter which I'll let you have the
relevant extract.
Nico, Doug I'm rushing off again but I'll catch up on the rest hopefully
after my commitments today are over. I'm particularly interested in the
Brampton/King relationship too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-10 14:08:10
Hi Hilary, that is interesting about the Wilford/Cornu/Beaumont connection. I will have a look at the Exeter Wilfords. They may not connect to Ralph, but I would like a general overview of all these families. Also, one of Beaumont's parishes had an earlier Beaumont family link. At this point, my feelings on Ralph Wilford lean towards the whole thing being set up HT. He was terrified of the Spanish marriage alliance falling through, and plans would have been underway for the proxy ceremonies which took place in May. He could discredit Warbeck with the confession that he was a fraud, but Warwick would always be an obstacle to 'not a drop of doubtful blood.' It is all too convenient that a shambolic conspiracy in his name should emerge so suddenly. However, was it completely set up by him, or did Beaumont and King know of Yorkist discontent in their circle, but exploited it as something more serious? Perhaps Vergil's commentary is what HT would have liked to have occurred; someone claiming he was Warwick. If this can be traced to HT, it shows a another facet of the ruthless determination and ambition that often gets overlooked with him. I think this quality was always there, but 1499 is the year that we really see the start of the Winter King (as well as some unexpected and reflective changes in the life of MB.)
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 15:13:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, sorry to nudge in. I, like all of you, am mystified by the Wilsford affair. The London family hails from Exeter, where they were mayors and MPs in the previous century as well. William Wilsford, Mayor of Exeter and MP (d. 1413) married Margaret le Cornu of Thornbury Devon. Her nephew, Nicholas Cornu married Alice Beaumont, daughter of Sir Thomas of Gittisham. The Wilsfords continued to operate in Exeter as well as London.There is clearly a West Country connection with all this - interesting that King was posted to Bath & Wells and took Cosyn and Beaumont with him. And of course he succeeded Stillington who also continues to intrigue me ....... H
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 14:27:10 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Sorry to take a while to get back on this; I am a bit slow at the moment due to school holiday interruptions. Part of the problem with the Wilford affair is that is mired in confusion between the accounts of Vergil and Fabyan's chronicle, which are very different. Fabyan puts it on the Norfolk/Suffolk border and Vergil says it was Kent (a Wilford area). Perhaps there was rebellious activity in both areas. I can't find the relevant originals online, and J-AH's dates for the origin of the claim can't be right, but here is the essence of both accounts:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QeQgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=ralph+wilford+vergil&source=bl&ots=1WHyQSAgVp&sig=ACfU3U1G5pxAQ_e6 As you say, Wilford could not be anyone who could reasonably present a claim to the Warwick estates nor any of the the pretenders. I can't be sure about Simnel. That particular conspiracy occurred early in HT's reign and Margaret of Burgundy, the Earl of Lincoln and Lovell clearly supported it, and were able to raise an army for Stoke Field. There are a lot of mysteries about who Simnel actually was and even how many imposters played the part, but it does seem to be a genuine attempt to unseat HT in favour of Warwick.However, the Wilford plot is entirely different. There was no foreign backing or even interest from any prominent individuals, which leads me to agree with J-AH that this particular 'conspiracy' may have been at the instigation of HT in order to facilitate the marriage of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, which was in danger at this point. Vergil's assertion that the purpose was to make Warwick 'unpopular' certainly fits in with this. Unlike Warbeck, Warwick's claim couldn't be discredited, and HT needed an excuse to get rid of him.Vergil and Fabyan didn't name the 'new mawmet,' Bacon gives the name Ralph Wilford, but his source is unknown. The question is what actually happened. The two accounts suggest that may have been some sedition in Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk. The Wilfords were associated with Kent and London (around Bishopsgate). Could it be that there was really was a Ralph Wilford who was involved with a Yorkist based plot centred around the Earl of Warwick - perhaps a forerunner of the Tower plots surrounding Warbeck, and Ralph Wilford was a protagonist. The fact that and Partrick the friar claimed that he was Warwick or the heir to Warwick's land's may be a Tudor misrepresentation of support for the actual Earl of Warwick. It would be dangerous to report that a pro-Warwick plot was being taken seriously and much better for HT to dismiss an unrest as an absurd fantasy of an unbalanced and misguided boy. However, the public execution of a vulnerable and manipulated person is a serious deviation from HT's treatment of Simnel and Warbeck, which leads me to suspect that Ralph Wilford was involved more deeply in a conspiracy that was exposed by someone who was aware of the activities of the Wilford family and their associates in Kent. Thomas Beaumont was very well placed to know that. As you say, another factor was that the support of the merchants was also of prime importance to HT. If the economy was failing due to the instability of the crown that didn't bode well for him, especially if their discontent spread to the gentry and nobility.Nico
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 19:29:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive...org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 15:13:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Nico, sorry to nudge in. I, like all of you, am mystified by the Wilsford affair. The London family hails from Exeter, where they were mayors and MPs in the previous century as well. William Wilsford, Mayor of Exeter and MP (d. 1413) married Margaret le Cornu of Thornbury Devon. Her nephew, Nicholas Cornu married Alice Beaumont, daughter of Sir Thomas of Gittisham. The Wilsfords continued to operate in Exeter as well as London.There is clearly a West Country connection with all this - interesting that King was posted to Bath & Wells and took Cosyn and Beaumont with him. And of course he succeeded Stillington who also continues to intrigue me ....... H
On Tuesday, 9 April 2019, 14:27:10 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,Sorry to take a while to get back on this; I am a bit slow at the moment due to school holiday interruptions. Part of the problem with the Wilford affair is that is mired in confusion between the accounts of Vergil and Fabyan's chronicle, which are very different. Fabyan puts it on the Norfolk/Suffolk border and Vergil says it was Kent (a Wilford area). Perhaps there was rebellious activity in both areas. I can't find the relevant originals online, and J-AH's dates for the origin of the claim can't be right, but here is the essence of both accounts:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QeQgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=ralph+wilford+vergil&source=bl&ots=1WHyQSAgVp&sig=ACfU3U1G5pxAQ_e6 As you say, Wilford could not be anyone who could reasonably present a claim to the Warwick estates nor any of the the pretenders. I can't be sure about Simnel. That particular conspiracy occurred early in HT's reign and Margaret of Burgundy, the Earl of Lincoln and Lovell clearly supported it, and were able to raise an army for Stoke Field. There are a lot of mysteries about who Simnel actually was and even how many imposters played the part, but it does seem to be a genuine attempt to unseat HT in favour of Warwick.However, the Wilford plot is entirely different. There was no foreign backing or even interest from any prominent individuals, which leads me to agree with J-AH that this particular 'conspiracy' may have been at the instigation of HT in order to facilitate the marriage of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, which was in danger at this point. Vergil's assertion that the purpose was to make Warwick 'unpopular' certainly fits in with this. Unlike Warbeck, Warwick's claim couldn't be discredited, and HT needed an excuse to get rid of him.Vergil and Fabyan didn't name the 'new mawmet,' Bacon gives the name Ralph Wilford, but his source is unknown. The question is what actually happened. The two accounts suggest that may have been some sedition in Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk. The Wilfords were associated with Kent and London (around Bishopsgate). Could it be that there was really was a Ralph Wilford who was involved with a Yorkist based plot centred around the Earl of Warwick - perhaps a forerunner of the Tower plots surrounding Warbeck, and Ralph Wilford was a protagonist. The fact that and Partrick the friar claimed that he was Warwick or the heir to Warwick's land's may be a Tudor misrepresentation of support for the actual Earl of Warwick. It would be dangerous to report that a pro-Warwick plot was being taken seriously and much better for HT to dismiss an unrest as an absurd fantasy of an unbalanced and misguided boy. However, the public execution of a vulnerable and manipulated person is a serious deviation from HT's treatment of Simnel and Warbeck, which leads me to suspect that Ralph Wilford was involved more deeply in a conspiracy that was exposed by someone who was aware of the activities of the Wilford family and their associates in Kent. Thomas Beaumont was very well placed to know that. As you say, another factor was that the support of the merchants was also of prime importance to HT. If the economy was failing due to the instability of the crown that didn't bode well for him, especially if their discontent spread to the gentry and nobility.Nico
On Saturday, 6 April 2019, 19:29:27 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
You wrote:
It was said he [Wilford] claimed to be the
heir to the Warwick estates, but how so?
As the only way
anyone could be the heir to the Warwick estates, that person would have to
either a legitimate son of Richard Neville or the legitimate son of George, Duke
of Clarence, the next-to-last holder of the title of Earl of Warwick or of
George's son Edward. We can rule out that last as the difference in ages, and
the dates themselves, make that impossible. So Wilford was executed for
pretending to be Edward of Warwick. The question is: Why would Wilford imagine
he could get away with it? I did a Google search on Ralph Wilford and
discovered that Wilford made his claim less than a year after Perkin slipped
out of the Tower in 1498. He didn't get far before being run down, only to
Sheen, but the point is, he did get out.
Now, I've always
wondered about Lambert Simnel and the claim that he was put up as a stand-in
for Edward of Warwick by the Yorkists. I've never understood the
reasoning. If rebellions and foreign armies could be raised for Henry VI while
he was in the Tower, why not for Edward of Warwick? OTOH, the one
person who definitely needed the person at the head of the Yorkist forces to be
an imposter was Henry Tudor. Which is why I'm inclined to believe that Simnel
was indeed pretending to be be Edward of Warwick, only he was doing so for
Henry.
According to what
I've gleaned from Wikipedia and the following link,
https://archive...org/stream/englandundertudo01buscuoft#page/118/mode/2up
Warbeck was captured 4 October 1497, and spent about 18 months at
Court after a short period in jail. Apparently, however, on 9 June, 1498
Warbeck fled and remained free until surrendering on 14 June. He was then
placed in the Tower where Warwick had been since 1485 (with possibly a brief
exception).
Then we supposedly have
Wilford claiming to be Warwick for an undetermined amount of time before being
apprehended and executed on 12 February, 1499. THe plot for which Warbeck and
Warwick were later executed originated, according to the above link, in early
August 1499 before being discovered at an undetermined later point. Then, nine
months later, Warbeck is executed on 23 November and
Warwick on 26 November
1499.
So, is it possible that
Wilford was executed, not because he claimed to be Warwick, but because he'd
been involved in a plot that had the freeing of Edward
of Warwick as its' goal?
Henry had Warbeck's
confession at hand to be read from every pulpit and plastered all over market
squares, so he'd be covered there if Warbeck made another midnight flit.
Warwick, OTOH, presented a very real danger. Everyone, in and outside of
England, acknowledged him as being Clarence's legitimate son; even Henry did.
Two things stood between Warwick and the throne; one was the Attainder, the
other was its' current occupant. The former could be ignored until reversed by
the first Parliament of Edward VI, so it didn't in itself represent that much
of an obstacle. Further reading in the above link gave me the impression that
trade wasn't doing all that well during the 1490s and, if that was the case,
then Henry would have to worry about maintaining his support among the
merchants, especially considering how important they were becoming to the
general economic health of the country. Then there's the fact that had not there
been treason amongst the nobility and gentry, at best he'd still be in France,
more likely he'd be dead.
IOW, what frightened
Henry so badly in regards to Wilford, likely wasn't any claim to his being
Warwick but, more likely, that there was yet another plot to replace Henry on
the throne by a Yorkist whose legitimacy couldn't be doubted. So, for his part
in a plot, Wilford dies in February 1499 and because their simply breathing,
especially Warwick, could, and very likely would, make them the focus of future
plots, Warwick and Warbeck were executed for the crime of trying to
escape.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I suppose it helps to dismiss traitors as poor because it underplays
the possible support network that they could actually have generated from their
social position, and renders them either hapless victims of someone else or just
simply evil or greedy people acting in their own self interest. The higher
placed the person was, the more they had to lose, so they would be more cautious
about getting involved in a conspiracy that had no merit. Ann Wroe and Arthurson
disagreed on the wealth of the Werbeque family, but they appear to be of some
significance with supports either the impostor theory (he would have to be
educated and well connected to be hired to impersonate a prince) or that PW was
telling the truth (RoS or an illegitimate son of royalty wouldn't be placed in a
poor family). As for Ralph Wilford, if he were only the son of a poor cordwainer
and manipulated by someone else, then why did HT punish him so harshly when he
had been reluctant to execute Simnel and Warbeck? Also, Wilford's imposture was
a strange one and it isn't clear what he was claiming to be. It was said the he
claimed to be their heir to the Warwick estates, but how so? How many
illegitimate children were out there and could any of them have been placed with
the Wilfords? Edward did seem fond of London merchant's wives.
Anyway looking forward to what you have found on the
Beaumonts.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ
2019-04-10 15:59:47
Nico,
Sorry
to butt in here, but you wrote:
However
talented he may have been, a blacksmith's (with no other connections) having
such a distinguished diplomatic career doesn't fit.
I
understood that Brampton's diplomatic career didn't start until after he'd made
the acquaintance of Edward IV? Prior to that what you wrote would certainly be
accurate, but once Brampton began working for Edward, in whatever capacity, he'd
then have the prestige of the king of England behind him. If Brampton was on an
official mission from Edward, then it would be up to whomever the mission was
accredited to do either accept Edward's emissary as being suitable or risk, at
the least, snubbing the King of England.
Regarding
Alfonso/Louis XI, all I know is that in 1476, after a failed attempt to win the
crown of Castile, Alfonso went to France to try and enlist Louis' aid, failed
and returned to Portugal in 1477. I hadn't seen anything about money being
needed to spring Alfonso!
Also,
in her post of 22 July, 2018, Marie wrote:
4.
Edward Brampton was definitely a converted Jew and lived st the Domus during the
1470s. I found I have photos which I took some yrs back of an exchequer file
from 1475, and one of the items deals with Morton's takeover of the Domus and
what moneys were owing on it's accounts. This lists three conversi dwelling
there who were each owed one year's pension. They included Edward of Westminster
and Edward Brampton - spelled like that. So it seems there was a
record of Brampton being at the Domus (at least for 1475).
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
Thanks Mary for the Algarve article. I have come across it before and it is
a excellent overview of Brampton's life and career. I agree with you Hilary that
he could have been a double agent, and I suspect the same could be true of
Oliver King. There are various versions of his background, one being that he was
the son of Ruy Barba, the govenor of Leiria and Mariana, the wife of a Jewish
blacksmith who lived in Lisbon (not clear if she is Jewish herself). Another
account connects him to a nephew of a nobleman named George Correia, a
distinguished soldier. There was a Jewish community in Leiria, but I can't find
any information on individuals that could give an indication of his early life,
but there could be truth in the account. Perhaps Ruy Barba had a mistress from
the local Jewish community; which would explain his ability to fit in seamlessly
with Royalty, while being aware of Jewish customs. However talented he may have
been, a blacksmith's son (with no other connections) having such a distinguished
diplomatic career doesn't fit. So who was the the man who the Kings of England,
Portugal and France's distinguished associate, who may well have been the last
custodian of Richard of Shrewsbury? The incident of his financing the Alfonso of
Portugal's release from Louis XI is particularly interesting, especially in
relation to possible links between Louis and King.
If he was a spy or double agent, how and when did the spying begin, and for
who? Did he arrive in England as a spy for Portugal (posing perhaps as a
converted Jew)? Was he Jewish at all (there was no record of his conversion at
the Domus, the King as godfather was nominal for all residents). Was he a
soldier, ship's captain or a merchant? He was certainly an adventurer, but few
people manage all three. I would love to answer all these questions as I believe
his importance has been so underestimated.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Sorry
to butt in here, but you wrote:
However
talented he may have been, a blacksmith's (with no other connections) having
such a distinguished diplomatic career doesn't fit.
I
understood that Brampton's diplomatic career didn't start until after he'd made
the acquaintance of Edward IV? Prior to that what you wrote would certainly be
accurate, but once Brampton began working for Edward, in whatever capacity, he'd
then have the prestige of the king of England behind him. If Brampton was on an
official mission from Edward, then it would be up to whomever the mission was
accredited to do either accept Edward's emissary as being suitable or risk, at
the least, snubbing the King of England.
Regarding
Alfonso/Louis XI, all I know is that in 1476, after a failed attempt to win the
crown of Castile, Alfonso went to France to try and enlist Louis' aid, failed
and returned to Portugal in 1477. I hadn't seen anything about money being
needed to spring Alfonso!
Also,
in her post of 22 July, 2018, Marie wrote:
4.
Edward Brampton was definitely a converted Jew and lived st the Domus during the
1470s. I found I have photos which I took some yrs back of an exchequer file
from 1475, and one of the items deals with Morton's takeover of the Domus and
what moneys were owing on it's accounts. This lists three conversi dwelling
there who were each owed one year's pension. They included Edward of Westminster
and Edward Brampton - spelled like that. So it seems there was a
record of Brampton being at the Domus (at least for 1475).
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
Thanks Mary for the Algarve article. I have come across it before and it is
a excellent overview of Brampton's life and career. I agree with you Hilary that
he could have been a double agent, and I suspect the same could be true of
Oliver King. There are various versions of his background, one being that he was
the son of Ruy Barba, the govenor of Leiria and Mariana, the wife of a Jewish
blacksmith who lived in Lisbon (not clear if she is Jewish herself). Another
account connects him to a nephew of a nobleman named George Correia, a
distinguished soldier. There was a Jewish community in Leiria, but I can't find
any information on individuals that could give an indication of his early life,
but there could be truth in the account. Perhaps Ruy Barba had a mistress from
the local Jewish community; which would explain his ability to fit in seamlessly
with Royalty, while being aware of Jewish customs. However talented he may have
been, a blacksmith's son (with no other connections) having such a distinguished
diplomatic career doesn't fit. So who was the the man who the Kings of England,
Portugal and France's distinguished associate, who may well have been the last
custodian of Richard of Shrewsbury? The incident of his financing the Alfonso of
Portugal's release from Louis XI is particularly interesting, especially in
relation to possible links between Louis and King.
If he was a spy or double agent, how and when did the spying begin, and for
who? Did he arrive in England as a spy for Portugal (posing perhaps as a
converted Jew)? Was he Jewish at all (there was no record of his conversion at
the Domus, the King as godfather was nominal for all residents). Was he a
soldier, ship's captain or a merchant? He was certainly an adventurer, but few
people manage all three. I would love to answer all these questions as I believe
his importance has been so underestimated.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-10 16:50:30
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I'll let Nico answer the rest but I just wanted to pick up on your last point
about Sir William being 'got at'.
What I'm learning more and more from all this is that we're not dealing
with the 'Ivanhoe' model of plotting - you know, the mighty barons sitting in
their castles and deciding to support Richard or HT. For a start there weren't
many of them left!
What we have is a much more modern model of clergy and gentry/merchants
scuttling down dark corridors. And this is not to do with who is God's chosen
king; it's to do with from whom they stand to gain the most, or who poses the
greatest threat to their comfortable lifestyle. And these are people who are in
just the right position to take bribes from abroad, to manipulate, to spread
rumour, because quite frankly no-one notices them. Travel under the guise of the
Church or the Staple and no-one cares. If Stanley, Buckingham or Howard takes to
the seas or goes travelling everyone notices.
Doug here:
There may not have been Dukes and such, but there
were quite a few Earls and wannabes though, with the latter being where I'd
place all the Stanleys. I think that, because there was, believe it or not, less
reliance on direct force or the threat of force, the one's who realized that
those clergy and gentry/merchants could be so useful employed them for their
own goals, and with success. Even Richard, to some extent, made use of
non-nobles in positions that previously were nobles-only positions. The thing
is, however, there still needed to be someone, or some group (however small), to
plan and organize those clergy-members, gentry and merchants into an
organization that served their, the organizers, purposes, wouldn't
there?
Hilary continued:
I doubt there was one mastermind manipulating all this, it just so
happened that the interests of a few - the French, HT, the Scots, coincided at a
particular point. So I don't doubt Sir William, as a fervent Edwardian Yorkist
(one of the very few) was very useful to suborn and eventually to get out of the
way - just like Hastings.
One has to ask why they were so against Richard. Well for a start he was
not a minor, he had a reputation as a military leader, (as the Scots knew to
their cost), but above all he was extremely competent. As we've said before he'd
served the most marvellous apprenticeship; he knew all the dodges, the
exploitations, the false claims, that Edward as King had just floated above. And
people confided in the deputy when they couldn't get at the King. So I wonder
how many things Richard knew that they now rather wished he didn't?
Doug here:
I agree 100%! The only caveat I'd toss in,
though, is that while there may not have been one mastermind (evil, of
course!), there was, more or less, one aim that motivated several
people or groups of people that of removing Richard from the English throne
and likely for exactly the reasons you gave. I have to admit I hadn't thought of
the many things Richard may have privy to simply because he was Edward's brother
and seen as a possible way to reach Edward's attention! Not only requests made
to Richard for him to, hopefully, pass on to Edward, but requests Richard may
have refused to even consider passing on.
Hilary concluded:
Finally, on a slightly different tack, I think we neglect the records of
the Hansa in all this. Their headquarters, the Steelyard, was right close to
Baynards Castle and they had the right to put a representative on the Council.
Surely someone there must have recorded the rumours/goings on of 1483/4?
Doug here:
Would there be copies of those records in the UK
or would those records be in Germany? If the latter, whether or not they've
survived might be the question.
I did find this link, but my German is limited to
recognizing non-German names/places!
https://web.archive.org/web/20140529145132/http://www.european-heritage.org/germany/m%C3%BCnster/hanse/chronicle-hanseatic-league-continued#header-4
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Doug
I'll let Nico answer the rest but I just wanted to pick up on your last point
about Sir William being 'got at'.
What I'm learning more and more from all this is that we're not dealing
with the 'Ivanhoe' model of plotting - you know, the mighty barons sitting in
their castles and deciding to support Richard or HT. For a start there weren't
many of them left!
What we have is a much more modern model of clergy and gentry/merchants
scuttling down dark corridors. And this is not to do with who is God's chosen
king; it's to do with from whom they stand to gain the most, or who poses the
greatest threat to their comfortable lifestyle. And these are people who are in
just the right position to take bribes from abroad, to manipulate, to spread
rumour, because quite frankly no-one notices them. Travel under the guise of the
Church or the Staple and no-one cares. If Stanley, Buckingham or Howard takes to
the seas or goes travelling everyone notices.
Doug here:
There may not have been Dukes and such, but there
were quite a few Earls and wannabes though, with the latter being where I'd
place all the Stanleys. I think that, because there was, believe it or not, less
reliance on direct force or the threat of force, the one's who realized that
those clergy and gentry/merchants could be so useful employed them for their
own goals, and with success. Even Richard, to some extent, made use of
non-nobles in positions that previously were nobles-only positions. The thing
is, however, there still needed to be someone, or some group (however small), to
plan and organize those clergy-members, gentry and merchants into an
organization that served their, the organizers, purposes, wouldn't
there?
Hilary continued:
I doubt there was one mastermind manipulating all this, it just so
happened that the interests of a few - the French, HT, the Scots, coincided at a
particular point. So I don't doubt Sir William, as a fervent Edwardian Yorkist
(one of the very few) was very useful to suborn and eventually to get out of the
way - just like Hastings.
One has to ask why they were so against Richard. Well for a start he was
not a minor, he had a reputation as a military leader, (as the Scots knew to
their cost), but above all he was extremely competent. As we've said before he'd
served the most marvellous apprenticeship; he knew all the dodges, the
exploitations, the false claims, that Edward as King had just floated above. And
people confided in the deputy when they couldn't get at the King. So I wonder
how many things Richard knew that they now rather wished he didn't?
Doug here:
I agree 100%! The only caveat I'd toss in,
though, is that while there may not have been one mastermind (evil, of
course!), there was, more or less, one aim that motivated several
people or groups of people that of removing Richard from the English throne
and likely for exactly the reasons you gave. I have to admit I hadn't thought of
the many things Richard may have privy to simply because he was Edward's brother
and seen as a possible way to reach Edward's attention! Not only requests made
to Richard for him to, hopefully, pass on to Edward, but requests Richard may
have refused to even consider passing on.
Hilary concluded:
Finally, on a slightly different tack, I think we neglect the records of
the Hansa in all this. Their headquarters, the Steelyard, was right close to
Baynards Castle and they had the right to put a representative on the Council.
Surely someone there must have recorded the rumours/goings on of 1483/4?
Doug here:
Would there be copies of those records in the UK
or would those records be in Germany? If the latter, whether or not they've
survived might be the question.
I did find this link, but my German is limited to
recognizing non-German names/places!
https://web.archive.org/web/20140529145132/http://www.european-heritage.org/germany/m%C3%BCnster/hanse/chronicle-hanseatic-league-continued#header-4
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-11 16:16:58
Nico,
Perhaps
it was less a matter of Wilford trying to pass himself off as Warwick, but
rather that Wilford was trying to drum up support for Warwick? That support may
have been sought only to regain the properties Warwick had lost with his
father's Attainder, but Tudor could easily have taken a different view. Even if
Wilford was only trying to regain lost properties for Warwick, the timing could
have given his efforts a completely different tinge especially if there was
rising, although unconnected, discontent.
Just
a thought.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
Sorry to take a while to get back on this; I am a bit slow at the moment
due to school holiday interruptions. Part of the problem with the Wilford affair
is that is mired in confusion between the accounts of Vergil and Fabyan's
chronicle, which are very different. Fabyan puts it on the Norfolk/Suffolk
border and Vergil says it was Kent (a Wilford area). Perhaps there was
rebellious activity in both areas. I can't find the relevant originals online,
and J-AH's dates for the origin of the claim can't be right, but here is the
essence of both accounts:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QeQgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=ralph+wilford+vergil&source=bl&ots=1WHyQSAgVp&sig=ACfU3U1G5pxAQ_e6
As you say, Wilford could not be anyone who could reasonably present a
claim to the Warwick estates nor any of the the pretenders. I can't be sure
about Simnel. That particular conspiracy occurred early in HT's reign and
Margaret of Burgundy, the Earl of Lincoln and Lovell clearly supported it, and
were able to raise an army for Stoke Field. There are a lot of mysteries about
who Simnel actually was and even how many imposters played the part, but it does
seem to be a genuine attempt to unseat HT in favour of Warwick.
However, the Wilford plot is entirely different. There was no foreign
backing or even interest from any prominent individuals, which leads me to agree
with J-AH that this particular 'conspiracy' may have been at the instigation of
HT in order to facilitate the marriage of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, which
was in danger at this point. Vergil's assertion that the purpose was to make
Warwick 'unpopular' certainly fits in with this. Unlike Warbeck, Warwick's claim
couldn't be discredited, and HT needed an excuse to get rid of him.
Vergil and Fabyan didn't name the 'new mawmet,' Bacon gives the name Ralph
Wilford, but his source is unknown. The question is what actually happened. The
two accounts suggest that may have been some sedition in Kent, Suffolk and
Norfolk. The Wilfords were associated with Kent and London (around Bishopsgate).
Could it be that there was really was a Ralph Wilford who was involved with a
Yorkist based plot centred around the Earl of Warwick - perhaps a forerunner of
the Tower plots surrounding Warbeck, and Ralph Wilford was a protagonist. The
fact that and Partrick the friar claimed that he was Warwick or the heir to
Warwick's land's may be a Tudor misrepresentation of support for the actual Earl
of Warwick. It would be dangerous to report that a pro-Warwick plot was being
taken seriously and much better for HT to dismiss an unrest as an absurd fantasy
of an unbalanced and misguided boy. However, the public execution of a
vulnerable and manipulated person is a serious deviation from HT's treatment of
Simnel and Warbeck, which leads me to suspect that Ralph Wilford was involved
more deeply in a conspiracy that was exposed by someone who was aware of the
activities of the Wilford family and their associates in Kent. Thomas
Beaumont was very well placed to know that.
As you say, another factor was that the support of the merchants was also
of prime importance to HT. If the economy was failing due to the instability of
the crown that didn't bode well for him, especially if their discontent spread
to the gentry and nobility.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Perhaps
it was less a matter of Wilford trying to pass himself off as Warwick, but
rather that Wilford was trying to drum up support for Warwick? That support may
have been sought only to regain the properties Warwick had lost with his
father's Attainder, but Tudor could easily have taken a different view. Even if
Wilford was only trying to regain lost properties for Warwick, the timing could
have given his efforts a completely different tinge especially if there was
rising, although unconnected, discontent.
Just
a thought.
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
Sorry to take a while to get back on this; I am a bit slow at the moment
due to school holiday interruptions. Part of the problem with the Wilford affair
is that is mired in confusion between the accounts of Vergil and Fabyan's
chronicle, which are very different. Fabyan puts it on the Norfolk/Suffolk
border and Vergil says it was Kent (a Wilford area). Perhaps there was
rebellious activity in both areas. I can't find the relevant originals online,
and J-AH's dates for the origin of the claim can't be right, but here is the
essence of both accounts:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QeQgCwAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=ralph+wilford+vergil&source=bl&ots=1WHyQSAgVp&sig=ACfU3U1G5pxAQ_e6
As you say, Wilford could not be anyone who could reasonably present a
claim to the Warwick estates nor any of the the pretenders. I can't be sure
about Simnel. That particular conspiracy occurred early in HT's reign and
Margaret of Burgundy, the Earl of Lincoln and Lovell clearly supported it, and
were able to raise an army for Stoke Field. There are a lot of mysteries about
who Simnel actually was and even how many imposters played the part, but it does
seem to be a genuine attempt to unseat HT in favour of Warwick.
However, the Wilford plot is entirely different. There was no foreign
backing or even interest from any prominent individuals, which leads me to agree
with J-AH that this particular 'conspiracy' may have been at the instigation of
HT in order to facilitate the marriage of Arthur and Katherine of Aragon, which
was in danger at this point. Vergil's assertion that the purpose was to make
Warwick 'unpopular' certainly fits in with this. Unlike Warbeck, Warwick's claim
couldn't be discredited, and HT needed an excuse to get rid of him.
Vergil and Fabyan didn't name the 'new mawmet,' Bacon gives the name Ralph
Wilford, but his source is unknown. The question is what actually happened. The
two accounts suggest that may have been some sedition in Kent, Suffolk and
Norfolk. The Wilfords were associated with Kent and London (around Bishopsgate).
Could it be that there was really was a Ralph Wilford who was involved with a
Yorkist based plot centred around the Earl of Warwick - perhaps a forerunner of
the Tower plots surrounding Warbeck, and Ralph Wilford was a protagonist. The
fact that and Partrick the friar claimed that he was Warwick or the heir to
Warwick's land's may be a Tudor misrepresentation of support for the actual Earl
of Warwick. It would be dangerous to report that a pro-Warwick plot was being
taken seriously and much better for HT to dismiss an unrest as an absurd fantasy
of an unbalanced and misguided boy. However, the public execution of a
vulnerable and manipulated person is a serious deviation from HT's treatment of
Simnel and Warbeck, which leads me to suspect that Ralph Wilford was involved
more deeply in a conspiracy that was exposed by someone who was aware of the
activities of the Wilford family and their associates in Kent. Thomas
Beaumont was very well placed to know that.
As you say, another factor was that the support of the merchants was also
of prime importance to HT. If the economy was failing due to the instability of
the crown that didn't bode well for him, especially if their discontent spread
to the gentry and nobility.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-11 17:36:56
Hilary,
I'm
not really up on Royal Council protocol, but it does seem to me that if the
knowledge of the Pre-Contract was held by a person who normally wouldn't be at a
Council meeting, then that person would need, first, access to someone who did
attend Council meetings and, second, for that someone to be of sufficient
stature that the notion wasn't dismissed out-right. Stillington, would, I think,
fit both requirements, wouldn't he? His legal knowledge may very well have been
the reason for his being used as the conduit for the information in the first
place. And then that same legal knowledge placed Stillington in the position of
being the best qualified person to make the bill. Of course, that still leaves
us with trying to discover who was Stillington's Deep Throat (the source for
many of the Watergate newspaper articles), but it would thin it down some, if
only by eliminating anyone who could have attended a Council meeting in their
own right. My money is on that someone either being a member of the clergy
lacking direct access to the Council, IOW not a Bishop or Abbot, or a woman.
Further than that, though...
I
know I've often referred to the aim of the Woodville plot as young Edward's
coronation, but perhaps that isn't the best term? What the Woodvilles needed
was to have young Edward remake the Council and then have that remade Council
strip the Protector of all, or nearly all, his powers and authority. That
wouldn't need an actual coronation ceremony, would it, only young Edward
chairing a meeting of the Council? However, whether or not young Edward was
going to crowned or not at the beginning of May, that was, as you noted, a month
after Edward IV died. OTOH, whoever it was with the knowledge of the
Pre-Contract had several things to do in the time between the death of Edward IV
and the Pre-Contract being placed before the Council. First they had to decide
whether or not to even reveal what they knew. Then they had to get to London.
Then they had to get the ear of someone on the Council, and not just any
someone, but someone with enough clout to be taken seriously. Then they had to
convince that person that, yes, Edward had been married to Eleanor Butler when
he went through a marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville. After all, whoever
it was who was going to introduce the Pre-Contract needed first to be convinced
he wouldn't be risking his reputation or his life. All that, I think, could
easily explain the time-lag between the death of Edward IV and the Council
taking up the matter, couldn't it?
I
haven't any direct evidence to support my suggested dates for the Pre-Contract
being brought before the Council, only inferences based on the importance of the
matter under discussion and what experience I've gained from sitting on
committees myself. If we start with Hastings' execution on 13 June, the first
question needing answered is: Why? If the answer to that question is, as I think
it is, that Hastings was involved with the Woodvilles (and others) in a plot to
kill Richard, we're again faced with a Why; what could have happened to get
Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles? My reply is: The matter of the
Pre-Contract and whether or not young Edward was going to remain on the throne.
Maybe it's me, but I really can't imagine anything else that stood the slightest
chance of serving as a link between such two opposed groups.
Now,
as best we can tell, the first public notice of what had been
going on in the Council meetings was Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's Cross. However,
just because that was the first public notice, even if Richard deprecated Shaa's
hastiness, that doesn't mean the Council hadn't already had the matter under
discussion for some time. I admit that, at first, it did seem strange that such
an important matter might remain under the table for so long, but then it
occurred to me; who would benefit from knowledge of the Pre-Contract getting
out? It certainly wouldn't benefit the those supporting young Edward! And if,
regardless of what later chroniclers/Shakespeare wrote, Richard wasn't aiming
for the crown from the get-go, then he didn't have any reason either. In fact,
whether the Pre-Contract was accepted as being valid or not, the matter in and
of itself presented nothing but problems. Disallow the Pre-Contract's validity
and the Council would be forced to spend time and effort in ensuring it, and
whoever originated it, never spoke of it again. But even that couldn't erase the
knowledge the matter had been brought before the Council from the
memories of those Council members. OTOH, accept the Pre-Contract as being
factual and they were faced with removing young Edward, already proclaimed as
king, and replacing him with, almost certainly, his uncle, the Duke of
Gloucester. No problems!
Whether
or not the Tower itself was to be the scene of the attempt on Richard and
Buckingham, I can't say. It was, as you note, the center of a lot of the royal
government as well as being home to quite a large number of people. However,
there's also the fact that, AFAIK, it was against the law for anyone to go armed
into the presence of the king. Whether that law would also apply to the person
of the Protector, someone acting in the king's stead, I don't know, but I
wouldn't be surprised to find that it did. Even so, we have no record of when or
how often Richard met with his nephew, so we can't say with any certainty if
Richard did indeed walk about the Tower and its' grounds armed or not. If, as I
think likely, it was the latter case, then the plot could very have been one
where an undetermined number of armed men were quietly brought into the Tower
grounds where they'd wait for a chance to attack Richard. Of course, it's also
entirely possible that the attempt on Richard and Buckingham was to take place
outside the Tower; the streets/lanes in the vicinity of the Tower serving as the
urban equivalent of those roads near Grafton Regis?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, as part of this I promised earlier that I'd get back about the JAH claim
that Stillington revealed the Pre-Contract on 9 June.
Now the one area where JAH and I part company is on the subject of
Stillington and his role in the Pre-Contract. For a start. JAH has always
claimed that Edward promoted him as a reward for concealing it. In fact
Stillington had held exactly the same office and the same salary under
Henry VI. He had been well-liked by Henry VI and undertaken diplomatic missions
for him. With his passion for founding schools S was probably much more of a
mind with HVI than with Edward. And in that he was a natural successor to Bishop
Beckington, the co-founder of Eton.
JAH now claims that S left London after 1473, when he resigned the Privy
Seal and went to the West Country. In fact from the Registers at Wells we know
that he was there very little and is much more likely to have been in London as
he was still Dean of St Martin le Grand and remained so until 1485. So JAH is
saying that Stillington must have been the one who revealed the Pre-Contract
because he happened to be in London at a coronation meeting on 9 June.
Sorry JAH!
I do think that Stillington had a role in drafting TR as he probably had
the most astute legal mind on the Council, but I don't think we can take 9 June
as a definitive date for the revelation on this basis. And why were half the
Council still planning the Coronation on 13th?
There is one question I would ask. Whoever knew about the Pre-Contract knew
they were holding a hot potato from the day of Edward's death. The coronation
was originally fixed for 4 May. Why did their conscience not kick in till June?
I haven't got an answer unless it was someone fed up with the Woodville plots -
or it was Buckingham who'd manoeuvred himself into an important position in the
interim.
I know I haven't really answered your question but that's why I think the
revelation didn't happen until after Hastings's death. JAH himself says that the
Plumptons didn't mention it in their correspondence on 23 June and one would
have thought they would.
Finally, the Tower was extremely accessible; it was no more a prison then
than any other castle or royal residence. For a start about 100 people lived
there and in its grounds. It held not just the Mint but the Royal Armoury and
the Menagerie - which was open to the public. In Richard's day there was nothing
forbidding coming and going to the Tower; thank the Tudors for that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I'm
not really up on Royal Council protocol, but it does seem to me that if the
knowledge of the Pre-Contract was held by a person who normally wouldn't be at a
Council meeting, then that person would need, first, access to someone who did
attend Council meetings and, second, for that someone to be of sufficient
stature that the notion wasn't dismissed out-right. Stillington, would, I think,
fit both requirements, wouldn't he? His legal knowledge may very well have been
the reason for his being used as the conduit for the information in the first
place. And then that same legal knowledge placed Stillington in the position of
being the best qualified person to make the bill. Of course, that still leaves
us with trying to discover who was Stillington's Deep Throat (the source for
many of the Watergate newspaper articles), but it would thin it down some, if
only by eliminating anyone who could have attended a Council meeting in their
own right. My money is on that someone either being a member of the clergy
lacking direct access to the Council, IOW not a Bishop or Abbot, or a woman.
Further than that, though...
I
know I've often referred to the aim of the Woodville plot as young Edward's
coronation, but perhaps that isn't the best term? What the Woodvilles needed
was to have young Edward remake the Council and then have that remade Council
strip the Protector of all, or nearly all, his powers and authority. That
wouldn't need an actual coronation ceremony, would it, only young Edward
chairing a meeting of the Council? However, whether or not young Edward was
going to crowned or not at the beginning of May, that was, as you noted, a month
after Edward IV died. OTOH, whoever it was with the knowledge of the
Pre-Contract had several things to do in the time between the death of Edward IV
and the Pre-Contract being placed before the Council. First they had to decide
whether or not to even reveal what they knew. Then they had to get to London.
Then they had to get the ear of someone on the Council, and not just any
someone, but someone with enough clout to be taken seriously. Then they had to
convince that person that, yes, Edward had been married to Eleanor Butler when
he went through a marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville. After all, whoever
it was who was going to introduce the Pre-Contract needed first to be convinced
he wouldn't be risking his reputation or his life. All that, I think, could
easily explain the time-lag between the death of Edward IV and the Council
taking up the matter, couldn't it?
I
haven't any direct evidence to support my suggested dates for the Pre-Contract
being brought before the Council, only inferences based on the importance of the
matter under discussion and what experience I've gained from sitting on
committees myself. If we start with Hastings' execution on 13 June, the first
question needing answered is: Why? If the answer to that question is, as I think
it is, that Hastings was involved with the Woodvilles (and others) in a plot to
kill Richard, we're again faced with a Why; what could have happened to get
Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles? My reply is: The matter of the
Pre-Contract and whether or not young Edward was going to remain on the throne.
Maybe it's me, but I really can't imagine anything else that stood the slightest
chance of serving as a link between such two opposed groups.
Now,
as best we can tell, the first public notice of what had been
going on in the Council meetings was Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's Cross. However,
just because that was the first public notice, even if Richard deprecated Shaa's
hastiness, that doesn't mean the Council hadn't already had the matter under
discussion for some time. I admit that, at first, it did seem strange that such
an important matter might remain under the table for so long, but then it
occurred to me; who would benefit from knowledge of the Pre-Contract getting
out? It certainly wouldn't benefit the those supporting young Edward! And if,
regardless of what later chroniclers/Shakespeare wrote, Richard wasn't aiming
for the crown from the get-go, then he didn't have any reason either. In fact,
whether the Pre-Contract was accepted as being valid or not, the matter in and
of itself presented nothing but problems. Disallow the Pre-Contract's validity
and the Council would be forced to spend time and effort in ensuring it, and
whoever originated it, never spoke of it again. But even that couldn't erase the
knowledge the matter had been brought before the Council from the
memories of those Council members. OTOH, accept the Pre-Contract as being
factual and they were faced with removing young Edward, already proclaimed as
king, and replacing him with, almost certainly, his uncle, the Duke of
Gloucester. No problems!
Whether
or not the Tower itself was to be the scene of the attempt on Richard and
Buckingham, I can't say. It was, as you note, the center of a lot of the royal
government as well as being home to quite a large number of people. However,
there's also the fact that, AFAIK, it was against the law for anyone to go armed
into the presence of the king. Whether that law would also apply to the person
of the Protector, someone acting in the king's stead, I don't know, but I
wouldn't be surprised to find that it did. Even so, we have no record of when or
how often Richard met with his nephew, so we can't say with any certainty if
Richard did indeed walk about the Tower and its' grounds armed or not. If, as I
think likely, it was the latter case, then the plot could very have been one
where an undetermined number of armed men were quietly brought into the Tower
grounds where they'd wait for a chance to attack Richard. Of course, it's also
entirely possible that the attempt on Richard and Buckingham was to take place
outside the Tower; the streets/lanes in the vicinity of the Tower serving as the
urban equivalent of those roads near Grafton Regis?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, as part of this I promised earlier that I'd get back about the JAH claim
that Stillington revealed the Pre-Contract on 9 June.
Now the one area where JAH and I part company is on the subject of
Stillington and his role in the Pre-Contract. For a start. JAH has always
claimed that Edward promoted him as a reward for concealing it. In fact
Stillington had held exactly the same office and the same salary under
Henry VI. He had been well-liked by Henry VI and undertaken diplomatic missions
for him. With his passion for founding schools S was probably much more of a
mind with HVI than with Edward. And in that he was a natural successor to Bishop
Beckington, the co-founder of Eton.
JAH now claims that S left London after 1473, when he resigned the Privy
Seal and went to the West Country. In fact from the Registers at Wells we know
that he was there very little and is much more likely to have been in London as
he was still Dean of St Martin le Grand and remained so until 1485. So JAH is
saying that Stillington must have been the one who revealed the Pre-Contract
because he happened to be in London at a coronation meeting on 9 June.
Sorry JAH!
I do think that Stillington had a role in drafting TR as he probably had
the most astute legal mind on the Council, but I don't think we can take 9 June
as a definitive date for the revelation on this basis. And why were half the
Council still planning the Coronation on 13th?
There is one question I would ask. Whoever knew about the Pre-Contract knew
they were holding a hot potato from the day of Edward's death. The coronation
was originally fixed for 4 May. Why did their conscience not kick in till June?
I haven't got an answer unless it was someone fed up with the Woodville plots -
or it was Buckingham who'd manoeuvred himself into an important position in the
interim.
I know I haven't really answered your question but that's why I think the
revelation didn't happen until after Hastings's death. JAH himself says that the
Plumptons didn't mention it in their correspondence on 23 June and one would
have thought they would.
Finally, the Tower was extremely accessible; it was no more a prison then
than any other castle or royal residence. For a start about 100 people lived
there and in its grounds. It held not just the Mint but the Royal Armoury and
the Menagerie - which was open to the public. In Richard's day there was nothing
forbidding coming and going to the Tower; thank the Tudors for that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-12 11:37:15
Doug, I found a book online called "The English Parliaments of Henry VII 1485 - 1504" by P R Cavill. It was written in 2009. Cavill says that in January 1483 Rivers was seeking the returns of his Attorney Andrew Dymock, the Suffolk Lawyer Robert Drury and 3 or 4 East Anglian men to Parliament. He describes Rivers as a significant landowner and head of the Royal affinity in East Anglia. Apparently he looked for seats at Yarmouth but none was available so instead he looked to seats controlled by Edward's sons. In the Duchy of Cornwall and the Mowbray inheritance and possibly around the Prince of Wales Council at Ludlow. He cites Ives book on Andrew Dymock and Rosemary Horrox on Richard III. So what was Rivers up to in January 1483, trying to get a majority of his Woodville followers into Parliament for what purpose, Edward was still King?Incidentally I have not read all the book just that bit and I am not sure why Cavill brings this up in a book about H7's Parliaments.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-12 15:35:55
Mary,
Well,
as ...a significant landowner and head of the Royal affinity in East Anglia ,
it would be his job to to do so, wouldn't it? Landowners had been nominating
Members to the House of Commons of Parliament from its inception and continued
to do so until the Great Reform Act of 1832. After 1832, running against the
local lord was still unusual, it was just that there were less of those local
lords around as many of those seats had been transferred to the new cities. If
I remember it correctly, some of those local lords even received financial
compensation for losing the right to nominate Members! Apparently It was
considered a legal right that went along with owning a specific piece of
property. Who knew?
So,
unless he was directed by Edward to nominate specific people, it would be
expected for Rivers to nominate people of his own affinity; they were the people
he knew, after all. It would only become problematical if some difference/s in
policy, say, later developed between Rivers and Edward and Rivers tried to use
his Parliamentary affinity against Edward.
I
found these links on the internet:
http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2005_vol15_pidgeon_wydeville_1.pdf
http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2006_vol16_pidgeon_antony_wydevile_2.pdf
and
from the second there's this: It could be suggested that it was Antony who
built up Wydevile influence in East Anglia and thereby the king's
influence too. (The emphasis is mine, the spelling of Woodville the
author's) There's a later bit referring to the ineffectual nature of Rivers'
affinity in East Anglia in 1470-71, so apparently it was an ongoing
problem.
When
it comes to Wales and the Mowbray inheritance, the author wrote:
Any
affinity that was built up was done so in the name of the prince although
control ultimately belonged for the moment to the Wydeviles.
(Again, my emphasis, author's spelling), and, again, it would be expected that,
while anyone nominated to Parliament by Rivers would naturally be considered to
be of his affinity, that relationship was expected to be used in the
furtherance of Edward IV's aims and later those of his son. That a Parliamentary
affinity might be used against someone was always a possibility, but I don't
know if we should view Rivers' attempts to build up an affinity as being
anything beyond what was expected of any major landowner (for his own
properties) or as the Governor of the Prince of Wale's Household (those lands
provided for the upkeep of that Household).
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I found a book online called "The English Parliaments of Henry VII 1485 - 1504"
by P R Cavill. It was written in 2009. Cavill says that in January 1483 Rivers
was seeking the returns of his Attorney Andrew Dymock, the Suffolk Lawyer Robert
Drury and 3 or 4 East Anglian men to Parliament. He describes Rivers as a
significant landowner and head of the Royal affinity in East Anglia. Apparently
he looked for seats at Yarmouth but none was available so instead he looked to
seats controlled by Edward's sons. In the Duchy of Cornwall and the Mowbray
inheritance and possibly around the Prince of Wales Council at Ludlow. He
cites Ives book on Andrew Dymock and Rosemary Horrox on Richard III.
So what was Rivers up to in January 1483, trying to get a majority of his
Woodville followers into Parliament for what purpose, Edward was still
King?
Incidentally I have not read all the book just that bit and I am not sure
why C avill brings this up in a book about H7's Parliaments.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Well,
as ...a significant landowner and head of the Royal affinity in East Anglia ,
it would be his job to to do so, wouldn't it? Landowners had been nominating
Members to the House of Commons of Parliament from its inception and continued
to do so until the Great Reform Act of 1832. After 1832, running against the
local lord was still unusual, it was just that there were less of those local
lords around as many of those seats had been transferred to the new cities. If
I remember it correctly, some of those local lords even received financial
compensation for losing the right to nominate Members! Apparently It was
considered a legal right that went along with owning a specific piece of
property. Who knew?
So,
unless he was directed by Edward to nominate specific people, it would be
expected for Rivers to nominate people of his own affinity; they were the people
he knew, after all. It would only become problematical if some difference/s in
policy, say, later developed between Rivers and Edward and Rivers tried to use
his Parliamentary affinity against Edward.
I
found these links on the internet:
http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2005_vol15_pidgeon_wydeville_1.pdf
http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2006_vol16_pidgeon_antony_wydevile_2.pdf
and
from the second there's this: It could be suggested that it was Antony who
built up Wydevile influence in East Anglia and thereby the king's
influence too. (The emphasis is mine, the spelling of Woodville the
author's) There's a later bit referring to the ineffectual nature of Rivers'
affinity in East Anglia in 1470-71, so apparently it was an ongoing
problem.
When
it comes to Wales and the Mowbray inheritance, the author wrote:
Any
affinity that was built up was done so in the name of the prince although
control ultimately belonged for the moment to the Wydeviles.
(Again, my emphasis, author's spelling), and, again, it would be expected that,
while anyone nominated to Parliament by Rivers would naturally be considered to
be of his affinity, that relationship was expected to be used in the
furtherance of Edward IV's aims and later those of his son. That a Parliamentary
affinity might be used against someone was always a possibility, but I don't
know if we should view Rivers' attempts to build up an affinity as being
anything beyond what was expected of any major landowner (for his own
properties) or as the Governor of the Prince of Wale's Household (those lands
provided for the upkeep of that Household).
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
I found a book online called "The English Parliaments of Henry VII 1485 - 1504"
by P R Cavill. It was written in 2009. Cavill says that in January 1483 Rivers
was seeking the returns of his Attorney Andrew Dymock, the Suffolk Lawyer Robert
Drury and 3 or 4 East Anglian men to Parliament. He describes Rivers as a
significant landowner and head of the Royal affinity in East Anglia. Apparently
he looked for seats at Yarmouth but none was available so instead he looked to
seats controlled by Edward's sons. In the Duchy of Cornwall and the Mowbray
inheritance and possibly around the Prince of Wales Council at Ludlow. He
cites Ives book on Andrew Dymock and Rosemary Horrox on Richard III.
So what was Rivers up to in January 1483, trying to get a majority of his
Woodville followers into Parliament for what purpose, Edward was still
King?
Incidentally I have not read all the book just that bit and I am not sure
why C avill brings this up in a book about H7's Parliaments.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-13 12:27:20
Hi Doug,Perhaps it was less a matter of Wilford trying to pass himself off as
Warwick, but rather that Wilford was trying to drum up support for Warwick?
That support may have been sought only to regain the properties Warwick had
lost with his father's Attainder, but Tudor could easily have taken a different
view. Even if Wilford was only trying to regain lost properties for Warwick,
the timing could have given his efforts a completely different tinge
especially if there was rising, although unconnected, discontent.I was also
thinking along those lines. I can't see any reason why Wilford would passing
himself off as Warwick would work as a serious plot. One of the accounts claimed that he was drumming
up support with the story that the real Warwick had escaped, but it is unlikely
to have drawn in anyone of any significance, who would be aware that Warwick
was still in the Tower. Wilford appears to have been groomed' by Patrick the friar,
so the real agenda must have started with him and probably a wider group of much
older Yorkists, probably the Kent/London group that included the Wilford
family. Wilford was too young to have any meaningful memories of or loyalty to
the House of York, but he was only a few years younger than Warwick, so that
does present a case for him being used to impersonate him.
It is interesting
that the accounts give differing locations, which indicates that there was
probably unrest in both areas. They
could be unconnected episodes of discontent (perhaps protests against taxation
or unsatisfactory living conditions),
but if they were connected, the rising most likely started in Kent then spread
across the Medway, through Essex, eventually reaching the Suffolk/Norfolk
border, where the Earl of Oxford dealt with it. If that was the case, then HT
had good reason to be afraid.
Restoring Warwick's
lands may have been prominent argument in the conspiracy, but since that would
mean reversing his attainder, that would also restore his claim to the throne
and I can't see how you could separate the two, especially since any conspiracy
would involve self-interest on the part of the conspirators, who would have
nothing to gain from simply restoring Warwick's lands. If they were doing
anything on Warwick's behalf, it's ultimate goal would surely be regime change.
Nico
On Friday, 12 April 2019, 11:37:47 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Doug, I found a book online called "The English Parliaments of Henry VII 1485 - 1504" by P R Cavill. It was written in 2009. Cavill says that in January 1483 Rivers was seeking the returns of his Attorney Andrew Dymock, the Suffolk Lawyer Robert Drury and 3 or 4 East Anglian men to Parliament. He describes Rivers as a significant landowner and head of the Royal affinity in East Anglia. Apparently he looked for seats at Yarmouth but none was available so instead he looked to seats controlled by Edward's sons. In the Duchy of Cornwall and the Mowbray inheritance and possibly around the Prince of Wales Council at Ludlow. He cites Ives book on Andrew Dymock and Rosemary Horrox on Richard III. So what was Rivers up to in January 1483, trying to get a majority of his Woodville followers into Parliament for what purpose, Edward was still King?Incidentally I have not read all the book just that bit and I am not sure why Cavill brings this up in a book about H7's Parliaments.Mary
Warwick, but rather that Wilford was trying to drum up support for Warwick?
That support may have been sought only to regain the properties Warwick had
lost with his father's Attainder, but Tudor could easily have taken a different
view. Even if Wilford was only trying to regain lost properties for Warwick,
the timing could have given his efforts a completely different tinge
especially if there was rising, although unconnected, discontent.I was also
thinking along those lines. I can't see any reason why Wilford would passing
himself off as Warwick would work as a serious plot. One of the accounts claimed that he was drumming
up support with the story that the real Warwick had escaped, but it is unlikely
to have drawn in anyone of any significance, who would be aware that Warwick
was still in the Tower. Wilford appears to have been groomed' by Patrick the friar,
so the real agenda must have started with him and probably a wider group of much
older Yorkists, probably the Kent/London group that included the Wilford
family. Wilford was too young to have any meaningful memories of or loyalty to
the House of York, but he was only a few years younger than Warwick, so that
does present a case for him being used to impersonate him.
It is interesting
that the accounts give differing locations, which indicates that there was
probably unrest in both areas. They
could be unconnected episodes of discontent (perhaps protests against taxation
or unsatisfactory living conditions),
but if they were connected, the rising most likely started in Kent then spread
across the Medway, through Essex, eventually reaching the Suffolk/Norfolk
border, where the Earl of Oxford dealt with it. If that was the case, then HT
had good reason to be afraid.
Restoring Warwick's
lands may have been prominent argument in the conspiracy, but since that would
mean reversing his attainder, that would also restore his claim to the throne
and I can't see how you could separate the two, especially since any conspiracy
would involve self-interest on the part of the conspirators, who would have
nothing to gain from simply restoring Warwick's lands. If they were doing
anything on Warwick's behalf, it's ultimate goal would surely be regime change.
Nico
On Friday, 12 April 2019, 11:37:47 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Doug, I found a book online called "The English Parliaments of Henry VII 1485 - 1504" by P R Cavill. It was written in 2009. Cavill says that in January 1483 Rivers was seeking the returns of his Attorney Andrew Dymock, the Suffolk Lawyer Robert Drury and 3 or 4 East Anglian men to Parliament. He describes Rivers as a significant landowner and head of the Royal affinity in East Anglia. Apparently he looked for seats at Yarmouth but none was available so instead he looked to seats controlled by Edward's sons. In the Duchy of Cornwall and the Mowbray inheritance and possibly around the Prince of Wales Council at Ludlow. He cites Ives book on Andrew Dymock and Rosemary Horrox on Richard III. So what was Rivers up to in January 1483, trying to get a majority of his Woodville followers into Parliament for what purpose, Edward was still King?Incidentally I have not read all the book just that bit and I am not sure why Cavill brings this up in a book about H7's Parliaments.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-13 14:06:03
Hi Doug,My understanding was that, while in the Domus from 1468 to 1472, Brampton had nothing more than any of
the other residents so your ...far wealthier than other residents of the Domus... is new to me. Is that a
reference to when he returned there in 1487-8?& What it suggests to me is that Sir Edward may have been advertising his lack of wealth;
certainly wealth based on anything in England&Staying in any nicer (read: more
expensive) place might not fit the impression Brampton was trying to make &The clergy and merchants
would have served as excellent information-gatherers, just how organized it
was, I don't know. It may have been a case of Oliver King handling the
clergy/official side, while Brampton handled the merchant/unofficial side. Or,
perhaps, simply Brampton working for/with whoever was serving as Edward's
M(erchant) ?
Brampton's denization papers were made out in October 1472, so that
moves their meeting to then, at least. I do wonder though if It's possible that
Brampton's first marriage was arranged at Edward's behest in order to provide
for someone who'd done him a service of some sort? That is certainly true of his second stay at the
Domus, and I believe I recall something about him attempting to get Isabel
Pecche's lands restored (I can't remember the source; but it could have been
Marie). It does help to not look like you don't need the land or money, and he
certainly didn't because in addition to his other activities, the King of Portugal had been very generous to
him. However, I am also referring to the
early years at the Domus. The other residents of the Domus did seem much more
dependent on it than him. He did claim back wages from Morton after he left,
but even if he lived on what the Domus provided at the early stages, he clearly
had something else that was introducing him to people in high places. Most likely, he was involved in the wool trade,
either as a merchant, ship's captain or both, but since he seems to have come
to Edward's notice by around 1470, he must have become extremely well connected
and had something very valuable to offer. An element of that may have
originated back in Portugal or wherever else Brampton may have been before he
arrived, but as you say, as a London merchant he would have been in a good
place for information gathering. If they were spies, Oliver King's activity may
have centred on the clergy, while Brampton was Edward's merchant.' but the
intelligence must have crossed over at times and there must have been some
organized network. Despite his usefulness, the few descriptions of his
character that we have present him as a larger than life character, so I can
see why Edward might be attracted to him as a friend.
I do think Brampton's marriage to Isabel Pecche was
arranged as a reward for good service. I will go back to check the timeline,
but it most probably took place soon after Edward's restoration. The
denizenship may have arisen from the marriage and the inheritance rights that
went with it, but that too was also part of the reward for his service.
Brampton must have been held in very high esteem for some years before even
being selected to go to Picquiny. Even being entrusted with going to sea in
pursuit of Edward Woodville shows how highly Edward regarded him, as there were
others who could have been chosen for that. There were many merchants in
London, but few if any who advanced in the way that he did, so Brampton's
contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary. Picquiny is also a real
turning point in his career, as he easily finds favour with the King of
Portugal by finding the money to ransom him. It is unlikely that he did this
with his own wealth, but from money lending contacts. Perhaps this was how
Edward financed his return. If so, he was forever in Brampton's debt.
On balance, while I think Brampton's links to the
Jewish community were genuine, I don't believe he was the son of a blacksmith.
He is far too comfortable with people in high places and to get to do the
favours for Edward IV and Alfonso of Portugal, you would have to have come from
somewhere significant. Going that far on your own merit is difficult enough
today. I suspect there is some truth in
the mixed background stories. His career
choices as soldier and ship's captain would have been very inaccessible for
Jews, especially one of humble origin. Having grown up between two cultures may
have given him an understanding of both that may have made him more socially
adept with easy access to the best opportunities offered by both cultures, especially if he was brokering loans to high profile people, but
also with a detachment of loyalty to either; qualities useful in a spy.
The speculation on Brampton's early life is just
out of interest. His importance has been underestimated, but Picquiny is also a
turning point in the sense that he found rewards back in Portugal and after
Bosworth keeping those rewards favoured assisting HT. He is inextricably linked
to Warbeck's story, but I would love to know more about how he got there.
Nico
On Wednesday, 10 April 2019, 11:53:55 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug, as part of this I promised earlier that I'd get back about the JAH claim that Stillington revealed the Pre-Contract on 9 June.Now the one area where JAH and I part company is on the subject of Stillington and his role in the Pre-Contract. For a start. JAH has always claimed that Edward promoted him as a reward for concealing it. In fact Stillington had held exactly the same office and the same salary under Henry VI. He had been well-liked by Henry VI and undertaken diplomatic missions for him. With his passion for founding schools S was probably much more of a mind with HVI than with Edward. And in that he was a natural successor to Bishop Beckington, the co-founder of Eton.JAH now claims that S left London after 1473, when he resigned the Privy Seal and went to the West Country. In fact from the Registers at Wells we know that he was there very little and is much more likely to have been in London as he was still Dean of St Martin le Grand and remained so until 1485. So JAH is saying that Stillington must have been the one who revealed the Pre-Contract because he happened to be in London at a coronation meeting on 9 June. Sorry JAH!I do think that Stillington had a role in drafting TR as he probably had the most astute legal mind on the Council, but I don't think we can take 9 June as a definitive date for the revelation on this basis. And why were half the Council still planning the Coronation on 13th?There is one question I would ask. Whoever knew about the Pre-Contract knew they were holding a hot potato from the day of Edward's death. The coronation was originally fixed for 4 May. Why did their conscience not kick in till June? I haven't got an answer unless it was someone fed up with the Woodville plots - or it was Buckingham who'd manoeuvred himself into an important position in the interim.I know I haven't really answered your question but that's why I think the revelation didn't happen until after Hastings's death. JAH himself says that the Plumptons didn't mention it in their correspondence on 23 June and one would have thought they would.Finally, the Tower was extremely accessible; it was no more a prison then than any other castle or royal residence. For a start about 100 people lived there and in its grounds. It held not just the Mint but the Royal Armoury and the Menagerie - which was open to the public. In Richard's day there was nothing forbidding coming and going to the Tower; thank the Tudors for that. HOn Monday, 8 April 2019, 17:20:39 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I've
been proceeding on the presumption that the Pre-Contract wouldn't, almost
certainly couldn't, have been taken care of immediately upon its presentation to
the Council. Well, unless it was immediately dismissed and, depending on who
brought it forward, that might not have been that easy! I've also presumed there
were two Councils, the one handling day-to-day governmental affairs and the
one assigned to manage the coronation celebrations, but for a matter as
important as that represented by the Pre-Contract, the united Council would have
to be involved.
We
know that some of those present at the Council meeting on 13 June were also on
the coronation committee, so it's safe to think that particular Council meeting
was especially important, important enough to require the presence of
all the Council members. While it's entirely possible that a
final decision wasn't to be made that day; simply because of the date itself
(one week before the planned coronation), I think it was. And, as I mentioned
earlier, since I don't think the subject was one that could be decided in one
session of the Council, that would mean that the Pre-Contract was brought before
the Tower Council at least one week earlier at the previous Tower Council's
meeting. If that's accurate, then we're back to 6 June or 30 May, possibly even
23 May.
Now
it gets a bit complicated. If Richard is writing to York on 10 and 11 June, then
then 10 June is the absolute latest date on which he could have been informed of
any plot. However, unless his information came from someone directly involved in
the plot and was passed to him immediately upon the decision being made, then
Richard being informed of a plot on 10 June means that the plot originated at an
undetermined time before that date.
While
it's entirely possible any plot against Richard was simply because of the
position he currently held as Protector (the Stony Stratford ambush, for
example), the involvement of Hastings leads me to the conclusion that something
else had, if not triggered the plot, then secured Hastings' adherence to it. The
only other thing I can think of that might elicit such a drastic response from a
former ally is the prospect of Edward V being removed from the throne. Which
also means that, at some point prior to 13 June, the topic of the Pre-Contract
was broached before the Tower Council, then brought before a meeting of the
entire Council with a Yes-or-No vote on the subject scheduled for no later
than 13 June.
I
hadn't known about that 9 June meeting concerning a Coronation problem. It
could represent either a first attempt to make a decision on what the
whole Council's position on the Pre-Contract was to be or it may have
represented the first time the matter was brought before the
entire Council, both the Tower group and the Coronation
committee. If the former, then the date for when the Pre-Contract was first
brought before the Tower Council would have to be moved back to 30 May at the
latest. If the latter, then I think the previous Friday, 6 June, would be the
most likely date for the Pre-Contract being brought before the Tower Council. My
personal view at this time is that the 9 June meeting was likely to have been a
vote for or against accepting the Pre-Contract but there was enough opposition
so that, while a vote at that time would have accepted the Pre-Contract, a
final vote was delayed until the meeting scheduled for 13 June
to allow more time to convince more Council members to agree.
I
have absolutely no proof, but I don't doubt there were several plots against
Richard being considered, likely commencing with his entry into London. Just
because Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were under arrest doesn't mean others weren't
still active. We know Forster et al were arrested 10 June, which
supports the idea that was when Richard first discovered that particular plot.
What we don't know is when the plot Forster was associated with originated. It
may very well have had its' origins, however nebulous, with the arrests
mentioned above. A Plan B so to speak? What we also don't know is when
Hastings became involved and I'm wondering if it wasn't after that 9 June
meeting? If 9 June was when the Council was first scheduled to
vote on the Pre-Contract, what would Hastings' attitude be if he saw that the
vote would be in favor of accepting it? Even if the vote was delayed until 13
June, barring further evidence being brought forward, if there was already a
majority on the Council in favor of accepting the Pre-Contract then, people
being what they were, those numbers would only likely increase. After all,
doesn't everyone want to be on the winning side?
Whether
or not anything was planned to actually take place on 13 June, I don't know.
Hastings' position as Master of the Mint would give him, and anyone he brought
with him, easy access to the Tower so that's almost certainly Why he was
recruited. I don't know the Who, even though there are the usual suspects,
Morton for example, but recruited he was and it was that which led to
his execution.
Doug
Who
apologizes for going off-topic, but I think it fits in...
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as usual I'm catching up on bits so here's extracts from the JAH
timeline:
Sun 4th May Edward and Richard received in London
7 May meeting of Edward IV's executors at Baynard's Castle
10 May Edward V moved to King's Lodings at the Tower
13
May Parliament summoned for 25 Jun
14 May commission to pursue Edward Woodville
15 May grants to Buckingham
16 May more grants to Buckingham
21 May more grants to Buckingham
9 Jun Coronation problem at Council meeting (could be Pre-contract)?
10 Jun Richard asks for help from York
11 Jun Richard asks for help against Woodville plot
(JAH misses arrest of Forster and Burton)
13 Jun Hastings attempted coup - and according to JAH was killed by guards.
Others arrested
17 Jun final entry in CPR naming Edward V as King
22 Jun St Paul's sermon preached y Shaa
27 Jun last mention of Edward V as King in CCR (in Cambridge)
Now for brevity I've missed some things out, for example about EW and ROY
and there are conflicts e.g. no mention of Forster, Burton or King. Also no
mention of grants given to other people like Stanley so it looks like just
Buckingham who profited which it wasn't. Also on the timeline of the journey he
has Edward and Rivers leaving Ludlow, but there is no proof Rivers was there. He
isn't mentioned in the Garter celebration notes. The Stillington revelation is a
bit of an assumption by JAH based on a Stonor letter which I'll let you have the
relevant extract.
Nico, Doug I'm rushing off again but I'll catch up on the rest hopefully
after my commitments today are over. I'm particularly interested in the
Brampton/King relationship too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
the other residents so your ...far wealthier than other residents of the Domus... is new to me. Is that a
reference to when he returned there in 1487-8?& What it suggests to me is that Sir Edward may have been advertising his lack of wealth;
certainly wealth based on anything in England&Staying in any nicer (read: more
expensive) place might not fit the impression Brampton was trying to make &The clergy and merchants
would have served as excellent information-gatherers, just how organized it
was, I don't know. It may have been a case of Oliver King handling the
clergy/official side, while Brampton handled the merchant/unofficial side. Or,
perhaps, simply Brampton working for/with whoever was serving as Edward's
M(erchant) ?
Brampton's denization papers were made out in October 1472, so that
moves their meeting to then, at least. I do wonder though if It's possible that
Brampton's first marriage was arranged at Edward's behest in order to provide
for someone who'd done him a service of some sort? That is certainly true of his second stay at the
Domus, and I believe I recall something about him attempting to get Isabel
Pecche's lands restored (I can't remember the source; but it could have been
Marie). It does help to not look like you don't need the land or money, and he
certainly didn't because in addition to his other activities, the King of Portugal had been very generous to
him. However, I am also referring to the
early years at the Domus. The other residents of the Domus did seem much more
dependent on it than him. He did claim back wages from Morton after he left,
but even if he lived on what the Domus provided at the early stages, he clearly
had something else that was introducing him to people in high places. Most likely, he was involved in the wool trade,
either as a merchant, ship's captain or both, but since he seems to have come
to Edward's notice by around 1470, he must have become extremely well connected
and had something very valuable to offer. An element of that may have
originated back in Portugal or wherever else Brampton may have been before he
arrived, but as you say, as a London merchant he would have been in a good
place for information gathering. If they were spies, Oliver King's activity may
have centred on the clergy, while Brampton was Edward's merchant.' but the
intelligence must have crossed over at times and there must have been some
organized network. Despite his usefulness, the few descriptions of his
character that we have present him as a larger than life character, so I can
see why Edward might be attracted to him as a friend.
I do think Brampton's marriage to Isabel Pecche was
arranged as a reward for good service. I will go back to check the timeline,
but it most probably took place soon after Edward's restoration. The
denizenship may have arisen from the marriage and the inheritance rights that
went with it, but that too was also part of the reward for his service.
Brampton must have been held in very high esteem for some years before even
being selected to go to Picquiny. Even being entrusted with going to sea in
pursuit of Edward Woodville shows how highly Edward regarded him, as there were
others who could have been chosen for that. There were many merchants in
London, but few if any who advanced in the way that he did, so Brampton's
contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary. Picquiny is also a real
turning point in his career, as he easily finds favour with the King of
Portugal by finding the money to ransom him. It is unlikely that he did this
with his own wealth, but from money lending contacts. Perhaps this was how
Edward financed his return. If so, he was forever in Brampton's debt.
On balance, while I think Brampton's links to the
Jewish community were genuine, I don't believe he was the son of a blacksmith.
He is far too comfortable with people in high places and to get to do the
favours for Edward IV and Alfonso of Portugal, you would have to have come from
somewhere significant. Going that far on your own merit is difficult enough
today. I suspect there is some truth in
the mixed background stories. His career
choices as soldier and ship's captain would have been very inaccessible for
Jews, especially one of humble origin. Having grown up between two cultures may
have given him an understanding of both that may have made him more socially
adept with easy access to the best opportunities offered by both cultures, especially if he was brokering loans to high profile people, but
also with a detachment of loyalty to either; qualities useful in a spy.
The speculation on Brampton's early life is just
out of interest. His importance has been underestimated, but Picquiny is also a
turning point in the sense that he found rewards back in Portugal and after
Bosworth keeping those rewards favoured assisting HT. He is inextricably linked
to Warbeck's story, but I would love to know more about how he got there.
Nico
On Wednesday, 10 April 2019, 11:53:55 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug, as part of this I promised earlier that I'd get back about the JAH claim that Stillington revealed the Pre-Contract on 9 June.Now the one area where JAH and I part company is on the subject of Stillington and his role in the Pre-Contract. For a start. JAH has always claimed that Edward promoted him as a reward for concealing it. In fact Stillington had held exactly the same office and the same salary under Henry VI. He had been well-liked by Henry VI and undertaken diplomatic missions for him. With his passion for founding schools S was probably much more of a mind with HVI than with Edward. And in that he was a natural successor to Bishop Beckington, the co-founder of Eton.JAH now claims that S left London after 1473, when he resigned the Privy Seal and went to the West Country. In fact from the Registers at Wells we know that he was there very little and is much more likely to have been in London as he was still Dean of St Martin le Grand and remained so until 1485. So JAH is saying that Stillington must have been the one who revealed the Pre-Contract because he happened to be in London at a coronation meeting on 9 June. Sorry JAH!I do think that Stillington had a role in drafting TR as he probably had the most astute legal mind on the Council, but I don't think we can take 9 June as a definitive date for the revelation on this basis. And why were half the Council still planning the Coronation on 13th?There is one question I would ask. Whoever knew about the Pre-Contract knew they were holding a hot potato from the day of Edward's death. The coronation was originally fixed for 4 May. Why did their conscience not kick in till June? I haven't got an answer unless it was someone fed up with the Woodville plots - or it was Buckingham who'd manoeuvred himself into an important position in the interim.I know I haven't really answered your question but that's why I think the revelation didn't happen until after Hastings's death. JAH himself says that the Plumptons didn't mention it in their correspondence on 23 June and one would have thought they would.Finally, the Tower was extremely accessible; it was no more a prison then than any other castle or royal residence. For a start about 100 people lived there and in its grounds. It held not just the Mint but the Royal Armoury and the Menagerie - which was open to the public. In Richard's day there was nothing forbidding coming and going to the Tower; thank the Tudors for that. HOn Monday, 8 April 2019, 17:20:39 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I've
been proceeding on the presumption that the Pre-Contract wouldn't, almost
certainly couldn't, have been taken care of immediately upon its presentation to
the Council. Well, unless it was immediately dismissed and, depending on who
brought it forward, that might not have been that easy! I've also presumed there
were two Councils, the one handling day-to-day governmental affairs and the
one assigned to manage the coronation celebrations, but for a matter as
important as that represented by the Pre-Contract, the united Council would have
to be involved.
We
know that some of those present at the Council meeting on 13 June were also on
the coronation committee, so it's safe to think that particular Council meeting
was especially important, important enough to require the presence of
all the Council members. While it's entirely possible that a
final decision wasn't to be made that day; simply because of the date itself
(one week before the planned coronation), I think it was. And, as I mentioned
earlier, since I don't think the subject was one that could be decided in one
session of the Council, that would mean that the Pre-Contract was brought before
the Tower Council at least one week earlier at the previous Tower Council's
meeting. If that's accurate, then we're back to 6 June or 30 May, possibly even
23 May.
Now
it gets a bit complicated. If Richard is writing to York on 10 and 11 June, then
then 10 June is the absolute latest date on which he could have been informed of
any plot. However, unless his information came from someone directly involved in
the plot and was passed to him immediately upon the decision being made, then
Richard being informed of a plot on 10 June means that the plot originated at an
undetermined time before that date.
While
it's entirely possible any plot against Richard was simply because of the
position he currently held as Protector (the Stony Stratford ambush, for
example), the involvement of Hastings leads me to the conclusion that something
else had, if not triggered the plot, then secured Hastings' adherence to it. The
only other thing I can think of that might elicit such a drastic response from a
former ally is the prospect of Edward V being removed from the throne. Which
also means that, at some point prior to 13 June, the topic of the Pre-Contract
was broached before the Tower Council, then brought before a meeting of the
entire Council with a Yes-or-No vote on the subject scheduled for no later
than 13 June.
I
hadn't known about that 9 June meeting concerning a Coronation problem. It
could represent either a first attempt to make a decision on what the
whole Council's position on the Pre-Contract was to be or it may have
represented the first time the matter was brought before the
entire Council, both the Tower group and the Coronation
committee. If the former, then the date for when the Pre-Contract was first
brought before the Tower Council would have to be moved back to 30 May at the
latest. If the latter, then I think the previous Friday, 6 June, would be the
most likely date for the Pre-Contract being brought before the Tower Council. My
personal view at this time is that the 9 June meeting was likely to have been a
vote for or against accepting the Pre-Contract but there was enough opposition
so that, while a vote at that time would have accepted the Pre-Contract, a
final vote was delayed until the meeting scheduled for 13 June
to allow more time to convince more Council members to agree.
I
have absolutely no proof, but I don't doubt there were several plots against
Richard being considered, likely commencing with his entry into London. Just
because Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were under arrest doesn't mean others weren't
still active. We know Forster et al were arrested 10 June, which
supports the idea that was when Richard first discovered that particular plot.
What we don't know is when the plot Forster was associated with originated. It
may very well have had its' origins, however nebulous, with the arrests
mentioned above. A Plan B so to speak? What we also don't know is when
Hastings became involved and I'm wondering if it wasn't after that 9 June
meeting? If 9 June was when the Council was first scheduled to
vote on the Pre-Contract, what would Hastings' attitude be if he saw that the
vote would be in favor of accepting it? Even if the vote was delayed until 13
June, barring further evidence being brought forward, if there was already a
majority on the Council in favor of accepting the Pre-Contract then, people
being what they were, those numbers would only likely increase. After all,
doesn't everyone want to be on the winning side?
Whether
or not anything was planned to actually take place on 13 June, I don't know.
Hastings' position as Master of the Mint would give him, and anyone he brought
with him, easy access to the Tower so that's almost certainly Why he was
recruited. I don't know the Who, even though there are the usual suspects,
Morton for example, but recruited he was and it was that which led to
his execution.
Doug
Who
apologizes for going off-topic, but I think it fits in...
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as usual I'm catching up on bits so here's extracts from the JAH
timeline:
Sun 4th May Edward and Richard received in London
7 May meeting of Edward IV's executors at Baynard's Castle
10 May Edward V moved to King's Lodings at the Tower
13
May Parliament summoned for 25 Jun
14 May commission to pursue Edward Woodville
15 May grants to Buckingham
16 May more grants to Buckingham
21 May more grants to Buckingham
9 Jun Coronation problem at Council meeting (could be Pre-contract)?
10 Jun Richard asks for help from York
11 Jun Richard asks for help against Woodville plot
(JAH misses arrest of Forster and Burton)
13 Jun Hastings attempted coup - and according to JAH was killed by guards.
Others arrested
17 Jun final entry in CPR naming Edward V as King
22 Jun St Paul's sermon preached y Shaa
27 Jun last mention of Edward V as King in CCR (in Cambridge)
Now for brevity I've missed some things out, for example about EW and ROY
and there are conflicts e.g. no mention of Forster, Burton or King. Also no
mention of grants given to other people like Stanley so it looks like just
Buckingham who profited which it wasn't. Also on the timeline of the journey he
has Edward and Rivers leaving Ludlow, but there is no proof Rivers was there. He
isn't mentioned in the Garter celebration notes. The Stillington revelation is a
bit of an assumption by JAH based on a Stonor letter which I'll let you have the
relevant extract.
Nico, Doug I'm rushing off again but I'll catch up on the rest hopefully
after my commitments today are over. I'm particularly interested in the
Brampton/King relationship too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-13 16:49:00
Nico,
I
was thinking mostly along financial lines (perhaps because it's so close to
income tax time?) and the political ramifications the holding or dispersal of
those holdings brought with them.
I
could be mistaken, but I understood that much (most?) of the property George
held was actually his wife's; her share of the Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick
holdings, I believe. At any rate, what had happened was that
Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick inheritance, the same inheritance that had helped
Warwick attain that title of Kingmaker BTW, had been split between two royal
brothers (George and Richard) in the early 1470s. Then, in the late 1470s,
George's portion, because of his Attainder, became the king's and was Edward's
to do with as he wished. Undoubtedly Edward of Warwick retained something, but I
don't know how much. Richard, because of his wife, likely also inherited
something, but almost certainly the majority of George's properties ended up
with Edward IV.
Now,
what happened when Tudor got the throne? He inherited all the properties that
Richard had held, didn't he? Which means that Tudor was sitting on the re-united
Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick
holdings.
While
there may have been some people holding the idea of using Edward of Warwick as a
possible substitute for Tudor; personally, I think the matter was less
complicated for Tudor. It was all about the money. Well, the money and the power
that went with extremely large amounts of money. Reversing George's Attainder,
while it would also likely return any right to inheriting the throne, would,
unless specifically stated otherwise, return to Edward of Warwick the legal
right to the Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick properties. And if Edward of Warwick
got those properties, then Tudor would lose them and all the income and power
that income meant. That, I think, would have been the political part of
reversing the Attainder and may very well have played its' part in the origin of
the idea in the first place reduce to Tudor to becoming again primus inter
pares and no longer alone at the top of the (political) heap. And without
the money provided by the Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick inheritance, that's likely
what would have happened.
I
don't think the idea of reversing his father's Attainder was taken, if indeed it
was, in order to return Edward's right to inherit the throne because he would
still be behind Arthur, Henry, Margaret and Mary Tudor. I don't doubt, however,
that
some mightn't have welcomed the possibility of a financially powerful Yorkist
as an eventual major political
player.
I do hope this makes
sense!
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I
was also thinking along those lines. I can't see any reason why Wilford would
passing himself off as Warwick would work as a serious plot.
One of the accounts claimed that he was drumming up support
with the story that the real Warwick had escaped, but it is unlikely to have
drawn in anyone of any significance, who would be aware that Warwick was still
in the Tower. Wilford appears to have been groomed' by Patrick the friar, so
the real agenda must have started with him and probably a wider group of much
older Yorkists, probably the Kent/London group that included the Wilford family.
Wilford was too young to have any meaningful memories of or loyalty to the House
of York, but he was only a few years younger than Warwick, so that does present
a case for him being used to impersonate him.
It
is interesting that the accounts give differing locations, which indicates that
there was probably unrest in both areas. They could be
unconnected episodes of discontent (perhaps protests against taxation or
unsatisfactory living conditions), but if they were
connected, the rising most likely started in Kent then spread across the Medway,
through Essex, eventually reaching the Suffolk/Norfolk border, where the Earl of
Oxford dealt with it. If that was the case, then HT had good reason to be
afraid.
Restoring
Warwick's lands may have been prominent argument in the conspiracy, but since
that would mean reversing his attainder, that would also restore his claim to
the throne and I can't see how you could separate the two, especially since any
conspiracy would involve self-interest on the part of the conspirators, who
would have nothing to gain from simply restoring Warwick's lands. If they were
doing anything on Warwick's behalf, it's ultimate goal would surely be regime
change.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
was thinking mostly along financial lines (perhaps because it's so close to
income tax time?) and the political ramifications the holding or dispersal of
those holdings brought with them.
I
could be mistaken, but I understood that much (most?) of the property George
held was actually his wife's; her share of the Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick
holdings, I believe. At any rate, what had happened was that
Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick inheritance, the same inheritance that had helped
Warwick attain that title of Kingmaker BTW, had been split between two royal
brothers (George and Richard) in the early 1470s. Then, in the late 1470s,
George's portion, because of his Attainder, became the king's and was Edward's
to do with as he wished. Undoubtedly Edward of Warwick retained something, but I
don't know how much. Richard, because of his wife, likely also inherited
something, but almost certainly the majority of George's properties ended up
with Edward IV.
Now,
what happened when Tudor got the throne? He inherited all the properties that
Richard had held, didn't he? Which means that Tudor was sitting on the re-united
Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick
holdings.
While
there may have been some people holding the idea of using Edward of Warwick as a
possible substitute for Tudor; personally, I think the matter was less
complicated for Tudor. It was all about the money. Well, the money and the power
that went with extremely large amounts of money. Reversing George's Attainder,
while it would also likely return any right to inheriting the throne, would,
unless specifically stated otherwise, return to Edward of Warwick the legal
right to the Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick properties. And if Edward of Warwick
got those properties, then Tudor would lose them and all the income and power
that income meant. That, I think, would have been the political part of
reversing the Attainder and may very well have played its' part in the origin of
the idea in the first place reduce to Tudor to becoming again primus inter
pares and no longer alone at the top of the (political) heap. And without
the money provided by the Beauchamp/Despenser/Warwick inheritance, that's likely
what would have happened.
I
don't think the idea of reversing his father's Attainder was taken, if indeed it
was, in order to return Edward's right to inherit the throne because he would
still be behind Arthur, Henry, Margaret and Mary Tudor. I don't doubt, however,
that
some mightn't have welcomed the possibility of a financially powerful Yorkist
as an eventual major political
player.
I do hope this makes
sense!
Doug
Nico
wrote:
I
was also thinking along those lines. I can't see any reason why Wilford would
passing himself off as Warwick would work as a serious plot.
One of the accounts claimed that he was drumming up support
with the story that the real Warwick had escaped, but it is unlikely to have
drawn in anyone of any significance, who would be aware that Warwick was still
in the Tower. Wilford appears to have been groomed' by Patrick the friar, so
the real agenda must have started with him and probably a wider group of much
older Yorkists, probably the Kent/London group that included the Wilford family.
Wilford was too young to have any meaningful memories of or loyalty to the House
of York, but he was only a few years younger than Warwick, so that does present
a case for him being used to impersonate him.
It
is interesting that the accounts give differing locations, which indicates that
there was probably unrest in both areas. They could be
unconnected episodes of discontent (perhaps protests against taxation or
unsatisfactory living conditions), but if they were
connected, the rising most likely started in Kent then spread across the Medway,
through Essex, eventually reaching the Suffolk/Norfolk border, where the Earl of
Oxford dealt with it. If that was the case, then HT had good reason to be
afraid.
Restoring
Warwick's lands may have been prominent argument in the conspiracy, but since
that would mean reversing his attainder, that would also restore his claim to
the throne and I can't see how you could separate the two, especially since any
conspiracy would involve self-interest on the part of the conspirators, who
would have nothing to gain from simply restoring Warwick's lands. If they were
doing anything on Warwick's behalf, it's ultimate goal would surely be regime
change.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-14 05:28:31
Nico
wrote:
Nico
wrote
Hi
Doug,
That
is certainly true of his second stay at the Domus, and I believe I recall
something about him attempting to get Isabel Pecche's lands restored (I can't
remember the source; but it could have been Marie). It does help to not look
like you don't need the land or money, and he certainly didn't because in
addition to his other activities, the King of Portugal had been very generous to
him. However, I am also referring to the early years at the
Domus. The other residents of the Domus did seem much more dependent on it than
him. He did claim back wages from Morton after he left, but even if he lived on
what the Domus provided at the early stages, he clearly had something else that
was introducing him to people in high places. Most likely, he
was involved in the wool trade, either as a merchant, ship's captain or both,
but since he seems to have come to Edward's notice by around 1470, he must have
become extremely well connected and had something very valuable to offer. An
element of that may have originated back in Portugal or wherever else Brampton
may have been before he arrived, but as you say, as a London merchant he would
have been in a good place for information gathering. If they were spies, Oliver
King's activity may have centred on the clergy, while Brampton was Edward's
merchant.' but the intelligence must have crossed over at times and there must
have been some organized network. Despite his usefulness, the few descriptions
of his character that we have present him as a larger than life character, so I
can see why Edward might be attracted to him as a friend.
Doug
here:
To
be honest, I don't see why Brampton would have to be well connected, extremely
or otherwise when he met Edward. Much might depend on where that first
meeting took place, mightn't it? I have my doubts about some of what's included
in the Wikipedia article on him, but the date of late 1450s for his
arrival in England would make sense if he went directly to England from
Portugal. It would also mean he was only 18 or so. FWIW, I lean towards the idea
that Brampton likely did arrive in England in the late 1450s but, for whatever
reason/s, didn't take up residence in the Domus until after Edward
became king. Had Brampton entered the Domus in, say, 1458, why didn't
he take Henry as his name? I also tend to think that, upon his arrival in
England, Brampton became associated with the wool trade and learned the skills
needed to captain a merchant vessel; skills that later could also be applied to
medieval sea warfare. I link Brampton to the wool trade mainly because that
would provide a locus where both his and Edward's interests would
over-lap, namely Flanders after Edward had been driven out of England in
September 1470. After all, somebody had to captain the ship that
returned Edward to England, why not Brampton? If he wasn't the captain of that
particular ship, who was it who actually organized the ships that were to carry
Edward back to England? Who met with captains and merchants to hire the vessels,
possibly even to the ships' being properly manned and provisioned? Whether as
the captain of the ship on which Edward sailed or as the actual organizer of the
expedition, there would be a period of time for the two to become acquainted and
make judgments on each other, especially Edward on Brampton.
And
from that meeting everything else flowed. If Edward found Brampton to be
engaging, intelligent and capable, even though he was a mere merchant, that last
wouldn't have stopped Edward from enjoying Brampton's company and making use of
his talents. Commissioning Brampton to go after rebels in the Channel in 1472
may have come about simply because Edward was presented with the problem and
replied I know just the person! . Once Brampton had demonstrated his
competence, Edward rewarded him with those denization
papers.
Nico
continued:
I
do think Brampton's marriage to Isabel Pecche was arranged as a reward for good
service. I will go back to check the timeline, but it most probably took place
soon after Edward's restoration. The denizenship may have arisen from the
marriage and the inheritance rights that went with it, but that too was also
part of the reward for his service. Brampton must have been held in very high
esteem for some years before even being selected to go to Picquiny. Even being
entrusted with going to sea in pursuit of Edward Woodville shows how highly
Edward regarded him, as there were others who could have been chosen for that.
There were many merchants in London, but few if any who advanced in the way that
he did, so Brampton's contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary.
Picquiny is also a real turning point in his career, as he easily finds favour
with the King of Portugal by finding the money to ransom him. It is unlikely
that he did this with his own wealth, but from money lending contacts. Perhaps
this was how Edward financed his return. If so, he was forever in Brampton's
debt.
Doug
here:
Whether the denization occurred before or after Brampton's marriage to
Isobel Pecche, I don't know. Would her remarriage require Edward's consent? If
so, then that may have been how it went.
I
have to admit I don't really understand your sentence There were many merchants
in London, but few if any who advanced in the way he did, so Brampton's
contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary. Do we have any records of
other merchants who were commissioned to hunt sea-going rebels in the Channel?
As best we can tell, Edward made full use of Brampton's talents. He employed
Brampton to go after rebels and it appears that, for doing so, Brampton was
rewarded with those denization papers. In
1475, Brampton accompanied Edward to Picquiny, but do we know in what capacity?
Once again, someone had to organize the shipping that took Edward and
his army to France and while I have no doubt some noble was placed at the head,
I do have doubts that person actually did the work required to get Edward and
his army across the Channel.
I
can't find anything about Alfonso V needing to be ransomed
from Louis XI. Was it a matter of Alfonso believing he was Louis' guest only to
be presented with a bill when he wanted to leave? In any case, if, as I
believe, Brampton was associated with the merchant community via the wool trade,
he'd likely be able to access money fairly quickly (possibly using his
acquaintance with Edward IV as an entry?). It would also provide an opening into
Portuguese royal circles that could be, and seemingly were, exploited
later.
Nico
continued:
On
balance, while I think Brampton's links to the Jewish community were genuine, I
don't believe he was the son of a blacksmith. He is far too comfortable with
people in high places and to get to do the favours for Edward IV and Alfonso of
Portugal, you would have to have come from somewhere significant. Going that far
on your own merit is difficult enough today. I suspect there
is some truth in the mixed background stories. His career choices as soldier and
ship's captain would have been very inaccessible for Jews, especially one of
humble origin. Having grown up between two cultures may have given him an
understanding of both that may have made him more socially adept with easy
access to the best opportunities offered by both cultures, especially if he was
brokering loans to high profile people, but also with a detachment of loyalty to
either; qualities useful in a spy.
Doug
here:
I
think I see what's been separating us. My understanding of Court ceremonial for
the 15th century isn't all that great, but there undoubtedly would be even more
occasions when the monarch wasn't on show and would be treated as a person.
Treated very politely, no doubt, but still nothing beyond what an intelligent
observer couldn't quickly pick up. In public, Brampton would only need to know
how to make a proper bow, not speak unless spoken to and preface his replies
with Your Majestie (or its' 15th century equivalent). Once in a more private
setting, OTOH, other than showing due respect to Edward's position as king, any
conversation would almost certainly be much more informal. You also refer to
what Brampton did for Edward, and Alfonso, as favors, while I view them as
something on the order of commissions; which would be awarded to whomever had
shown himself capable of carrying out the assigned task. If Brampton had gone
after those sea-rebels in the Channel as a favor, no reward would have been
expected. The same applies to whatever it was Brampton did for
Alfonso.
What
it boils down to, I think, is that Brampton was a capable and intelligent
person, likely with an engaging personality and both he and
Edward made use of their mutual acquaintanceship. I can't believe Edward
wouldn't have expected Brampton to try and benefit from any acquaintanceship
with him, and Brampton would have been intelligent enough to realize that the
more commissions he could successfully carry out for Edward, the further he
could go, socially and economically.
Nico
concluded:
The
speculation on Brampton's early life is just out of interest. His importance has
been underestimated, but Picquiny is also a turning point in the sense that he
found rewards back in Portugal and after Bosworth keeping those rewards favoured
assisting HT. He is inextricably linked to Warbeck's story, but I would love to
know more about how he got there.
Doug
here:
FWIW,
I'd put that turning point in 1470, rather than 1475, but otherwise I
agree.
What
I do find interesting, possibly in regards to Warbeck, is that it wasn't until
August 1484 that Brampton was knighted. After all his services to Edward, what
did Brampton do for Richard that merited a knighthood? Might the knighthood may
have been a late recognition of Brampton's services to
Edward?
Doug
Who
also notes that August 1484 is only four months after the last reported sighting
of young Edward and his brother in the Tower...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Nico
wrote
Hi
Doug,
That
is certainly true of his second stay at the Domus, and I believe I recall
something about him attempting to get Isabel Pecche's lands restored (I can't
remember the source; but it could have been Marie). It does help to not look
like you don't need the land or money, and he certainly didn't because in
addition to his other activities, the King of Portugal had been very generous to
him. However, I am also referring to the early years at the
Domus. The other residents of the Domus did seem much more dependent on it than
him. He did claim back wages from Morton after he left, but even if he lived on
what the Domus provided at the early stages, he clearly had something else that
was introducing him to people in high places. Most likely, he
was involved in the wool trade, either as a merchant, ship's captain or both,
but since he seems to have come to Edward's notice by around 1470, he must have
become extremely well connected and had something very valuable to offer. An
element of that may have originated back in Portugal or wherever else Brampton
may have been before he arrived, but as you say, as a London merchant he would
have been in a good place for information gathering. If they were spies, Oliver
King's activity may have centred on the clergy, while Brampton was Edward's
merchant.' but the intelligence must have crossed over at times and there must
have been some organized network. Despite his usefulness, the few descriptions
of his character that we have present him as a larger than life character, so I
can see why Edward might be attracted to him as a friend.
Doug
here:
To
be honest, I don't see why Brampton would have to be well connected, extremely
or otherwise when he met Edward. Much might depend on where that first
meeting took place, mightn't it? I have my doubts about some of what's included
in the Wikipedia article on him, but the date of late 1450s for his
arrival in England would make sense if he went directly to England from
Portugal. It would also mean he was only 18 or so. FWIW, I lean towards the idea
that Brampton likely did arrive in England in the late 1450s but, for whatever
reason/s, didn't take up residence in the Domus until after Edward
became king. Had Brampton entered the Domus in, say, 1458, why didn't
he take Henry as his name? I also tend to think that, upon his arrival in
England, Brampton became associated with the wool trade and learned the skills
needed to captain a merchant vessel; skills that later could also be applied to
medieval sea warfare. I link Brampton to the wool trade mainly because that
would provide a locus where both his and Edward's interests would
over-lap, namely Flanders after Edward had been driven out of England in
September 1470. After all, somebody had to captain the ship that
returned Edward to England, why not Brampton? If he wasn't the captain of that
particular ship, who was it who actually organized the ships that were to carry
Edward back to England? Who met with captains and merchants to hire the vessels,
possibly even to the ships' being properly manned and provisioned? Whether as
the captain of the ship on which Edward sailed or as the actual organizer of the
expedition, there would be a period of time for the two to become acquainted and
make judgments on each other, especially Edward on Brampton.
And
from that meeting everything else flowed. If Edward found Brampton to be
engaging, intelligent and capable, even though he was a mere merchant, that last
wouldn't have stopped Edward from enjoying Brampton's company and making use of
his talents. Commissioning Brampton to go after rebels in the Channel in 1472
may have come about simply because Edward was presented with the problem and
replied I know just the person! . Once Brampton had demonstrated his
competence, Edward rewarded him with those denization
papers.
Nico
continued:
I
do think Brampton's marriage to Isabel Pecche was arranged as a reward for good
service. I will go back to check the timeline, but it most probably took place
soon after Edward's restoration. The denizenship may have arisen from the
marriage and the inheritance rights that went with it, but that too was also
part of the reward for his service. Brampton must have been held in very high
esteem for some years before even being selected to go to Picquiny. Even being
entrusted with going to sea in pursuit of Edward Woodville shows how highly
Edward regarded him, as there were others who could have been chosen for that.
There were many merchants in London, but few if any who advanced in the way that
he did, so Brampton's contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary.
Picquiny is also a real turning point in his career, as he easily finds favour
with the King of Portugal by finding the money to ransom him. It is unlikely
that he did this with his own wealth, but from money lending contacts. Perhaps
this was how Edward financed his return. If so, he was forever in Brampton's
debt.
Doug
here:
Whether the denization occurred before or after Brampton's marriage to
Isobel Pecche, I don't know. Would her remarriage require Edward's consent? If
so, then that may have been how it went.
I
have to admit I don't really understand your sentence There were many merchants
in London, but few if any who advanced in the way he did, so Brampton's
contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary. Do we have any records of
other merchants who were commissioned to hunt sea-going rebels in the Channel?
As best we can tell, Edward made full use of Brampton's talents. He employed
Brampton to go after rebels and it appears that, for doing so, Brampton was
rewarded with those denization papers. In
1475, Brampton accompanied Edward to Picquiny, but do we know in what capacity?
Once again, someone had to organize the shipping that took Edward and
his army to France and while I have no doubt some noble was placed at the head,
I do have doubts that person actually did the work required to get Edward and
his army across the Channel.
I
can't find anything about Alfonso V needing to be ransomed
from Louis XI. Was it a matter of Alfonso believing he was Louis' guest only to
be presented with a bill when he wanted to leave? In any case, if, as I
believe, Brampton was associated with the merchant community via the wool trade,
he'd likely be able to access money fairly quickly (possibly using his
acquaintance with Edward IV as an entry?). It would also provide an opening into
Portuguese royal circles that could be, and seemingly were, exploited
later.
Nico
continued:
On
balance, while I think Brampton's links to the Jewish community were genuine, I
don't believe he was the son of a blacksmith. He is far too comfortable with
people in high places and to get to do the favours for Edward IV and Alfonso of
Portugal, you would have to have come from somewhere significant. Going that far
on your own merit is difficult enough today. I suspect there
is some truth in the mixed background stories. His career choices as soldier and
ship's captain would have been very inaccessible for Jews, especially one of
humble origin. Having grown up between two cultures may have given him an
understanding of both that may have made him more socially adept with easy
access to the best opportunities offered by both cultures, especially if he was
brokering loans to high profile people, but also with a detachment of loyalty to
either; qualities useful in a spy.
Doug
here:
I
think I see what's been separating us. My understanding of Court ceremonial for
the 15th century isn't all that great, but there undoubtedly would be even more
occasions when the monarch wasn't on show and would be treated as a person.
Treated very politely, no doubt, but still nothing beyond what an intelligent
observer couldn't quickly pick up. In public, Brampton would only need to know
how to make a proper bow, not speak unless spoken to and preface his replies
with Your Majestie (or its' 15th century equivalent). Once in a more private
setting, OTOH, other than showing due respect to Edward's position as king, any
conversation would almost certainly be much more informal. You also refer to
what Brampton did for Edward, and Alfonso, as favors, while I view them as
something on the order of commissions; which would be awarded to whomever had
shown himself capable of carrying out the assigned task. If Brampton had gone
after those sea-rebels in the Channel as a favor, no reward would have been
expected. The same applies to whatever it was Brampton did for
Alfonso.
What
it boils down to, I think, is that Brampton was a capable and intelligent
person, likely with an engaging personality and both he and
Edward made use of their mutual acquaintanceship. I can't believe Edward
wouldn't have expected Brampton to try and benefit from any acquaintanceship
with him, and Brampton would have been intelligent enough to realize that the
more commissions he could successfully carry out for Edward, the further he
could go, socially and economically.
Nico
concluded:
The
speculation on Brampton's early life is just out of interest. His importance has
been underestimated, but Picquiny is also a turning point in the sense that he
found rewards back in Portugal and after Bosworth keeping those rewards favoured
assisting HT. He is inextricably linked to Warbeck's story, but I would love to
know more about how he got there.
Doug
here:
FWIW,
I'd put that turning point in 1470, rather than 1475, but otherwise I
agree.
What
I do find interesting, possibly in regards to Warbeck, is that it wasn't until
August 1484 that Brampton was knighted. After all his services to Edward, what
did Brampton do for Richard that merited a knighthood? Might the knighthood may
have been a late recognition of Brampton's services to
Edward?
Doug
Who
also notes that August 1484 is only four months after the last reported sighting
of young Edward and his brother in the Tower...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-14 10:15:36
Doug, I'm still catching up on all this - will try to over the weekend.Can I leap to my paragraph about Richard's competence for the top job?I've always thought his Charter for the College of Arms is rather neglected by historians in comparison with his legal reforms. What I didn't know, that is until I did a 'wiki' yesterday, was that he'd been responsible for the this since he'd been Constable, some thirteen years. Now it appears to be one of those things, like the Garter, that some monarchs chose to use and some to ignore. Edward IV and HT both chose to ignore it, in fact HT made it homeless. I wonder why? The pedigrees of Edward's wife and of HT himself didn't stand an awful lot of scrutiny did they?Whilst chasing round the gentry and nobility for our other things I keep bumping into 'mythical ancestor syndrome'. We met it first, you'll recall, with Thomas Hampton's friend Joan Swete who'd conjured up a mythical grandmother to claim some inheritance. But it exists for other reasons as well, I reckon - and at the highest levels. Take the illustrious Earl who married his eldest surviving son to the daughter of a rich, a very rich merchant. Unfortunately she would appear not to be descended from an armiger, and neither was the merchant. Well hey-ho what if her mother and grandmother just happened to be 'great heiresses'? The noble is of course EB's father, Talbot, and I won't go into detail here about the rest. That's just one example, I bet I've only just scratched the surface. There's Morton's ancestor (he was descended from the Mortons of Bawtry BTW) Thomas Morton or Marton, "Secretary to Edward III". Well if he was his secretary he kept a very low profile, not even enough to get an IPM or a mention in that king's biography or the Rolls. He seems to be yet another myth from the Visitations. If anyone here has got a contemporary reference to him I'd love to be put right.Richard must have had wind of these practices (and the bribery involved) so his knowledge must have been enough to make some of the highest in the land distinctly uncomfortable. And this interest probably sprang from his early involvement in the Harrington dispute. So the discomfort was not enough to cause them to rebel, but for them to remain apathetic at times when he needed support. If I'd got three other lifetimes I'd love to investigate just how widespread this problem was...H
On Wednesday, 10 April 2019, 16:50:35 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I'll let Nico answer the rest but I just wanted to pick up on your last point
about Sir William being 'got at'.
What I'm learning more and more from all this is that we're not dealing
with the 'Ivanhoe' model of plotting - you know, the mighty barons sitting in
their castles and deciding to support Richard or HT. For a start there weren't
many of them left!
What we have is a much more modern model of clergy and gentry/merchants
scuttling down dark corridors. And this is not to do with who is God's chosen
king; it's to do with from whom they stand to gain the most, or who poses the
greatest threat to their comfortable lifestyle. And these are people who are in
just the right position to take bribes from abroad, to manipulate, to spread
rumour, because quite frankly no-one notices them. Travel under the guise of the
Church or the Staple and no-one cares. If Stanley, Buckingham or Howard takes to
the seas or goes travelling everyone notices.
Doug here:
There may not have been Dukes and such, but there
were quite a few Earls and wannabes though, with the latter being where I'd
place all the Stanleys. I think that, because there was, believe it or not, less
reliance on direct force or the threat of force, the one's who realized that
those clergy and gentry/merchants could be so useful employed them for their
own goals, and with success. Even Richard, to some extent, made use of
non-nobles in positions that previously were nobles-only positions. The thing
is, however, there still needed to be someone, or some group (however small), to
plan and organize those clergy-members, gentry and merchants into an
organization that served their, the organizers, purposes, wouldn't
there?
Hilary continued:
I doubt there was one mastermind manipulating all this, it just so
happened that the interests of a few - the French, HT, the Scots, coincided at a
particular point. So I don't doubt Sir William, as a fervent Edwardian Yorkist
(one of the very few) was very useful to suborn and eventually to get out of the
way - just like Hastings.
One has to ask why they were so against Richard. Well for a start he was
not a minor, he had a reputation as a military leader, (as the Scots knew to
their cost), but above all he was extremely competent. As we've said before he'd
served the most marvellous apprenticeship; he knew all the dodges, the
exploitations, the false claims, that Edward as King had just floated above.. And
people confided in the deputy when they couldn't get at the King. So I wonder
how many things Richard knew that they now rather wished he didn't?
Doug here:
I agree 100%! The only caveat I'd toss in,
though, is that while there may not have been one mastermind (evil, of
course!), there was, more or less, one aim that motivated several
people or groups of people that of removing Richard from the English throne
and likely for exactly the reasons you gave. I have to admit I hadn't thought of
the many things Richard may have privy to simply because he was Edward's brother
and seen as a possible way to reach Edward's attention! Not only requests made
to Richard for him to, hopefully, pass on to Edward, but requests Richard may
have refused to even consider passing on.
Hilary concluded:
Finally, on a slightly different tack, I think we neglect the records of
the Hansa in all this. Their headquarters, the Steelyard, was right close to
Baynards Castle and they had the right to put a representative on the Council.
Surely someone there must have recorded the rumours/goings on of 1483/4?
Doug here:
Would there be copies of those records in the UK
or would those records be in Germany? If the latter, whether or not they've
survived might be the question.
I did find this link, but my German is limited to
recognizing non-German names/places!
https://web.archive.org/web/20140529145132/http://www.european-heritage.org/germany/m%C3%BCnster/hanse/chronicle-hanseatic-league-continued#header-4
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 10 April 2019, 16:50:35 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
I'll let Nico answer the rest but I just wanted to pick up on your last point
about Sir William being 'got at'.
What I'm learning more and more from all this is that we're not dealing
with the 'Ivanhoe' model of plotting - you know, the mighty barons sitting in
their castles and deciding to support Richard or HT. For a start there weren't
many of them left!
What we have is a much more modern model of clergy and gentry/merchants
scuttling down dark corridors. And this is not to do with who is God's chosen
king; it's to do with from whom they stand to gain the most, or who poses the
greatest threat to their comfortable lifestyle. And these are people who are in
just the right position to take bribes from abroad, to manipulate, to spread
rumour, because quite frankly no-one notices them. Travel under the guise of the
Church or the Staple and no-one cares. If Stanley, Buckingham or Howard takes to
the seas or goes travelling everyone notices.
Doug here:
There may not have been Dukes and such, but there
were quite a few Earls and wannabes though, with the latter being where I'd
place all the Stanleys. I think that, because there was, believe it or not, less
reliance on direct force or the threat of force, the one's who realized that
those clergy and gentry/merchants could be so useful employed them for their
own goals, and with success. Even Richard, to some extent, made use of
non-nobles in positions that previously were nobles-only positions. The thing
is, however, there still needed to be someone, or some group (however small), to
plan and organize those clergy-members, gentry and merchants into an
organization that served their, the organizers, purposes, wouldn't
there?
Hilary continued:
I doubt there was one mastermind manipulating all this, it just so
happened that the interests of a few - the French, HT, the Scots, coincided at a
particular point. So I don't doubt Sir William, as a fervent Edwardian Yorkist
(one of the very few) was very useful to suborn and eventually to get out of the
way - just like Hastings.
One has to ask why they were so against Richard. Well for a start he was
not a minor, he had a reputation as a military leader, (as the Scots knew to
their cost), but above all he was extremely competent. As we've said before he'd
served the most marvellous apprenticeship; he knew all the dodges, the
exploitations, the false claims, that Edward as King had just floated above.. And
people confided in the deputy when they couldn't get at the King. So I wonder
how many things Richard knew that they now rather wished he didn't?
Doug here:
I agree 100%! The only caveat I'd toss in,
though, is that while there may not have been one mastermind (evil, of
course!), there was, more or less, one aim that motivated several
people or groups of people that of removing Richard from the English throne
and likely for exactly the reasons you gave. I have to admit I hadn't thought of
the many things Richard may have privy to simply because he was Edward's brother
and seen as a possible way to reach Edward's attention! Not only requests made
to Richard for him to, hopefully, pass on to Edward, but requests Richard may
have refused to even consider passing on.
Hilary concluded:
Finally, on a slightly different tack, I think we neglect the records of
the Hansa in all this. Their headquarters, the Steelyard, was right close to
Baynards Castle and they had the right to put a representative on the Council.
Surely someone there must have recorded the rumours/goings on of 1483/4?
Doug here:
Would there be copies of those records in the UK
or would those records be in Germany? If the latter, whether or not they've
survived might be the question.
I did find this link, but my German is limited to
recognizing non-German names/places!
https://web.archive.org/web/20140529145132/http://www.european-heritage.org/germany/m%C3%BCnster/hanse/chronicle-hanseatic-league-continued#header-4
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-14 10:34:39
Hi Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian Arthurson.According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and 'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor, naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't he? H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 05:28:37 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Nico
wrote
Hi
Doug,
That
is certainly true of his second stay at the Domus, and I believe I recall
something about him attempting to get Isabel Pecche's lands restored (I can't
remember the source; but it could have been Marie). It does help to not look
like you don't need the land or money, and he certainly didn't because in
addition to his other activities, the King of Portugal had been very generous to
him. However, I am also referring to the early years at the
Domus. The other residents of the Domus did seem much more dependent on it than
him. He did claim back wages from Morton after he left, but even if he lived on
what the Domus provided at the early stages, he clearly had something else that
was introducing him to people in high places. Most likely, he
was involved in the wool trade, either as a merchant, ship's captain or both,
but since he seems to have come to Edward's notice by around 1470, he must have
become extremely well connected and had something very valuable to offer. An
element of that may have originated back in Portugal or wherever else Brampton
may have been before he arrived, but as you say, as a London merchant he would
have been in a good place for information gathering. If they were spies, Oliver
King's activity may have centred on the clergy, while Brampton was Edward's
merchant.' but the intelligence must have crossed over at times and there must
have been some organized network. Despite his usefulness, the few descriptions
of his character that we have present him as a larger than life character, so I
can see why Edward might be attracted to him as a friend.
Doug
here:
To
be honest, I don't see why Brampton would have to be well connected, extremely
or otherwise when he met Edward. Much might depend on where that first
meeting took place, mightn't it? I have my doubts about some of what's included
in the Wikipedia article on him, but the date of late 1450s for his
arrival in England would make sense if he went directly to England from
Portugal. It would also mean he was only 18 or so. FWIW, I lean towards the idea
that Brampton likely did arrive in England in the late 1450s but, for whatever
reason/s, didn't take up residence in the Domus until after Edward
became king. Had Brampton entered the Domus in, say, 1458, why didn't
he take Henry as his name? I also tend to think that, upon his arrival in
England, Brampton became associated with the wool trade and learned the skills
needed to captain a merchant vessel; skills that later could also be applied to
medieval sea warfare. I link Brampton to the wool trade mainly because that
would provide a locus where both his and Edward's interests would
over-lap, namely Flanders after Edward had been driven out of England in
September 1470. After all, somebody had to captain the ship that
returned Edward to England, why not Brampton? If he wasn't the captain of that
particular ship, who was it who actually organized the ships that were to carry
Edward back to England? Who met with captains and merchants to hire the vessels,
possibly even to the ships' being properly manned and provisioned? Whether as
the captain of the ship on which Edward sailed or as the actual organizer of the
expedition, there would be a period of time for the two to become acquainted and
make judgments on each other, especially Edward on Brampton.
And
from that meeting everything else flowed. If Edward found Brampton to be
engaging, intelligent and capable, even though he was a mere merchant, that last
wouldn't have stopped Edward from enjoying Brampton's company and making use of
his talents. Commissioning Brampton to go after rebels in the Channel in 1472
may have come about simply because Edward was presented with the problem and
replied I know just the person! . Once Brampton had demonstrated his
competence, Edward rewarded him with those denization
papers.
Nico
continued:
I
do think Brampton's marriage to Isabel Pecche was arranged as a reward for good
service. I will go back to check the timeline, but it most probably took place
soon after Edward's restoration. The denizenship may have arisen from the
marriage and the inheritance rights that went with it, but that too was also
part of the reward for his service. Brampton must have been held in very high
esteem for some years before even being selected to go to Picquiny. Even being
entrusted with going to sea in pursuit of Edward Woodville shows how highly
Edward regarded him, as there were others who could have been chosen for that.
There were many merchants in London, but few if any who advanced in the way that
he did, so Brampton's contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary.
Picquiny is also a real turning point in his career, as he easily finds favour
with the King of Portugal by finding the money to ransom him. It is unlikely
that he did this with his own wealth, but from money lending contacts. Perhaps
this was how Edward financed his return. If so, he was forever in Brampton's
debt.
Doug
here:
Whether the denization occurred before or after Brampton's marriage to
Isobel Pecche, I don't know. Would her remarriage require Edward's consent? If
so, then that may have been how it went.
I
have to admit I don't really understand your sentence There were many merchants
in London, but few if any who advanced in the way he did, so Brampton's
contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary. Do we have any records of
other merchants who were commissioned to hunt sea-going rebels in the Channel?
As best we can tell, Edward made full use of Brampton's talents. He employed
Brampton to go after rebels and it appears that, for doing so, Brampton was
rewarded with those denization papers. In
1475, Brampton accompanied Edward to Picquiny, but do we know in what capacity?
Once again, someone had to organize the shipping that took Edward and
his army to France and while I have no doubt some noble was placed at the head,
I do have doubts that person actually did the work required to get Edward and
his army across the Channel.
I
can't find anything about Alfonso V needing to be ransomed
from Louis XI. Was it a matter of Alfonso believing he was Louis' guest only to
be presented with a bill when he wanted to leave? In any case, if, as I
believe, Brampton was associated with the merchant community via the wool trade,
he'd likely be able to access money fairly quickly (possibly using his
acquaintance with Edward IV as an entry?). It would also provide an opening into
Portuguese royal circles that could be, and seemingly were, exploited
later.
Nico
continued:
On
balance, while I think Brampton's links to the Jewish community were genuine, I
don't believe he was the son of a blacksmith. He is far too comfortable with
people in high places and to get to do the favours for Edward IV and Alfonso of
Portugal, you would have to have come from somewhere significant. Going that far
on your own merit is difficult enough today. I suspect there
is some truth in the mixed background stories. His career choices as soldier and
ship's captain would have been very inaccessible for Jews, especially one of
humble origin. Having grown up between two cultures may have given him an
understanding of both that may have made him more socially adept with easy
access to the best opportunities offered by both cultures, especially if he was
brokering loans to high profile people, but also with a detachment of loyalty to
either; qualities useful in a spy.
Doug
here:
I
think I see what's been separating us. My understanding of Court ceremonial for
the 15th century isn't all that great, but there undoubtedly would be even more
occasions when the monarch wasn't on show and would be treated as a person.
Treated very politely, no doubt, but still nothing beyond what an intelligent
observer couldn't quickly pick up. In public, Brampton would only need to know
how to make a proper bow, not speak unless spoken to and preface his replies
with Your Majestie (or its' 15th century equivalent). Once in a more private
setting, OTOH, other than showing due respect to Edward's position as king, any
conversation would almost certainly be much more informal. You also refer to
what Brampton did for Edward, and Alfonso, as favors, while I view them as
something on the order of commissions; which would be awarded to whomever had
shown himself capable of carrying out the assigned task. If Brampton had gone
after those sea-rebels in the Channel as a favor, no reward would have been
expected. The same applies to whatever it was Brampton did for
Alfonso.
What
it boils down to, I think, is that Brampton was a capable and intelligent
person, likely with an engaging personality and both he and
Edward made use of their mutual acquaintanceship. I can't believe Edward
wouldn't have expected Brampton to try and benefit from any acquaintanceship
with him, and Brampton would have been intelligent enough to realize that the
more commissions he could successfully carry out for Edward, the further he
could go, socially and economically.
Nico
concluded:
The
speculation on Brampton's early life is just out of interest. His importance has
been underestimated, but Picquiny is also a turning point in the sense that he
found rewards back in Portugal and after Bosworth keeping those rewards favoured
assisting HT. He is inextricably linked to Warbeck's story, but I would love to
know more about how he got there.
Doug
here:
FWIW,
I'd put that turning point in 1470, rather than 1475, but otherwise I
agree.
What
I do find interesting, possibly in regards to Warbeck, is that it wasn't until
August 1484 that Brampton was knighted. After all his services to Edward, what
did Brampton do for Richard that merited a knighthood? Might the knighthood may
have been a late recognition of Brampton's services to
Edward?
Doug
Who
also notes that August 1484 is only four months after the last reported sighting
of young Edward and his brother in the Tower...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 05:28:37 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
Nico
wrote
Hi
Doug,
That
is certainly true of his second stay at the Domus, and I believe I recall
something about him attempting to get Isabel Pecche's lands restored (I can't
remember the source; but it could have been Marie). It does help to not look
like you don't need the land or money, and he certainly didn't because in
addition to his other activities, the King of Portugal had been very generous to
him. However, I am also referring to the early years at the
Domus. The other residents of the Domus did seem much more dependent on it than
him. He did claim back wages from Morton after he left, but even if he lived on
what the Domus provided at the early stages, he clearly had something else that
was introducing him to people in high places. Most likely, he
was involved in the wool trade, either as a merchant, ship's captain or both,
but since he seems to have come to Edward's notice by around 1470, he must have
become extremely well connected and had something very valuable to offer. An
element of that may have originated back in Portugal or wherever else Brampton
may have been before he arrived, but as you say, as a London merchant he would
have been in a good place for information gathering. If they were spies, Oliver
King's activity may have centred on the clergy, while Brampton was Edward's
merchant.' but the intelligence must have crossed over at times and there must
have been some organized network. Despite his usefulness, the few descriptions
of his character that we have present him as a larger than life character, so I
can see why Edward might be attracted to him as a friend.
Doug
here:
To
be honest, I don't see why Brampton would have to be well connected, extremely
or otherwise when he met Edward. Much might depend on where that first
meeting took place, mightn't it? I have my doubts about some of what's included
in the Wikipedia article on him, but the date of late 1450s for his
arrival in England would make sense if he went directly to England from
Portugal. It would also mean he was only 18 or so. FWIW, I lean towards the idea
that Brampton likely did arrive in England in the late 1450s but, for whatever
reason/s, didn't take up residence in the Domus until after Edward
became king. Had Brampton entered the Domus in, say, 1458, why didn't
he take Henry as his name? I also tend to think that, upon his arrival in
England, Brampton became associated with the wool trade and learned the skills
needed to captain a merchant vessel; skills that later could also be applied to
medieval sea warfare. I link Brampton to the wool trade mainly because that
would provide a locus where both his and Edward's interests would
over-lap, namely Flanders after Edward had been driven out of England in
September 1470. After all, somebody had to captain the ship that
returned Edward to England, why not Brampton? If he wasn't the captain of that
particular ship, who was it who actually organized the ships that were to carry
Edward back to England? Who met with captains and merchants to hire the vessels,
possibly even to the ships' being properly manned and provisioned? Whether as
the captain of the ship on which Edward sailed or as the actual organizer of the
expedition, there would be a period of time for the two to become acquainted and
make judgments on each other, especially Edward on Brampton.
And
from that meeting everything else flowed. If Edward found Brampton to be
engaging, intelligent and capable, even though he was a mere merchant, that last
wouldn't have stopped Edward from enjoying Brampton's company and making use of
his talents. Commissioning Brampton to go after rebels in the Channel in 1472
may have come about simply because Edward was presented with the problem and
replied I know just the person! . Once Brampton had demonstrated his
competence, Edward rewarded him with those denization
papers.
Nico
continued:
I
do think Brampton's marriage to Isabel Pecche was arranged as a reward for good
service. I will go back to check the timeline, but it most probably took place
soon after Edward's restoration. The denizenship may have arisen from the
marriage and the inheritance rights that went with it, but that too was also
part of the reward for his service. Brampton must have been held in very high
esteem for some years before even being selected to go to Picquiny. Even being
entrusted with going to sea in pursuit of Edward Woodville shows how highly
Edward regarded him, as there were others who could have been chosen for that.
There were many merchants in London, but few if any who advanced in the way that
he did, so Brampton's contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary.
Picquiny is also a real turning point in his career, as he easily finds favour
with the King of Portugal by finding the money to ransom him. It is unlikely
that he did this with his own wealth, but from money lending contacts. Perhaps
this was how Edward financed his return. If so, he was forever in Brampton's
debt.
Doug
here:
Whether the denization occurred before or after Brampton's marriage to
Isobel Pecche, I don't know. Would her remarriage require Edward's consent? If
so, then that may have been how it went.
I
have to admit I don't really understand your sentence There were many merchants
in London, but few if any who advanced in the way he did, so Brampton's
contribution to Edward must have been extraordinary. Do we have any records of
other merchants who were commissioned to hunt sea-going rebels in the Channel?
As best we can tell, Edward made full use of Brampton's talents. He employed
Brampton to go after rebels and it appears that, for doing so, Brampton was
rewarded with those denization papers. In
1475, Brampton accompanied Edward to Picquiny, but do we know in what capacity?
Once again, someone had to organize the shipping that took Edward and
his army to France and while I have no doubt some noble was placed at the head,
I do have doubts that person actually did the work required to get Edward and
his army across the Channel.
I
can't find anything about Alfonso V needing to be ransomed
from Louis XI. Was it a matter of Alfonso believing he was Louis' guest only to
be presented with a bill when he wanted to leave? In any case, if, as I
believe, Brampton was associated with the merchant community via the wool trade,
he'd likely be able to access money fairly quickly (possibly using his
acquaintance with Edward IV as an entry?). It would also provide an opening into
Portuguese royal circles that could be, and seemingly were, exploited
later.
Nico
continued:
On
balance, while I think Brampton's links to the Jewish community were genuine, I
don't believe he was the son of a blacksmith. He is far too comfortable with
people in high places and to get to do the favours for Edward IV and Alfonso of
Portugal, you would have to have come from somewhere significant. Going that far
on your own merit is difficult enough today. I suspect there
is some truth in the mixed background stories. His career choices as soldier and
ship's captain would have been very inaccessible for Jews, especially one of
humble origin. Having grown up between two cultures may have given him an
understanding of both that may have made him more socially adept with easy
access to the best opportunities offered by both cultures, especially if he was
brokering loans to high profile people, but also with a detachment of loyalty to
either; qualities useful in a spy.
Doug
here:
I
think I see what's been separating us. My understanding of Court ceremonial for
the 15th century isn't all that great, but there undoubtedly would be even more
occasions when the monarch wasn't on show and would be treated as a person.
Treated very politely, no doubt, but still nothing beyond what an intelligent
observer couldn't quickly pick up. In public, Brampton would only need to know
how to make a proper bow, not speak unless spoken to and preface his replies
with Your Majestie (or its' 15th century equivalent). Once in a more private
setting, OTOH, other than showing due respect to Edward's position as king, any
conversation would almost certainly be much more informal. You also refer to
what Brampton did for Edward, and Alfonso, as favors, while I view them as
something on the order of commissions; which would be awarded to whomever had
shown himself capable of carrying out the assigned task. If Brampton had gone
after those sea-rebels in the Channel as a favor, no reward would have been
expected. The same applies to whatever it was Brampton did for
Alfonso.
What
it boils down to, I think, is that Brampton was a capable and intelligent
person, likely with an engaging personality and both he and
Edward made use of their mutual acquaintanceship. I can't believe Edward
wouldn't have expected Brampton to try and benefit from any acquaintanceship
with him, and Brampton would have been intelligent enough to realize that the
more commissions he could successfully carry out for Edward, the further he
could go, socially and economically.
Nico
concluded:
The
speculation on Brampton's early life is just out of interest. His importance has
been underestimated, but Picquiny is also a turning point in the sense that he
found rewards back in Portugal and after Bosworth keeping those rewards favoured
assisting HT. He is inextricably linked to Warbeck's story, but I would love to
know more about how he got there.
Doug
here:
FWIW,
I'd put that turning point in 1470, rather than 1475, but otherwise I
agree.
What
I do find interesting, possibly in regards to Warbeck, is that it wasn't until
August 1484 that Brampton was knighted. After all his services to Edward, what
did Brampton do for Richard that merited a knighthood? Might the knighthood may
have been a late recognition of Brampton's services to
Edward?
Doug
Who
also notes that August 1484 is only four months after the last reported sighting
of young Edward and his brother in the Tower...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-14 11:33:21
Hilary am I right in thinking that between 1472 and 1484 Brampton wasn't resident in this country permanently? That is the impression that I had previously gained, however, from what you have uncovered it looks as if he moved around Europe and worked for various countries. I don't have a lot of knowledge of espionage but could he have been a double agent? Also Portugal has connections to England as they were descended from one of John Of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. So would Edward have had good relations with them or would the fact that they had Lancastrian heritage have soured relations? There is so much that we don't know and probably will never know, thank you for all your research and thinking outside the box.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-14 14:59:44
Hi Mary, well a fair bit is from Ian Arthurson (who is Hicks's pupil). But he is quite difficult to track down in the various Rolls which does suggest he was only here on a come and go basis - he's not what you'd call a Court regular and I don't think he was on a lot of Commissions, the odd one I seem to recall?Also, as you say, the Portuguese monarchy was descended from Henry IV's sister. So when he named his son Edward was he also harking back to the Portuguese King Edward, her son, and thus keeping a foot in all camps? His period of ascension over here seems mainly after the fall of Lancaster proper but who knows what he was up to with Louis XI. And MOA lived until 1483 I recall.What says a lot is that he avoided England after Richard's death for two years. Says more about self-preservation than loyalty to the Yorkist monarchy I would think. But then it might have been because he knew something we don't. He's not a person I particularly warm to but we could do with knowing more about him. H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 11:33:24 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary am I right in thinking that between 1472 and 1484 Brampton wasn't resident in this country permanently? That is the impression that I had previously gained, however, from what you have uncovered it looks as if he moved around Europe and worked for various countries. I don't have a lot of knowledge of espionage but could he have been a double agent? Also Portugal has connections to England as they were descended from one of John Of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. So would Edward have had good relations with them or would the fact that they had Lancastrian heritage have soured relations? There is so much that we don't know and probably will never know, thank you for all your research and thinking outside the box.Mary
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 11:33:24 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary am I right in thinking that between 1472 and 1484 Brampton wasn't resident in this country permanently? That is the impression that I had previously gained, however, from what you have uncovered it looks as if he moved around Europe and worked for various countries. I don't have a lot of knowledge of espionage but could he have been a double agent? Also Portugal has connections to England as they were descended from one of John Of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. So would Edward have had good relations with them or would the fact that they had Lancastrian heritage have soured relations? There is so much that we don't know and probably will never know, thank you for all your research and thinking outside the box.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-14 15:54:02
Hilary,
To
be frank, I hadn't even considered what dirt Richard may have dug up when
researching claims for coats-of-arms. As you say, everything from dodgy claims
of being related to someone to even dodgier inheritance claims! Would the
reason/s for denying a coat-of-arms be made public? Or at least entered in some
ledger the College of Arms maintained? If the latter, then that would mean
there'd be a permanent record of a particular person's request being turned
down, but why that request had been turned down. Ouch! Then, as you
say, if any bribery was involved, there might easily be a paper trail if any
property was transferred (Hint: Always use cash when bribing someone it's much
harder to trace!).
I'm
not certain how getting a coat-of-arms actually worked. Was it necessary to
prove that one was related to someone who already had a coat-of-arms, even
though the applicant would receive a different coat-of-arms? Also, w
asn't
there a process whereby someone could be given a coat-of-arms upon being
ennobled, or even knighted, usually for some outstanding service to the king and
regardless of to whom the person wanting the coat-of-arms may, or may not, have
been related?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I'm still catching up on all this - will try to over the
weekend.
Can I leap to my paragraph about Richard's competence for the top
job?
I've always thought his Charter for the College of Arms is rather neglected
by historians in comparison with his legal reforms. What I didn't know, that is
until I did a 'wiki' yesterday, was that he'd been responsible for the this
since he'd been Constable, some thirteen years. Now it appears to be one of
those things, like the Garter, that some monarchs chose to use and some to
ignore. Edward IV and HT both chose to ignore it, in fact HT made it homeless. I
wonder why? The pedigrees of Edward's wife and of HT himself didn't stand an
awful lot of scrutiny did they?
Whilst chasing round the gentry and nobility for our other things I keep
bumping into 'mythical ancestor syndrome'. We met it first, you'll recall, with
Thomas Hampton's friend Joan Swete who'd conjured up a mythical grandmother to
claim some inheritance. But it exists for other reasons as well, I reckon - and
at the highest levels. Take the illustrious Earl who married his eldest
surviving son to the daughter of a rich, a very rich merchant. Unfortunately she
would appear not to be descended from an armiger, and neither was the
merchant. Well hey-ho what if her mother and grandmother just happened to
be 'great heiresses'? The noble is of course EB's father, Talbot, and I won't go
into detail here about the rest. That's just one example, I bet I've only just
scratched the surface. There's Morton's ancestor (he was descended from the
Mortons of Bawtry BTW) Thomas Morton or Marton, "Secretary to Edward III". Well
if he was his secretary he kept a very low profile, not even enough to get an
IPM or a mention in that king's biography or the Rolls. He seems to be yet
another myth from the Visitations. If anyone here has got a contemporary
reference to him I'd love to be put right.
Richard must have had wind of these practices (and the bribery involved) so
his knowledge must have been enough to make some of the highest in the land
distinctly uncomfortable. And this interest probably sprang from his early
involvement in the Harrington dispute. So the discomfort was not enough to cause
them to rebel, but for them to remain apathetic at times when he needed support.
If I'd got three other lifetimes I'd love to investigate just how widespread
this problem was.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
To
be frank, I hadn't even considered what dirt Richard may have dug up when
researching claims for coats-of-arms. As you say, everything from dodgy claims
of being related to someone to even dodgier inheritance claims! Would the
reason/s for denying a coat-of-arms be made public? Or at least entered in some
ledger the College of Arms maintained? If the latter, then that would mean
there'd be a permanent record of a particular person's request being turned
down, but why that request had been turned down. Ouch! Then, as you
say, if any bribery was involved, there might easily be a paper trail if any
property was transferred (Hint: Always use cash when bribing someone it's much
harder to trace!).
I'm
not certain how getting a coat-of-arms actually worked. Was it necessary to
prove that one was related to someone who already had a coat-of-arms, even
though the applicant would receive a different coat-of-arms? Also, w
asn't
there a process whereby someone could be given a coat-of-arms upon being
ennobled, or even knighted, usually for some outstanding service to the king and
regardless of to whom the person wanting the coat-of-arms may, or may not, have
been related?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I'm still catching up on all this - will try to over the
weekend.
Can I leap to my paragraph about Richard's competence for the top
job?
I've always thought his Charter for the College of Arms is rather neglected
by historians in comparison with his legal reforms. What I didn't know, that is
until I did a 'wiki' yesterday, was that he'd been responsible for the this
since he'd been Constable, some thirteen years. Now it appears to be one of
those things, like the Garter, that some monarchs chose to use and some to
ignore. Edward IV and HT both chose to ignore it, in fact HT made it homeless. I
wonder why? The pedigrees of Edward's wife and of HT himself didn't stand an
awful lot of scrutiny did they?
Whilst chasing round the gentry and nobility for our other things I keep
bumping into 'mythical ancestor syndrome'. We met it first, you'll recall, with
Thomas Hampton's friend Joan Swete who'd conjured up a mythical grandmother to
claim some inheritance. But it exists for other reasons as well, I reckon - and
at the highest levels. Take the illustrious Earl who married his eldest
surviving son to the daughter of a rich, a very rich merchant. Unfortunately she
would appear not to be descended from an armiger, and neither was the
merchant. Well hey-ho what if her mother and grandmother just happened to
be 'great heiresses'? The noble is of course EB's father, Talbot, and I won't go
into detail here about the rest. That's just one example, I bet I've only just
scratched the surface. There's Morton's ancestor (he was descended from the
Mortons of Bawtry BTW) Thomas Morton or Marton, "Secretary to Edward III". Well
if he was his secretary he kept a very low profile, not even enough to get an
IPM or a mention in that king's biography or the Rolls. He seems to be yet
another myth from the Visitations. If anyone here has got a contemporary
reference to him I'd love to be put right.
Richard must have had wind of these practices (and the bribery involved) so
his knowledge must have been enough to make some of the highest in the land
distinctly uncomfortable. And this interest probably sprang from his early
involvement in the Harrington dispute. So the discomfort was not enough to cause
them to rebel, but for them to remain apathetic at times when he needed support.
If I'd got three other lifetimes I'd love to investigate just how widespread
this problem was.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-14 17:25:37
Hilary,
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 11:21:49
Hi Doug,I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King. His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into indentures for the invasion of France.BHOL is better for activities in London and in the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche. As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in the early 1480s.The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley! H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 17:25:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 17:25:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 11:58:13
Hi Doug, I think we have two periods here.In Richard's time heraldry was more about confirmation of pedigree than the glamour of a coat of arms. The latter of course came to take over in Tudor times because so many commoners were ennobled - and they didn't have a pedigree. By talking about pedigree I'm referring to something similar to what we see in animals today - particularly horses. You could demonstrate that you could trace your lineage back to someone very important - Charlemagne, a Knight of Glamorgan - or someone who had been ennobled by someone very important. And you could strengthen your case by demonstrating that your ancestors had also married into very important families. Think of those ladies in the windows at Long Melford wearing cloaks emblazoned with their coats of arms. They had joined their pedigrees with those of their husbands. So in the case of Anne and Isabel Neville, they brought the pedigrees of the Beauchamps, Despensers and their ancestors as well as the Nevilles to their marriage. No wonder they were prizes indeed. But by the 1450s and beyond the blue bloodlines were beginning to run out and the nobility were broke, so the dower of a rich merchant's daughter was very attractive, if not PC. What's more the Black Death had thrown records into enough chaos for there to be a bit of embroidery around origins - perhaps an IPM had gone astray ......? So dig out a few old charts for someone from the College of Arms, slip him a coin or two and your new bride was listed as an heiress forever. And then of course there were relatives invented for inheritance purposes,like Ankarette Twynyho's supposed grandfather.By appointing specific Heralds Richard was ensuring that they were someone apart who could not be subject to bribery. He didn't live to see the Visitations which began under Henry VIII who revived the College of Arms. And yes people could be, and were, struck off. And it was listed publicly. You were given a chance to put your proof to the Heralds and if it was judged insufficient you were struck off. One interesting case was that of the Makepeace family, who claimed they were armigers because they'd married into the Washington (of George fame) family. That was judged insufficient so they were struck off.Imagine if Richard had had time to set this process in place. It could have caused a lot of embarrassment in high places - but would have saved the likes of me a lot of work puzzling out flawed Visitations. H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 15:54:05 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
To
be frank, I hadn't even considered what dirt Richard may have dug up when
researching claims for coats-of-arms. As you say, everything from dodgy claims
of being related to someone to even dodgier inheritance claims! Would the
reason/s for denying a coat-of-arms be made public? Or at least entered in some
ledger the College of Arms maintained? If the latter, then that would mean
there'd be a permanent record of a particular person's request being turned
down, but why that request had been turned down. Ouch! Then, as you
say, if any bribery was involved, there might easily be a paper trail if any
property was transferred (Hint: Always use cash when bribing someone it's much
harder to trace!).
I'm
not certain how getting a coat-of-arms actually worked. Was it necessary to
prove that one was related to someone who already had a coat-of-arms, even
though the applicant would receive a different coat-of-arms? Also, w
asn't
there a process whereby someone could be given a coat-of-arms upon being
ennobled, or even knighted, usually for some outstanding service to the king and
regardless of to whom the person wanting the coat-of-arms may, or may not, have
been related?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I'm still catching up on all this - will try to over the
weekend.
Can I leap to my paragraph about Richard's competence for the top
job?
I've always thought his Charter for the College of Arms is rather neglected
by historians in comparison with his legal reforms. What I didn't know, that is
until I did a 'wiki' yesterday, was that he'd been responsible for the this
since he'd been Constable, some thirteen years. Now it appears to be one of
those things, like the Garter, that some monarchs chose to use and some to
ignore. Edward IV and HT both chose to ignore it, in fact HT made it homeless. I
wonder why? The pedigrees of Edward's wife and of HT himself didn't stand an
awful lot of scrutiny did they?
Whilst chasing round the gentry and nobility for our other things I keep
bumping into 'mythical ancestor syndrome'. We met it first, you'll recall, with
Thomas Hampton's friend Joan Swete who'd conjured up a mythical grandmother to
claim some inheritance. But it exists for other reasons as well, I reckon - and
at the highest levels. Take the illustrious Earl who married his eldest
surviving son to the daughter of a rich, a very rich merchant. Unfortunately she
would appear not to be descended from an armiger, and neither was the
merchant. Well hey-ho what if her mother and grandmother just happened to
be 'great heiresses'? The noble is of course EB's father, Talbot, and I won't go
into detail here about the rest. That's just one example, I bet I've only just
scratched the surface. There's Morton's ancestor (he was descended from the
Mortons of Bawtry BTW) Thomas Morton or Marton, "Secretary to Edward III". Well
if he was his secretary he kept a very low profile, not even enough to get an
IPM or a mention in that king's biography or the Rolls. He seems to be yet
another myth from the Visitations. If anyone here has got a contemporary
reference to him I'd love to be put right.
Richard must have had wind of these practices (and the bribery involved) so
his knowledge must have been enough to make some of the highest in the land
distinctly uncomfortable. And this interest probably sprang from his early
involvement in the Harrington dispute. So the discomfort was not enough to cause
them to rebel, but for them to remain apathetic at times when he needed support.
If I'd got three other lifetimes I'd love to investigate just how widespread
this problem was.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 15:54:05 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
To
be frank, I hadn't even considered what dirt Richard may have dug up when
researching claims for coats-of-arms. As you say, everything from dodgy claims
of being related to someone to even dodgier inheritance claims! Would the
reason/s for denying a coat-of-arms be made public? Or at least entered in some
ledger the College of Arms maintained? If the latter, then that would mean
there'd be a permanent record of a particular person's request being turned
down, but why that request had been turned down. Ouch! Then, as you
say, if any bribery was involved, there might easily be a paper trail if any
property was transferred (Hint: Always use cash when bribing someone it's much
harder to trace!).
I'm
not certain how getting a coat-of-arms actually worked. Was it necessary to
prove that one was related to someone who already had a coat-of-arms, even
though the applicant would receive a different coat-of-arms? Also, w
asn't
there a process whereby someone could be given a coat-of-arms upon being
ennobled, or even knighted, usually for some outstanding service to the king and
regardless of to whom the person wanting the coat-of-arms may, or may not, have
been related?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
I'm still catching up on all this - will try to over the
weekend.
Can I leap to my paragraph about Richard's competence for the top
job?
I've always thought his Charter for the College of Arms is rather neglected
by historians in comparison with his legal reforms. What I didn't know, that is
until I did a 'wiki' yesterday, was that he'd been responsible for the this
since he'd been Constable, some thirteen years. Now it appears to be one of
those things, like the Garter, that some monarchs chose to use and some to
ignore. Edward IV and HT both chose to ignore it, in fact HT made it homeless. I
wonder why? The pedigrees of Edward's wife and of HT himself didn't stand an
awful lot of scrutiny did they?
Whilst chasing round the gentry and nobility for our other things I keep
bumping into 'mythical ancestor syndrome'. We met it first, you'll recall, with
Thomas Hampton's friend Joan Swete who'd conjured up a mythical grandmother to
claim some inheritance. But it exists for other reasons as well, I reckon - and
at the highest levels. Take the illustrious Earl who married his eldest
surviving son to the daughter of a rich, a very rich merchant. Unfortunately she
would appear not to be descended from an armiger, and neither was the
merchant. Well hey-ho what if her mother and grandmother just happened to
be 'great heiresses'? The noble is of course EB's father, Talbot, and I won't go
into detail here about the rest. That's just one example, I bet I've only just
scratched the surface. There's Morton's ancestor (he was descended from the
Mortons of Bawtry BTW) Thomas Morton or Marton, "Secretary to Edward III". Well
if he was his secretary he kept a very low profile, not even enough to get an
IPM or a mention in that king's biography or the Rolls. He seems to be yet
another myth from the Visitations. If anyone here has got a contemporary
reference to him I'd love to be put right.
Richard must have had wind of these practices (and the bribery involved) so
his knowledge must have been enough to make some of the highest in the land
distinctly uncomfortable. And this interest probably sprang from his early
involvement in the Harrington dispute. So the discomfort was not enough to cause
them to rebel, but for them to remain apathetic at times when he needed support.
If I'd got three other lifetimes I'd love to investigate just how widespread
this problem was.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 12:30:37
Doug, Nico see herewith:https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858020272120;view=1up;seq=3691477 in the NA is actually 1472. But look whose lands he is given - those of Oliver Kings father! H
On Monday, 15 April 2019, 11:21:55 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King. His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into indentures for the invasion of France.BHOL is better for activities in London and in the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche. As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in the early 1480s.The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley! H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 17:25:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 15 April 2019, 11:21:55 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King. His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into indentures for the invasion of France.BHOL is better for activities in London and in the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche. As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in the early 1480s.The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley! H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 17:25:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 12:32:05
Sorry! John Kyng Clerk is Oliver King's brother. H
On Monday, 15 April 2019, 11:21:55 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King. His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into indentures for the invasion of France.BHOL is better for activities in London and in the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche. As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in the early 1480s.The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley! H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 17:25:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Monday, 15 April 2019, 11:21:55 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King. His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into indentures for the invasion of France.BHOL is better for activities in London and in the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche. As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in the early 1480s.The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley! H
On Sunday, 14 April 2019, 17:25:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Actually,
I'm more concerned about the sources of those facts. No one else has managed
to pinpoint exactly when Brampton left Portugal. On what does Arthurson base the
idea that Brampton transferred himself from England to Burgundy in 1475?
Inquiring minds want to know...
I
think a question it wouldn't hurt answering is just how was the Domus
run? Did its' residents have to remain there 24/7 or were they allowed to
continue with their trades (if any)? If, as I suspect, it was the latter, then I
see nothing unusual in Brampton leaving Portugal sometime in the late
1450s/early 1460s, becoming involved in some capacity in the wool trade between
England and Flanders and deciding in 1468 that becoming a Christian would
further his prospects. Once Brampton had made Edward's acquaintance and shown
himself someone Edward could rely on, I don't see anything unusual in most of
the known later events of Brampton's life.
If
Brampton was involved in any way with the wool trade, he'd almost certainly have
Burgundian contacts, what with Burgundy controlling a large part of Flanders.
And, once acquainted with Edward IV, and doing commissions for him, there'd be
no reason for Edward to not recommend Brampton to Charles as someone who could
get things done. In regards to Brampton's services for Alfonso, the Portuguese
king went to France after the Battle of Toro in Castile on 1 March 1476,
seemingly to gain Louis' support. My understanding of Alfonso's financial
condition is that it's almost certain that he arrived penniless in France and
that his expenses while there were likely met by Louis, who demanded the bill be
paid before Alfonso could leave. Whether or not Alfonso ever expected Louis to
demand remuneration is what separates the whole affair from being a matter of
ransom or Louis acting more like a hotel manager and wanting to be paid for
providing room and board. Then, in return for arranging the payment of his bills
for room and board, Alfonso made Brampton a royal Councilor, which cost Alfonso
nothing, and gave Brampton a lucrative monopoly. The former would have been much
on the order of someone becoming a member of the Privy Council today, mostly an
honor, while the latter was most likely because Alfonso couldn't repay the money
forwarded for his release in any other way.
Doug
Who
is apparently going to have to go to Amazon and get a copy of Arthurson's book,
even though something tells me it's going to tossed about a bit...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, sorry butting in again but here are a few 'facts' from good old Ian
Arthurson.
According to him, Brampton/Brandao fled from Portugal in the late 1460s and
'caught the eye' of Edward who sponsored him at the Domus' in 1468. He served
Edward till the French expedition of 1475 when he also caught the eye of
Charles of Burgundy and he moved there. After Charles's' death he ran into the
penniless Alfonso of Portugal (Charles had been his sponsor) and lent him money
to return to Portugal. As thanks, in 1479 Alfonso created him king's counsellor,
naturalised him and exempted him from import duties. He gave him a monopoly on
the fashional malaguetta pepper. So Brampton then made a fortune by triangular
trade between England, Portugal and Flanders.
Seems to have been good at catching the right peoples' eye, doesn't
he?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 15:34:12
Good service to the King in many Battles, does that mean that he was at Barnet and Tewkesbury?Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 17:18:52
It's been interpreted as that Mary. I do wonder if Edward met him when he was in exile in Bruges. There's a logic in that. Brampton always kept a house in Bruges.. H
On Monday, 15 April 2019, 15:34:20 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Good service to the King in many Battles, does that mean that he was at Barnet and Tewkesbury?Mary
On Monday, 15 April 2019, 15:34:20 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Good service to the King in many Battles, does that mean that he was at Barnet and Tewkesbury?Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 20:54:27
Maybe he provided ships for Edward's re-invasion.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-15 21:17:42
I did think Mary that perhaps he was already i Bruges You see in another life I investigated Warwick who chased the Hanseatic merchants in1470 and took a lot of booty. Perhaps Brampton was the Warwick substitute? Edward could never really let go of Warwick Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, April 15, 2019, 7:19 pm, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Maybe he provided ships for Edward's re-invasion.Mary
Maybe he provided ships for Edward's re-invasion.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-16 03:41:57
Mary,
Apologies
for butting in, but I find myself being bothered by the use of that word
espionage and wonder if it's not misleading?
Perhaps it would be better to view what Brampton and
others like him were doing was more on the order of roving reporters, than
what we'd consider spies?
Undoubtedly
there were people whose sole job was to gather information on a certain
subject and report it back to someone; Mancini is an example of that. Then
there'd be people who were expected, in the course of whatever else they were
doing, to keep their eyes open and, if they did note anything of possible
interest, the king would like a report, thank you very much!
I
think this is what Brampton, as well as others, did. They weren't
tasked to go abroad and find out what Louis XI or Charles of Burgundy
were up to, but they were expected, as I said, to keep alert and if they noted
anything that might be of interest report it back; such things, say, as
shipping being unavailable because of contracts from the king, provisions
(especially those that were dried or salted for long-term preservation) being
bought up, or a general dearth of coin currency, the last perhaps suggesting
someone might be amassing ready money to hire mercenaries. All of those subjects
would be of natural interest to any trader, regardless of what his merchandise
was. That's the sort of information Edward would want and
Brampton or others would be expected to bring back.
IOW,
it looks suspiciously to me as if Edward was using the English merchant
community as information gatherers, much as we today use the media. For that
matter, for all we know, Edward may even have risked some of the Royal funds and
bought into the occasional trading voyage - his great-grand-daughter
did.
Again,
apologies for jumping in!
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Hilary
am I right in thinking that between 1472 and 1484 Brampton wasn't resident in
this country permanently? That is the impression that I had previously gained,
however, from what you have uncovered it looks as if he moved around Europe and
worked for various countries. I don't have a lot of knowledge of espionage but
could he have been a double agent? Also Portugal has connections to England as
they were descended from one of John Of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. So
would Edward have had good relations with them or would the fact that they had
Lancastrian heritage have soured relations? There is so much that we don't know
and probably will never know, thank you for all your research and thinking
outside the box.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Apologies
for butting in, but I find myself being bothered by the use of that word
espionage and wonder if it's not misleading?
Perhaps it would be better to view what Brampton and
others like him were doing was more on the order of roving reporters, than
what we'd consider spies?
Undoubtedly
there were people whose sole job was to gather information on a certain
subject and report it back to someone; Mancini is an example of that. Then
there'd be people who were expected, in the course of whatever else they were
doing, to keep their eyes open and, if they did note anything of possible
interest, the king would like a report, thank you very much!
I
think this is what Brampton, as well as others, did. They weren't
tasked to go abroad and find out what Louis XI or Charles of Burgundy
were up to, but they were expected, as I said, to keep alert and if they noted
anything that might be of interest report it back; such things, say, as
shipping being unavailable because of contracts from the king, provisions
(especially those that were dried or salted for long-term preservation) being
bought up, or a general dearth of coin currency, the last perhaps suggesting
someone might be amassing ready money to hire mercenaries. All of those subjects
would be of natural interest to any trader, regardless of what his merchandise
was. That's the sort of information Edward would want and
Brampton or others would be expected to bring back.
IOW,
it looks suspiciously to me as if Edward was using the English merchant
community as information gatherers, much as we today use the media. For that
matter, for all we know, Edward may even have risked some of the Royal funds and
bought into the occasional trading voyage - his great-grand-daughter
did.
Again,
apologies for jumping in!
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Hilary
am I right in thinking that between 1472 and 1484 Brampton wasn't resident in
this country permanently? That is the impression that I had previously gained,
however, from what you have uncovered it looks as if he moved around Europe and
worked for various countries. I don't have a lot of knowledge of espionage but
could he have been a double agent? Also Portugal has connections to England as
they were descended from one of John Of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. So
would Edward have had good relations with them or would the fact that they had
Lancastrian heritage have soured relations? There is so much that we don't know
and probably will never know, thank you for all your research and thinking
outside the box.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-16 04:54:17
Hilary,
To be declared a dear
servant in 1472 would mean that year would be the latest for the first meeting
between Edward and Brampton, with a year or two earlier not out of the question.
Which could place their meeting sometime just before, during or immediately
after the Re-Adeption. Being placed in charge of a ship in, I presume, 1475 and
the later reference to his being a draper lead me to think Brampton was indeed
associated with the wool trade in some way. Which would likely give him an area
of operations that included southern England (especially the Channel coast),
London, Flanders and northern French ports, likely including Breton ones (as
they weren't quite French at that time).
I
can't find any date for Brampton's marriage to Isobel Pecche,
do we have one? Or even an approximation? If his denization did come in 1477,
then might we be safe in thinking that would likely be the latest date for his
marriage to her?
If,
as I think likely, Brampton first came to Edward's notice in 1470/71, then
perhaps the timeline would be:
????
- At an as yet undetermined date, Brampton comes to England. If he was
born in 1440, then the date was likely after 1458 and no later than 1468 when he
was registered at the Domus Converso. (I tend to think he arrived in
England several years before 1468, but I have no supporting
evidence.)
1468-72
- Brampton resident of the Domus Converso in London.
1470-71
Brampton meets Edward and provides some sort of service for Edward, resulting
in Brampton being termed Edward's dear servant in 1472.
1470s
- Brampton marries Isobel Pecche.
1475
- Brampton contracts to Edward to provide at least one ship for the invasion of
France.
1477
- Edward grants Brampton papers of denization.
1477
- Brampton gathers funds to ransom Alfonso V and is rewarded with a Royal
Councilorship and a monopoly to import certain peppers into Portugal. By this
point in time, and depending on the sums needed, I don't know if Brampton used
his own funds (and those he could raise via loans) or formed a sort of syndicate
to gather the funds.
1480s
- Brampton is described as a draper, which was someone who made or sold
woolen cloth. As Brampton traveled, I think we're safe saying he was involved
in selling wool and woolen products and likely had a good income.
1484
- Brampton knighted in August by Richard III.
I
haven't been able to find out any more on the Domus, either. Brampton
being an illegitimate Jew via his mother's affair with a Christian would have
placed him in the worst of both worlds in Portugal. His illegitimacy would
have cut him off from the Jewish community, but he still would have been
considered Jewish to the Christian community. He may have hoped to escape simply
by going to England, only to discover that there he was still
considered a Jew and that conversion was the best route for him if he wanted to
advance in his new home.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the
Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King.
His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates
right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the
mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into
indentures for the invasion of France.
BHOL is better for activities in London and in
the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche.
As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on
him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is
referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in
the early 1480s.
The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes
from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than
Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
To be declared a dear
servant in 1472 would mean that year would be the latest for the first meeting
between Edward and Brampton, with a year or two earlier not out of the question.
Which could place their meeting sometime just before, during or immediately
after the Re-Adeption. Being placed in charge of a ship in, I presume, 1475 and
the later reference to his being a draper lead me to think Brampton was indeed
associated with the wool trade in some way. Which would likely give him an area
of operations that included southern England (especially the Channel coast),
London, Flanders and northern French ports, likely including Breton ones (as
they weren't quite French at that time).
I
can't find any date for Brampton's marriage to Isobel Pecche,
do we have one? Or even an approximation? If his denization did come in 1477,
then might we be safe in thinking that would likely be the latest date for his
marriage to her?
If,
as I think likely, Brampton first came to Edward's notice in 1470/71, then
perhaps the timeline would be:
????
- At an as yet undetermined date, Brampton comes to England. If he was
born in 1440, then the date was likely after 1458 and no later than 1468 when he
was registered at the Domus Converso. (I tend to think he arrived in
England several years before 1468, but I have no supporting
evidence.)
1468-72
- Brampton resident of the Domus Converso in London.
1470-71
Brampton meets Edward and provides some sort of service for Edward, resulting
in Brampton being termed Edward's dear servant in 1472.
1470s
- Brampton marries Isobel Pecche.
1475
- Brampton contracts to Edward to provide at least one ship for the invasion of
France.
1477
- Edward grants Brampton papers of denization.
1477
- Brampton gathers funds to ransom Alfonso V and is rewarded with a Royal
Councilorship and a monopoly to import certain peppers into Portugal. By this
point in time, and depending on the sums needed, I don't know if Brampton used
his own funds (and those he could raise via loans) or formed a sort of syndicate
to gather the funds.
1480s
- Brampton is described as a draper, which was someone who made or sold
woolen cloth. As Brampton traveled, I think we're safe saying he was involved
in selling wool and woolen products and likely had a good income.
1484
- Brampton knighted in August by Richard III.
I
haven't been able to find out any more on the Domus, either. Brampton
being an illegitimate Jew via his mother's affair with a Christian would have
placed him in the worst of both worlds in Portugal. His illegitimacy would
have cut him off from the Jewish community, but he still would have been
considered Jewish to the Christian community. He may have hoped to escape simply
by going to England, only to discover that there he was still
considered a Jew and that conversion was the best route for him if he wanted to
advance in his new home.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the
Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King.
His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates
right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the
mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into
indentures for the invasion of France.
BHOL is better for activities in London and in
the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche.
As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on
him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is
referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in
the early 1480s.
The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes
from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than
Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ
2019-04-16 05:06:56
Hilary,
Ah, I see! We're talking status here! Can't be associated
with mere merchants!
Well, that and the fear of having great-grandfather's legal
chicaneries brought to public attention...
No wonder Pride is one of the 7
Deadly sins!
Doug
(and why are images of
Hyacinth Bouquet springing to mind?)
Hilary wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think we have two periods here.
In Richard's time heraldry was more about confirmation of pedigree than the
glamour of a coat of arms. The latter of course came to take over in Tudor times
because so many commoners were ennobled - and they didn't have a pedigree. By
talking about pedigree I'm referring to something similar to what we see in
animals today - particularly horses. You could demonstrate that you could trace
your lineage back to someone very important - Charlemagne, a Knight of
Glamorgan - or someone who had been ennobled by someone very important. And you
could strengthen your case by demonstrating that your ancestors had also married
into very important families. Think of those ladies in the windows at Long
Melford wearing cloaks emblazoned with their coats of arms. They had joined
their pedigrees with those of their husbands. So in the case of Anne and Isabel
Neville, they brought the pedigrees of the Beauchamps, Despensers and their
ancestors as well as the Nevilles to their marriage. No wonder they were prizes
indeed.
But by the 1450s and beyond the blue bloodlines were beginning to run out
and the nobility were broke, so the dower of a rich merchant's daughter was very
attractive, if not PC. What's more the Black Death had thrown records into
enough chaos for there to be a bit of embroidery around origins - perhaps an IPM
had gone astray ......? So dig out a few old charts for someone from the
College of Arms, slip him a coin or two and your new bride was listed as an
heiress forever. And then of course there were relatives invented for
inheritance purposes,like Ankarette Twynyho's supposed grandfather.
By appointing specific Heralds Richard was ensuring that they were someone
apart who could not be subject to bribery. He didn't live to see the Visitations
which began under Henry VIII who revived the College of Arms. And yes people
could be, and were, struck off. And it was listed publicly. You were given a
chance to put your proof to the Heralds and if it was judged insufficient you
were struck off.. One interesting case was that of the Makepeace family, who
claimed they were armigers because they'd married into the Washington (of George
fame) family. That was judged insufficient so they were struck off.
Imagine if Richard had had time to set this process in place. It could have
caused a lot of embarrassment in high places - but would have saved the likes of
me a lot of work puzzling out flawed Visitations.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Ah, I see! We're talking status here! Can't be associated
with mere merchants!
Well, that and the fear of having great-grandfather's legal
chicaneries brought to public attention...
No wonder Pride is one of the 7
Deadly sins!
Doug
(and why are images of
Hyacinth Bouquet springing to mind?)
Hilary wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think we have two periods here.
In Richard's time heraldry was more about confirmation of pedigree than the
glamour of a coat of arms. The latter of course came to take over in Tudor times
because so many commoners were ennobled - and they didn't have a pedigree. By
talking about pedigree I'm referring to something similar to what we see in
animals today - particularly horses. You could demonstrate that you could trace
your lineage back to someone very important - Charlemagne, a Knight of
Glamorgan - or someone who had been ennobled by someone very important. And you
could strengthen your case by demonstrating that your ancestors had also married
into very important families. Think of those ladies in the windows at Long
Melford wearing cloaks emblazoned with their coats of arms. They had joined
their pedigrees with those of their husbands. So in the case of Anne and Isabel
Neville, they brought the pedigrees of the Beauchamps, Despensers and their
ancestors as well as the Nevilles to their marriage. No wonder they were prizes
indeed.
But by the 1450s and beyond the blue bloodlines were beginning to run out
and the nobility were broke, so the dower of a rich merchant's daughter was very
attractive, if not PC. What's more the Black Death had thrown records into
enough chaos for there to be a bit of embroidery around origins - perhaps an IPM
had gone astray ......? So dig out a few old charts for someone from the
College of Arms, slip him a coin or two and your new bride was listed as an
heiress forever. And then of course there were relatives invented for
inheritance purposes,like Ankarette Twynyho's supposed grandfather.
By appointing specific Heralds Richard was ensuring that they were someone
apart who could not be subject to bribery. He didn't live to see the Visitations
which began under Henry VIII who revived the College of Arms. And yes people
could be, and were, struck off. And it was listed publicly. You were given a
chance to put your proof to the Heralds and if it was judged insufficient you
were struck off.. One interesting case was that of the Makepeace family, who
claimed they were armigers because they'd married into the Washington (of George
fame) family. That was judged insufficient so they were struck off.
Imagine if Richard had had time to set this process in place. It could have
caused a lot of embarrassment in high places - but would have saved the likes of
me a lot of work puzzling out flawed Visitations.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ
2019-04-16 05:16:54
Hilary,
If
I understand the wording correctly, the properties were originally granted by
Henry IV to John Tunley and had been given to John King. Is that correct?
Do you know if the properties were
taken away from King or were they given to Brampton on King's departure from
Edward's service?
I wonder what brother Oliver thought?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
Nico see herewith:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858020272120;view=1up;seq=369
1477 in the NA is actually 1472. But look whose lands he is given - those
of Oliver Kings father! H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
If
I understand the wording correctly, the properties were originally granted by
Henry IV to John Tunley and had been given to John King. Is that correct?
Do you know if the properties were
taken away from King or were they given to Brampton on King's departure from
Edward's service?
I wonder what brother Oliver thought?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
Nico see herewith:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858020272120;view=1up;seq=369
1477 in the NA is actually 1472. But look whose lands he is given - those
of Oliver Kings father! H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-16 09:31:47
Yes Doug. I think Edward liked to flick between being the almighty king and one of the boys, he probably thought he was of equal intellect to these merchant guys who were making all the money so why not have a flutter. Even MB and Reggie did on the sheep.The more I think about this are we sure Brampton joined the Domus in 1468? I think Roth got his dates wrong re Charles of Burgundy spotting him. I think he was already in Bruges when Edward arrived in exile, in fact he could have been involved in protecting the Hanseatic merchants from Warwick's buccaneering. We know Margaret provided ships for Edward's return - did she get them from Brampton? Certainly a lot of money passed between him and Edward (and Richard) thereafter till Richard's death. I wonder if he also lent Edward money?I agree with your definition of this sort of spying in his case. With someone like Oliver King I think it was much more of the Walsingham type. H
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 04:35:25 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Apologies
for butting in, but I find myself being bothered by the use of that word
espionage and wonder if it's not misleading?
Perhaps it would be better to view what Brampton and
others like him were doing was more on the order of roving reporters, than
what we'd consider spies?
Undoubtedly
there were people whose sole job was to gather information on a certain
subject and report it back to someone; Mancini is an example of that. Then
there'd be people who were expected, in the course of whatever else they were
doing, to keep their eyes open and, if they did note anything of possible
interest, the king would like a report, thank you very much!
I
think this is what Brampton, as well as others, did. They weren't
tasked to go abroad and find out what Louis XI or Charles of Burgundy
were up to, but they were expected, as I said, to keep alert and if they noted
anything that might be of interest report it back; such things, say, as
shipping being unavailable because of contracts from the king, provisions
(especially those that were dried or salted for long-term preservation) being
bought up, or a general dearth of coin currency, the last perhaps suggesting
someone might be amassing ready money to hire mercenaries. All of those subjects
would be of natural interest to any trader, regardless of what his merchandise
was. That's the sort of information Edward would want and
Brampton or others would be expected to bring back.
IOW,
it looks suspiciously to me as if Edward was using the English merchant
community as information gatherers, much as we today use the media. For that
matter, for all we know, Edward may even have risked some of the Royal funds and
bought into the occasional trading voyage - his great-grand-daughter
did.
Again,
apologies for jumping in!
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Hilary
am I right in thinking that between 1472 and 1484 Brampton wasn't resident in
this country permanently? That is the impression that I had previously gained,
however, from what you have uncovered it looks as if he moved around Europe and
worked for various countries. I don't have a lot of knowledge of espionage but
could he have been a double agent? Also Portugal has connections to England as
they were descended from one of John Of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. So
would Edward have had good relations with them or would the fact that they had
Lancastrian heritage have soured relations? There is so much that we don't know
and probably will never know, thank you for all your research and thinking
outside the box.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 04:35:25 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Apologies
for butting in, but I find myself being bothered by the use of that word
espionage and wonder if it's not misleading?
Perhaps it would be better to view what Brampton and
others like him were doing was more on the order of roving reporters, than
what we'd consider spies?
Undoubtedly
there were people whose sole job was to gather information on a certain
subject and report it back to someone; Mancini is an example of that. Then
there'd be people who were expected, in the course of whatever else they were
doing, to keep their eyes open and, if they did note anything of possible
interest, the king would like a report, thank you very much!
I
think this is what Brampton, as well as others, did. They weren't
tasked to go abroad and find out what Louis XI or Charles of Burgundy
were up to, but they were expected, as I said, to keep alert and if they noted
anything that might be of interest report it back; such things, say, as
shipping being unavailable because of contracts from the king, provisions
(especially those that were dried or salted for long-term preservation) being
bought up, or a general dearth of coin currency, the last perhaps suggesting
someone might be amassing ready money to hire mercenaries. All of those subjects
would be of natural interest to any trader, regardless of what his merchandise
was. That's the sort of information Edward would want and
Brampton or others would be expected to bring back.
IOW,
it looks suspiciously to me as if Edward was using the English merchant
community as information gatherers, much as we today use the media. For that
matter, for all we know, Edward may even have risked some of the Royal funds and
bought into the occasional trading voyage - his great-grand-daughter
did.
Again,
apologies for jumping in!
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Hilary
am I right in thinking that between 1472 and 1484 Brampton wasn't resident in
this country permanently? That is the impression that I had previously gained,
however, from what you have uncovered it looks as if he moved around Europe and
worked for various countries. I don't have a lot of knowledge of espionage but
could he have been a double agent? Also Portugal has connections to England as
they were descended from one of John Of Gaunt's legitimate daughters. So
would Edward have had good relations with them or would the fact that they had
Lancastrian heritage have soured relations? There is so much that we don't know
and probably will never know, thank you for all your research and thinking
outside the box.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-16 09:33:06
I'll come back on this Doug. H
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 04:54:24 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
To be declared a dear
servant in 1472 would mean that year would be the latest for the first meeting
between Edward and Brampton, with a year or two earlier not out of the question.
Which could place their meeting sometime just before, during or immediately
after the Re-Adeption. Being placed in charge of a ship in, I presume, 1475 and
the later reference to his being a draper lead me to think Brampton was indeed
associated with the wool trade in some way. Which would likely give him an area
of operations that included southern England (especially the Channel coast),
London, Flanders and northern French ports, likely including Breton ones (as
they weren't quite French at that time).
I
can't find any date for Brampton's marriage to Isobel Pecche,
do we have one? Or even an approximation? If his denization did come in 1477,
then might we be safe in thinking that would likely be the latest date for his
marriage to her?
If,
as I think likely, Brampton first came to Edward's notice in 1470/71, then
perhaps the timeline would be:
????
- At an as yet undetermined date, Brampton comes to England. If he was
born in 1440, then the date was likely after 1458 and no later than 1468 when he
was registered at the Domus Converso. (I tend to think he arrived in
England several years before 1468, but I have no supporting
evidence.)
1468-72
- Brampton resident of the Domus Converso in London.
1470-71
Brampton meets Edward and provides some sort of service for Edward, resulting
in Brampton being termed Edward's dear servant in 1472.
1470s
- Brampton marries Isobel Pecche.
1475
- Brampton contracts to Edward to provide at least one ship for the invasion of
France.
1477
- Edward grants Brampton papers of denization.
1477
- Brampton gathers funds to ransom Alfonso V and is rewarded with a Royal
Councilorship and a monopoly to import certain peppers into Portugal. By this
point in time, and depending on the sums needed, I don't know if Brampton used
his own funds (and those he could raise via loans) or formed a sort of syndicate
to gather the funds.
1480s
- Brampton is described as a draper, which was someone who made or sold
woolen cloth. As Brampton traveled, I think we're safe saying he was involved
in selling wool and woolen products and likely had a good income.
1484
- Brampton knighted in August by Richard III.
I
haven't been able to find out any more on the Domus, either. Brampton
being an illegitimate Jew via his mother's affair with a Christian would have
placed him in the worst of both worlds in Portugal. His illegitimacy would
have cut him off from the Jewish community, but he still would have been
considered Jewish to the Christian community. He may have hoped to escape simply
by going to England, only to discover that there he was still
considered a Jew and that conversion was the best route for him if he wanted to
advance in his new home.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the
Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King.
His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates
right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the
mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into
indentures for the invasion of France.
BHOL is better for activities in London and in
the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche.
As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on
him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is
referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in
the early 1480s.
The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes
from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than
Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 04:54:24 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
To be declared a dear
servant in 1472 would mean that year would be the latest for the first meeting
between Edward and Brampton, with a year or two earlier not out of the question.
Which could place their meeting sometime just before, during or immediately
after the Re-Adeption. Being placed in charge of a ship in, I presume, 1475 and
the later reference to his being a draper lead me to think Brampton was indeed
associated with the wool trade in some way. Which would likely give him an area
of operations that included southern England (especially the Channel coast),
London, Flanders and northern French ports, likely including Breton ones (as
they weren't quite French at that time).
I
can't find any date for Brampton's marriage to Isobel Pecche,
do we have one? Or even an approximation? If his denization did come in 1477,
then might we be safe in thinking that would likely be the latest date for his
marriage to her?
If,
as I think likely, Brampton first came to Edward's notice in 1470/71, then
perhaps the timeline would be:
????
- At an as yet undetermined date, Brampton comes to England. If he was
born in 1440, then the date was likely after 1458 and no later than 1468 when he
was registered at the Domus Converso. (I tend to think he arrived in
England several years before 1468, but I have no supporting
evidence.)
1468-72
- Brampton resident of the Domus Converso in London.
1470-71
Brampton meets Edward and provides some sort of service for Edward, resulting
in Brampton being termed Edward's dear servant in 1472.
1470s
- Brampton marries Isobel Pecche.
1475
- Brampton contracts to Edward to provide at least one ship for the invasion of
France.
1477
- Edward grants Brampton papers of denization.
1477
- Brampton gathers funds to ransom Alfonso V and is rewarded with a Royal
Councilorship and a monopoly to import certain peppers into Portugal. By this
point in time, and depending on the sums needed, I don't know if Brampton used
his own funds (and those he could raise via loans) or formed a sort of syndicate
to gather the funds.
1480s
- Brampton is described as a draper, which was someone who made or sold
woolen cloth. As Brampton traveled, I think we're safe saying he was involved
in selling wool and woolen products and likely had a good income.
1484
- Brampton knighted in August by Richard III.
I
haven't been able to find out any more on the Domus, either. Brampton
being an illegitimate Jew via his mother's affair with a Christian would have
placed him in the worst of both worlds in Portugal. His illegitimacy would
have cut him off from the Jewish community, but he still would have been
considered Jewish to the Christian community. He may have hoped to escape simply
by going to England, only to discover that there he was still
considered a Jew and that conversion was the best route for him if he wanted to
advance in his new home.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the
Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King.
His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates
right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the
mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into
indentures for the invasion of France.
BHOL is better for activities in London and in
the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche.
As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on
him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is
referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in
the early 1480s.
The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes
from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than
Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ
2019-04-16 09:39:59
Absolutely. Being obsessed with status or 'class' has always been an English trait - and to many still is. Where else do they still refer to the upper,middle and working classes? Remember that John Cleese and two Ronnies sketch 'I look up to him and I look down on him.....' Merchants were definitely middle class.H (who used to live in the road next to where 'Hyacinth's bungalow' was). It was filmed around Leamington and Coventry.
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 05:18:12 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Ah, I see! We're talking status here! Can't be associated
with mere merchants!
Well, that and the fear of having great-grandfather's legal
chicaneries brought to public attention...
No wonder Pride is one of the 7
Deadly sins!
Doug
(and why are images of
Hyacinth Bouquet springing to mind?)
Hilary wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think we have two periods here.
In Richard's time heraldry was more about confirmation of pedigree than the
glamour of a coat of arms. The latter of course came to take over in Tudor times
because so many commoners were ennobled - and they didn't have a pedigree. By
talking about pedigree I'm referring to something similar to what we see in
animals today - particularly horses. You could demonstrate that you could trace
your lineage back to someone very important - Charlemagne, a Knight of
Glamorgan - or someone who had been ennobled by someone very important. And you
could strengthen your case by demonstrating that your ancestors had also married
into very important families. Think of those ladies in the windows at Long
Melford wearing cloaks emblazoned with their coats of arms. They had joined
their pedigrees with those of their husbands. So in the case of Anne and Isabel
Neville, they brought the pedigrees of the Beauchamps, Despensers and their
ancestors as well as the Nevilles to their marriage. No wonder they were prizes
indeed.
But by the 1450s and beyond the blue bloodlines were beginning to run out
and the nobility were broke, so the dower of a rich merchant's daughter was very
attractive, if not PC. What's more the Black Death had thrown records into
enough chaos for there to be a bit of embroidery around origins - perhaps an IPM
had gone astray ......? So dig out a few old charts for someone from the
College of Arms, slip him a coin or two and your new bride was listed as an
heiress forever. And then of course there were relatives invented for
inheritance purposes,like Ankarette Twynyho's supposed grandfather.
By appointing specific Heralds Richard was ensuring that they were someone
apart who could not be subject to bribery. He didn't live to see the Visitations
which began under Henry VIII who revived the College of Arms. And yes people
could be, and were, struck off. And it was listed publicly. You were given a
chance to put your proof to the Heralds and if it was judged insufficient you
were struck off.. One interesting case was that of the Makepeace family, who
claimed they were armigers because they'd married into the Washington (of George
fame) family. That was judged insufficient so they were struck off.
Imagine if Richard had had time to set this process in place. It could have
caused a lot of embarrassment in high places - but would have saved the likes of
me a lot of work puzzling out flawed Visitations.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 05:18:12 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Ah, I see! We're talking status here! Can't be associated
with mere merchants!
Well, that and the fear of having great-grandfather's legal
chicaneries brought to public attention...
No wonder Pride is one of the 7
Deadly sins!
Doug
(and why are images of
Hyacinth Bouquet springing to mind?)
Hilary wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think we have two periods here.
In Richard's time heraldry was more about confirmation of pedigree than the
glamour of a coat of arms. The latter of course came to take over in Tudor times
because so many commoners were ennobled - and they didn't have a pedigree. By
talking about pedigree I'm referring to something similar to what we see in
animals today - particularly horses. You could demonstrate that you could trace
your lineage back to someone very important - Charlemagne, a Knight of
Glamorgan - or someone who had been ennobled by someone very important. And you
could strengthen your case by demonstrating that your ancestors had also married
into very important families. Think of those ladies in the windows at Long
Melford wearing cloaks emblazoned with their coats of arms. They had joined
their pedigrees with those of their husbands. So in the case of Anne and Isabel
Neville, they brought the pedigrees of the Beauchamps, Despensers and their
ancestors as well as the Nevilles to their marriage. No wonder they were prizes
indeed.
But by the 1450s and beyond the blue bloodlines were beginning to run out
and the nobility were broke, so the dower of a rich merchant's daughter was very
attractive, if not PC. What's more the Black Death had thrown records into
enough chaos for there to be a bit of embroidery around origins - perhaps an IPM
had gone astray ......? So dig out a few old charts for someone from the
College of Arms, slip him a coin or two and your new bride was listed as an
heiress forever. And then of course there were relatives invented for
inheritance purposes,like Ankarette Twynyho's supposed grandfather.
By appointing specific Heralds Richard was ensuring that they were someone
apart who could not be subject to bribery. He didn't live to see the Visitations
which began under Henry VIII who revived the College of Arms. And yes people
could be, and were, struck off. And it was listed publicly. You were given a
chance to put your proof to the Heralds and if it was judged insufficient you
were struck off.. One interesting case was that of the Makepeace family, who
claimed they were armigers because they'd married into the Washington (of George
fame) family. That was judged insufficient so they were struck off.
Imagine if Richard had had time to set this process in place. It could have
caused a lot of embarrassment in high places - but would have saved the likes of
me a lot of work puzzling out flawed Visitations.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-16 16:15:55
Hilary,
Well,
the thought had occurred to me that, in the days when there weren't newspapers
or television to report the international news, merchants trading between
countries would be a good source of information; mostly business-related, but
possibly some political news as well. So Edward's mixing with those London
merchants wouldn't have been just his womanizing but, most likely and more
importantly, Edward catching up on the foreign news (so to speak).
I
think I asked in one of my posts if a resident had to stay in the Domus
24/7 or could use it in the manner of one's London residence? Apparently
Brampton returned to, and operated out of, the Domus in 1487, so the
latter seems a distinct possibility. Which also means he could have arrived
there almost any time after leaving Portugal. FWIW, I think he arrived in London
at least several years before 1468, say, no earlier than 1458 and no later than
1465, but didn't enter the Domus until after he'd discovered that, as
he was still considered a Jew, his advancement in his new home would be very
limited. I don't know how the procedure would work, but it does seem to me that,
if the reigning king stood god-father to those who converted, that naming
wouldn't happen until the convert was actually baptized, which could be several
years after entering the Domus. Perhaps Brampton originally entered the
Domus meaning to use as he did in 1487, a convenient place to stay in
an expensive city, only to decide conversion was the better route, both
economically and socially? At any rate, he entered the Domus and, most
likely sometime between his entering and 1470 was baptized in the Catholic
Church. His knowledge of Portuguese would be very helpful, and not just in the
wool trade. If he had a house in Bruges by the time Edward fled England in 1470,
then we can safely presume that by that point in time Brampton had arrived, at
least socially.
Wikipedia
says Bruges' population at that time was at least 125,000, but I have no idea
how many resident English there were. It occurred to me that, when making his
arrangements for his return, Edward might specifically want to use
English ships and sailors, thus forestalling any attempt to label his
return a foreign invasion. Considering the riskiness of the venture, I don't
doubt quite a few of those approached already had their vessels under contract
whether they really did or not. Might it have been as simple as Brampton being
one of the few who was willing to provide a ship, or ships and that was how they
met?
One
thing I noticed in that Wikipedia article was that by 1300 or so,
several Italian financial practices showed up in Bruges. One was, basically,
joint-stock financing of trading ventures. By making arrangements, legally
binding arrangements, for more than one person to finance a trading
venture/ship/cargo meant that one didn't need the often large amount necessary
to fund that venture/ship/cargo on one's own. Profits would be lower, but so was
the risk of losing everything. We know Brampton didn't marry for the first time
until after 1470 so, presuming he was employed in some way in the wool trade
after his arrival in England, what did he do with his earnings? Did he use the
Domus as a rent-free London base of operations and plow his profits
back into further trading ventures, possibly even buying a ship or two? The
other practice was a variation of the joint-stock financing of trading ventures
with the difference being that, instead of purchasing a cargo, a group of men
would make loans enabling a second party to purchase goods for trade. So, if
Brampton was involved in trade, which he apparently was, and was wealthy enough
by 1470 to maintain a residence in Bruges, which he apparently was, it seems
most unlikely he wasn't also aware of the various forms of financial operations
that were keeping trade flowing. While his social standing might have barred him
from serving as Lord Treasurer, he'd certainly be someone whose acquaintance
might be welcomed by Edward first as a means of returning to England and later
as that dear servant capable of providing information, chasing down sea-going
rebels and, as you asked, possibly even capable of being touched for the odd
loan or two.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Yes
Doug. I think Edward liked to flick between being the almighty king and one of
the boys, he probably thought he was of equal intellect to these merchant guys
who were making all the money so why not have a flutter. Even MB and Reggie did
on the sheep.
The more I think about this are we sure Brampton joined the Domus in 1468?
I think Roth got his dates wrong re Charles of Burgundy spotting him. I think he
was already in Bruges when Edward arrived in exile, in fact he could have been
involved in protecting the Hanseatic merchants from Warwick's buccaneering. We
know Margaret provided ships for Edward's return - did she get them from
Brampton? Certainly a lot of money passed between him and Edward (and Richard)
thereafter till Richard's death. I wonder if he also lent Edward money?
I agree with your definition of this sort of spying in his case. With
someone like Oliver King I think it was much more of the Walsingham type.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Well,
the thought had occurred to me that, in the days when there weren't newspapers
or television to report the international news, merchants trading between
countries would be a good source of information; mostly business-related, but
possibly some political news as well. So Edward's mixing with those London
merchants wouldn't have been just his womanizing but, most likely and more
importantly, Edward catching up on the foreign news (so to speak).
I
think I asked in one of my posts if a resident had to stay in the Domus
24/7 or could use it in the manner of one's London residence? Apparently
Brampton returned to, and operated out of, the Domus in 1487, so the
latter seems a distinct possibility. Which also means he could have arrived
there almost any time after leaving Portugal. FWIW, I think he arrived in London
at least several years before 1468, say, no earlier than 1458 and no later than
1465, but didn't enter the Domus until after he'd discovered that, as
he was still considered a Jew, his advancement in his new home would be very
limited. I don't know how the procedure would work, but it does seem to me that,
if the reigning king stood god-father to those who converted, that naming
wouldn't happen until the convert was actually baptized, which could be several
years after entering the Domus. Perhaps Brampton originally entered the
Domus meaning to use as he did in 1487, a convenient place to stay in
an expensive city, only to decide conversion was the better route, both
economically and socially? At any rate, he entered the Domus and, most
likely sometime between his entering and 1470 was baptized in the Catholic
Church. His knowledge of Portuguese would be very helpful, and not just in the
wool trade. If he had a house in Bruges by the time Edward fled England in 1470,
then we can safely presume that by that point in time Brampton had arrived, at
least socially.
Wikipedia
says Bruges' population at that time was at least 125,000, but I have no idea
how many resident English there were. It occurred to me that, when making his
arrangements for his return, Edward might specifically want to use
English ships and sailors, thus forestalling any attempt to label his
return a foreign invasion. Considering the riskiness of the venture, I don't
doubt quite a few of those approached already had their vessels under contract
whether they really did or not. Might it have been as simple as Brampton being
one of the few who was willing to provide a ship, or ships and that was how they
met?
One
thing I noticed in that Wikipedia article was that by 1300 or so,
several Italian financial practices showed up in Bruges. One was, basically,
joint-stock financing of trading ventures. By making arrangements, legally
binding arrangements, for more than one person to finance a trading
venture/ship/cargo meant that one didn't need the often large amount necessary
to fund that venture/ship/cargo on one's own. Profits would be lower, but so was
the risk of losing everything. We know Brampton didn't marry for the first time
until after 1470 so, presuming he was employed in some way in the wool trade
after his arrival in England, what did he do with his earnings? Did he use the
Domus as a rent-free London base of operations and plow his profits
back into further trading ventures, possibly even buying a ship or two? The
other practice was a variation of the joint-stock financing of trading ventures
with the difference being that, instead of purchasing a cargo, a group of men
would make loans enabling a second party to purchase goods for trade. So, if
Brampton was involved in trade, which he apparently was, and was wealthy enough
by 1470 to maintain a residence in Bruges, which he apparently was, it seems
most unlikely he wasn't also aware of the various forms of financial operations
that were keeping trade flowing. While his social standing might have barred him
from serving as Lord Treasurer, he'd certainly be someone whose acquaintance
might be welcomed by Edward first as a means of returning to England and later
as that dear servant capable of providing information, chasing down sea-going
rebels and, as you asked, possibly even capable of being touched for the odd
loan or two.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Yes
Doug. I think Edward liked to flick between being the almighty king and one of
the boys, he probably thought he was of equal intellect to these merchant guys
who were making all the money so why not have a flutter. Even MB and Reggie did
on the sheep.
The more I think about this are we sure Brampton joined the Domus in 1468?
I think Roth got his dates wrong re Charles of Burgundy spotting him. I think he
was already in Bruges when Edward arrived in exile, in fact he could have been
involved in protecting the Hanseatic merchants from Warwick's buccaneering. We
know Margaret provided ships for Edward's return - did she get them from
Brampton? Certainly a lot of money passed between him and Edward (and Richard)
thereafter till Richard's death. I wonder if he also lent Edward money?
I agree with your definition of this sort of spying in his case. With
someone like Oliver King I think it was much more of the Walsingham type.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-16 22:21:00
Hi.So many interesting discussions! Sorry, to be slow in replying, as the holidays have been a rather busy time.Thanks Hilary for the John Kyng link. I assume from the text that John Kyng must have recently died. Would what Brampton received be anything that Oliver Kyng would have had an interest in? I would assume not, but it does establish a link between the two.Doug, I think there is a good chance that you are right with your idea that Brampton may have been the ship's captain that brought Edward back to England in 1471, or that he had something to do with organizing the fleet. He must have had considerable experience as a ship's captain if he was selected to pursue Edward Woodville. That would have been a sought after task, for whom a number of people would have been qualified. Perhaps he could also have provided finance. If so, he provided an invaluable service and it would logically follow that he should be handsomely rewarded. I lean towards thinking that ship's captain was his main profession with a link to shipping in the wool and cloth trade, which would be consistent with the grants that Edward gave him.None of the articles I have read give any indication as to when he arrived in England. In addition to the Roth article, Barrie Williams's summary of his career in a 1984 Ricardian is very good. According to the Domus records, he first appears there in 1468. Here is the link:https://archive.org/details/historyofdomusco00adleiala/page/n2It is possible that he could have been in England before then. If he was a ship's captain, he may have been in and out of England for some time. He may not have gone there to be converted, and may have converted some time before he took up residence there. It was a sanctuary for converted Jews, but especially in the later years some had already converted and many remained there for the rest of their lives. There is no indication of what he did at the Domus, but he doesn't seem the type to sit still for too long. Perhaps he become involved in some commercial venture, or perhaps he used it as base while continuing as a ship's captain. I also agree that he may have been someone who passed on information rather than a professional spy, although Oliver King may have been a more traditional spy or organizer of other spies and informers. However, what ever information Brampton was able to pick up through his social or commercial networks could have been extremely valuable.He does seem to be something of a Jack of all trades which is what makes me think that he was baptized in Portugal when still quite young. If his father was a Christian nobleman he may have insisted upon it. Brampton did have experience as a soldier, and Jews were effectively barred from receiving military training because of the Christian oaths of loyalty to the Knight they knight that they would be apprenticed to, but the problem could be solved with conversion. There is a story that he and Edward met at his baptism at the Domus, but there is no record of this and Edward only personally sponsored one convert known as Edward of Westminster, who never left the Domus. Accounts about Brampton often assume that the relationship between the two mushroomed from there, but that is incorrect. Alternatively, he could have been from a powerful Jewish merchant family, but then he would have most likely been focused on being a merchant rather than a ship's captain. Overall, being connected to the nobility has a ring of truth when we examine Brampton's career.The reason for my feeling that Brampton had always been well connected is the ease at which he fits in with royalty in England, Portugal and France. Life today is supposed to be a meritocracy, but even now few people find favour with them outside the usual circles of titled people, and anyone selected to represent the Queen in a serious capacity would be most likely a Lord or at least someone who had been to somewhere like Eton. So many people served royalty, even giving their lives in battles, without being rewarded the way Brampton was. Royalty and nobility were and still are largely a closed circle, with their own codes of conduct and you had to fit in. If Brampton passed so seamlessly in these circles, he would have had to have the right sort of sophistication.Nico
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 09:41:41 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I'll come back on this Doug. H
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 04:54:24 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
To be declared a dear
servant in 1472 would mean that year would be the latest for the first meeting
between Edward and Brampton, with a year or two earlier not out of the question.
Which could place their meeting sometime just before, during or immediately
after the Re-Adeption. Being placed in charge of a ship in, I presume, 1475 and
the later reference to his being a draper lead me to think Brampton was indeed
associated with the wool trade in some way. Which would likely give him an area
of operations that included southern England (especially the Channel coast),
London, Flanders and northern French ports, likely including Breton ones (as
they weren't quite French at that time).
I
can't find any date for Brampton's marriage to Isobel Pecche,
do we have one? Or even an approximation? If his denization did come in 1477,
then might we be safe in thinking that would likely be the latest date for his
marriage to her?
If,
as I think likely, Brampton first came to Edward's notice in 1470/71, then
perhaps the timeline would be:
????
- At an as yet undetermined date, Brampton comes to England. If he was
born in 1440, then the date was likely after 1458 and no later than 1468 when he
was registered at the Domus Converso. (I tend to think he arrived in
England several years before 1468, but I have no supporting
evidence.)
1468-72
- Brampton resident of the Domus Converso in London.
1470-71
Brampton meets Edward and provides some sort of service for Edward, resulting
in Brampton being termed Edward's dear servant in 1472.
1470s
- Brampton marries Isobel Pecche.
1475
- Brampton contracts to Edward to provide at least one ship for the invasion of
France.
1477
- Edward grants Brampton papers of denization.
1477
- Brampton gathers funds to ransom Alfonso V and is rewarded with a Royal
Councilorship and a monopoly to import certain peppers into Portugal. By this
point in time, and depending on the sums needed, I don't know if Brampton used
his own funds (and those he could raise via loans) or formed a sort of syndicate
to gather the funds.
1480s
- Brampton is described as a draper, which was someone who made or sold
woolen cloth. As Brampton traveled, I think we're safe saying he was involved
in selling wool and woolen products and likely had a good income.
1484
- Brampton knighted in August by Richard III.
I
haven't been able to find out any more on the Domus, either. Brampton
being an illegitimate Jew via his mother's affair with a Christian would have
placed him in the worst of both worlds in Portugal. His illegitimacy would
have cut him off from the Jewish community, but he still would have been
considered Jewish to the Christian community. He may have hoped to escape simply
by going to England, only to discover that there he was still
considered a Jew and that conversion was the best route for him if he wanted to
advance in his new home.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the
Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King.
His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates
right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the
mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into
indentures for the invasion of France.
BHOL is better for activities in London and in
the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche.
As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on
him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is
referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in
the early 1480s.
The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes
from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than
Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 09:41:41 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I'll come back on this Doug. H
On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, 04:54:24 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
To be declared a dear
servant in 1472 would mean that year would be the latest for the first meeting
between Edward and Brampton, with a year or two earlier not out of the question.
Which could place their meeting sometime just before, during or immediately
after the Re-Adeption. Being placed in charge of a ship in, I presume, 1475 and
the later reference to his being a draper lead me to think Brampton was indeed
associated with the wool trade in some way. Which would likely give him an area
of operations that included southern England (especially the Channel coast),
London, Flanders and northern French ports, likely including Breton ones (as
they weren't quite French at that time).
I
can't find any date for Brampton's marriage to Isobel Pecche,
do we have one? Or even an approximation? If his denization did come in 1477,
then might we be safe in thinking that would likely be the latest date for his
marriage to her?
If,
as I think likely, Brampton first came to Edward's notice in 1470/71, then
perhaps the timeline would be:
????
- At an as yet undetermined date, Brampton comes to England. If he was
born in 1440, then the date was likely after 1458 and no later than 1468 when he
was registered at the Domus Converso. (I tend to think he arrived in
England several years before 1468, but I have no supporting
evidence.)
1468-72
- Brampton resident of the Domus Converso in London.
1470-71
Brampton meets Edward and provides some sort of service for Edward, resulting
in Brampton being termed Edward's dear servant in 1472.
1470s
- Brampton marries Isobel Pecche.
1475
- Brampton contracts to Edward to provide at least one ship for the invasion of
France.
1477
- Edward grants Brampton papers of denization.
1477
- Brampton gathers funds to ransom Alfonso V and is rewarded with a Royal
Councilorship and a monopoly to import certain peppers into Portugal. By this
point in time, and depending on the sums needed, I don't know if Brampton used
his own funds (and those he could raise via loans) or formed a sort of syndicate
to gather the funds.
1480s
- Brampton is described as a draper, which was someone who made or sold
woolen cloth. As Brampton traveled, I think we're safe saying he was involved
in selling wool and woolen products and likely had a good income.
1484
- Brampton knighted in August by Richard III.
I
haven't been able to find out any more on the Domus, either. Brampton
being an illegitimate Jew via his mother's affair with a Christian would have
placed him in the worst of both worlds in Portugal. His illegitimacy would
have cut him off from the Jewish community, but he still would have been
considered Jewish to the Christian community. He may have hoped to escape simply
by going to England, only to discover that there he was still
considered a Jew and that conversion was the best route for him if he wanted to
advance in his new home.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug,
I've checked the NA and BHOL and Brampton doesn't put in appearance (in the
Parliament Rolls) until 1472 when he is described as a dear servant of the King.
His denization seems to have taken place in 1477 - if the NA has the dates
right. You can check the NA yourself online for free - Discovery. There is the
mention there of him being put in charge of a ship and of entering into
indentures for the invasion of France.
BHOL is better for activities in London and in
the Rolls. References to him mainly concern his inheritance from Isabel Pecche.
As you know, Nico and I do a lot of research in London and we'd have stumbled on
him I'm sure were there more. There is one reference in the NA where he is
referred to as a draper. All in all his rise to power here seems to have been in
the early 1480s.
The info on his relationship with Alfonso comes
from Roth. Hope this helps. It's difficult to find info on the Domus other than
Wiki. I do recall an earlier Master was a Stanley!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric
2019-04-17 01:24:20
Hilary,
To
be fair, obsession with status/class hasn't been limited solely to the English.
There are the pre-Revolutionary French nobles, post-Reconquista Spanish hidalgos
and, a bit further afield, the Parsees of India and the nobility of both China
and Japan. And then there's small-town U.S.A...they could make Hyacinth appear
an amateur! It's only a thought, but perhaps we tend first to think of the
English when the topic of class/status is mentioned because so many of the
original studies were done there? In most of Europe, those studies might have
earned the author/s prison time as being anti-government or
seditious.
Merchants
would definitely have been middle class, even the rich ones unless they'd
managed to marry into the gentry or get rewarded by the king for some special
service. I could be remembering what I've read incorrectly, but I have the
impression that, at least until mid-/late-Victorian times, having merchants in
the family tree wasn't that much of a hindrance never know when one
might need a bit of the old ready, eh? (No, I don't know where that came from,
probably P.G. Wodehouse).
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Absolutely.
Being obsessed with status or 'class' has always been an English trait - and to
many still is. Where else do they still refer to the upper,middle and working
classes? Remember that John Cleese and two Ronnies sketch 'I look up to
him and I look down on him.....' Merchants were definitely middle
class.
H (who used to live in the road next to where 'Hyacinth's bungalow' was).
It was filmed around Leamington and Coventry.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
To
be fair, obsession with status/class hasn't been limited solely to the English.
There are the pre-Revolutionary French nobles, post-Reconquista Spanish hidalgos
and, a bit further afield, the Parsees of India and the nobility of both China
and Japan. And then there's small-town U.S.A...they could make Hyacinth appear
an amateur! It's only a thought, but perhaps we tend first to think of the
English when the topic of class/status is mentioned because so many of the
original studies were done there? In most of Europe, those studies might have
earned the author/s prison time as being anti-government or
seditious.
Merchants
would definitely have been middle class, even the rich ones unless they'd
managed to marry into the gentry or get rewarded by the king for some special
service. I could be remembering what I've read incorrectly, but I have the
impression that, at least until mid-/late-Victorian times, having merchants in
the family tree wasn't that much of a hindrance never know when one
might need a bit of the old ready, eh? (No, I don't know where that came from,
probably P.G. Wodehouse).
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Absolutely.
Being obsessed with status or 'class' has always been an English trait - and to
many still is. Where else do they still refer to the upper,middle and working
classes? Remember that John Cleese and two Ronnies sketch 'I look up to
him and I look down on him.....' Merchants were definitely middle
class.
H (who used to live in the road next to where 'Hyacinth's bungalow' was).
It was filmed around Leamington and Coventry.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-17 03:15:20
Nico,
I tend to lean towards Brampton
organizing the shipping that carried Edward back to England in 1471. Now, this
is a bit involved, but here goes:
1. 1460 (approx.) Brampton leaves
Portugal and arrives in England. From his arrival until he entered the
Domus he had to be doing something and, as he is later associated with
the wool trade, the simplest conclusion is that he was working in that field,
possibly starting as a hand on vessels transporting wool to
Flanders.
2, At some point likely not too much
before he entered the Domus, being a Jew becomes a major obstacle to
Brampton's plans, so he enters the Domus in 1468 and converts to Roman
Catholicism.
3. By the winter of 1471 Brampton is in Bruges where he
makes the acquaintance of Edward IV. It might have been while gathering together
those ships for which Margaret provided the money, serving as the captain of the
vessel that carried Edward back to England or even both. In any event, the two
met and Edward was apparently impressed enough by Brampton to later remember him
and commission him to go after rebels in the Channel. FWIW, I tend to think that
what likely most impressed Edward was Brampton's organizational skills and
that's why Brampton got that commission. It wouldn't be that hard for Edward
to find someone who was brave, a good fighter and a noble, but someone who could
organize a small fleet of 5-10 ships, man and provision them and carry out the
task assigned was something else. For that, if one wanted the best results, one
turned to an expert such as Brampton.
We know Brampton had a residence in Bruges, so it's likely
he traveled between England and there fairly regularly, but it does appear as if
he used the Domus as his base of operations while in London. I tend
towards the idea that until after he arrived in England Brampton was, and
considered himself to be, a Jew. Even being the illegitimate son of some
Portuguese noble wouldn't efface the stain of having a Jewish mother. And when
it came to his mother's community, his status as illegitimate made it all but
impossible for him to remain among them. For one thing, his only potential
marriage partners would have women who suffered from the same disability
illegitimacy. Nor would the stigma end with him and his spouse, it would
continue for generations for his children. IOW, no Jew would allow their
children to intermarry with his, limiting his ability to build up any
family-based influence.
Perhaps it's my not being British, but I do think
you're over-estimating the gap between royalty and non-royalty, in the 15th
century anyway. For example, from which University did Edward IV matriculate?
What were his degrees? What degrees did Edward's father have? See what I mean?
Two things counted, I think; one's pedigree and one's abilities. The first could
cover up a lack of the second even if the second couldn't quite over-come a lack
of the first. Even so, there really wasn't that much that Brampton would need to
know to make his way among kings and nobles. He'd certainly need to know how to
write English and a knowledge of Latin would also be needed in order to
understand legal documents. Surely all his time in the Domus wasn't
spent learning his Catechism? By the time he likely entered there's no reason to
believe his spoken English wasn't up to snuff and if he asked to be tutored in
Latin; well, it likely made that instructor's day! As a merchant/trader, his
arithmetical skills would be used daily; having to know what a mark was worth at
the Bourse in Bruges or what fees were being charged for exchanging
money in Goldsmith's Street in London. How much volume and weight a particular
ship could safely hold. When it comes to mingling with the upper crust, a polite
manner and an engaging personality could overcome a lack of pedigree and, for
that matter, may have come as a relief after having to deal with people who
believed they were something special because of their grandfather and presumed
upon that descent.
If Brampton passed so seamlessly in these circles, he would
have had to have the right sort of sophistication.
Sophistication such as, say, that had by Sir Noel Coward?
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it!) But you do see what I mean, I hope? In fact,
his not being one of the inner group might have also added to his
attraction, might it not?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi.
So many interesting discussions! Sorry, to be slow in replying, as the
holidays have been a rather busy time..
Thanks Hilary for the John Kyng link. I assume from the text that John Kyng
must have recently died. Would what Brampton received be anything that
Oliver Kyng would have had an interest in? I would assume not, but it does
establish a link between the two.
Doug, I think there is a good chance that you are right with your idea that
Brampton may have been the ship's captain that brought Edward back to England in
1471, or that he had something to do with organizing the fleet. He must
have had considerable experience as a ship's captain if he was selected to
pursue Edward Woodville. That would have been a sought after task, for whom a
number of people would have been qualified. Perhaps he could also have provided
finance. If so, he provided an invaluable service and it would logically follow
that he should be handsomely rewarded. I lean towards thinking that ship's
captain was his main profession with a link to shipping in the wool and cloth
trade, which would be consistent with the grants that Edward gave him.
None of the articles I have read give any indication as to when he arrived
in England. In addition to the Roth article, Barrie Williams's summary of his
career in a 1984 Ricardian is very good. According to the Domus records, he
first appears there in 1468. Here is the link:
https://archive.org/details/historyofdomusco00adleiala/page/n2
It is possible that he could have been in England before then. If he was a
ship's captain, he may have been in and out of England for some time. He may not
have gone there to be converted, and may have converted some time before he took
up residence there. It was a sanctuary for converted Jews, but especially in the
later years some had already converted and many remained there for the rest of
their lives. There is no indication of what he did at the Domus, but he doesn't
seem the type to sit still for too long. Perhaps he become involved in some
commercial venture, or perhaps he used it as base while continuing as a ship's
captain.
I also agree that he may have been someone who passed on information rather
than a professional spy, although Oliver King may have been a more traditional
spy or organizer of other spies and informers. However, what ever information
Brampton was able to pick up through his social or commercial networks could
have been extremely valuable.
He does seem to be something of a Jack of all trades which is what makes me
think that he was baptized in Portugal when still quite young. If his father was
a Christian nobleman he may have insisted upon it. Brampton did have experience
as a soldier, and Jews were effectively barred from receiving military training
because of the Christian oaths of loyalty to the Knight they knight that they
would be apprenticed to, but the problem could be solved with conversion. There
is a story that he and Edward met at his baptism at the Domus, but there is no
record of this and Edward only personally sponsored one convert known as Edward
of Westminster, who never left the Domus. Accounts about Brampton often assume
that the relationship between the two mushroomed from there, but that is
incorrect. Alternatively, he could have been from a powerful Jewish merchant
family, but then he would have most likely been focused on being a merchant
rather than a ship's captain. Overall, being connected to the nobility has a
ring of truth when we examine Brampton's career.
The reason for my feeling that Brampton had always been well connected is
the ease at which he fits in with royalty in England, Portugal and France. Life
today is supposed to be a meritocracy, but even now few people find favour with
them outside the usual circles of titled people, and anyone selected to
represent the Queen in a serious capacity would be most likely a Lord or at
least someone who had been to somewhere like Eton. So many people served
royalty, even giving their lives in battles, without being rewarded the way
Brampton was. Royalty and nobility were and still are largely a closed circle,
with their own codes of conduct and you had to fit in. If Brampton passed so
seamlessly in these circles, he would have had to have the right sort of
sophistication.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I tend to lean towards Brampton
organizing the shipping that carried Edward back to England in 1471. Now, this
is a bit involved, but here goes:
1. 1460 (approx.) Brampton leaves
Portugal and arrives in England. From his arrival until he entered the
Domus he had to be doing something and, as he is later associated with
the wool trade, the simplest conclusion is that he was working in that field,
possibly starting as a hand on vessels transporting wool to
Flanders.
2, At some point likely not too much
before he entered the Domus, being a Jew becomes a major obstacle to
Brampton's plans, so he enters the Domus in 1468 and converts to Roman
Catholicism.
3. By the winter of 1471 Brampton is in Bruges where he
makes the acquaintance of Edward IV. It might have been while gathering together
those ships for which Margaret provided the money, serving as the captain of the
vessel that carried Edward back to England or even both. In any event, the two
met and Edward was apparently impressed enough by Brampton to later remember him
and commission him to go after rebels in the Channel. FWIW, I tend to think that
what likely most impressed Edward was Brampton's organizational skills and
that's why Brampton got that commission. It wouldn't be that hard for Edward
to find someone who was brave, a good fighter and a noble, but someone who could
organize a small fleet of 5-10 ships, man and provision them and carry out the
task assigned was something else. For that, if one wanted the best results, one
turned to an expert such as Brampton.
We know Brampton had a residence in Bruges, so it's likely
he traveled between England and there fairly regularly, but it does appear as if
he used the Domus as his base of operations while in London. I tend
towards the idea that until after he arrived in England Brampton was, and
considered himself to be, a Jew. Even being the illegitimate son of some
Portuguese noble wouldn't efface the stain of having a Jewish mother. And when
it came to his mother's community, his status as illegitimate made it all but
impossible for him to remain among them. For one thing, his only potential
marriage partners would have women who suffered from the same disability
illegitimacy. Nor would the stigma end with him and his spouse, it would
continue for generations for his children. IOW, no Jew would allow their
children to intermarry with his, limiting his ability to build up any
family-based influence.
Perhaps it's my not being British, but I do think
you're over-estimating the gap between royalty and non-royalty, in the 15th
century anyway. For example, from which University did Edward IV matriculate?
What were his degrees? What degrees did Edward's father have? See what I mean?
Two things counted, I think; one's pedigree and one's abilities. The first could
cover up a lack of the second even if the second couldn't quite over-come a lack
of the first. Even so, there really wasn't that much that Brampton would need to
know to make his way among kings and nobles. He'd certainly need to know how to
write English and a knowledge of Latin would also be needed in order to
understand legal documents. Surely all his time in the Domus wasn't
spent learning his Catechism? By the time he likely entered there's no reason to
believe his spoken English wasn't up to snuff and if he asked to be tutored in
Latin; well, it likely made that instructor's day! As a merchant/trader, his
arithmetical skills would be used daily; having to know what a mark was worth at
the Bourse in Bruges or what fees were being charged for exchanging
money in Goldsmith's Street in London. How much volume and weight a particular
ship could safely hold. When it comes to mingling with the upper crust, a polite
manner and an engaging personality could overcome a lack of pedigree and, for
that matter, may have come as a relief after having to deal with people who
believed they were something special because of their grandfather and presumed
upon that descent.
If Brampton passed so seamlessly in these circles, he would
have had to have the right sort of sophistication.
Sophistication such as, say, that had by Sir Noel Coward?
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it!) But you do see what I mean, I hope? In fact,
his not being one of the inner group might have also added to his
attraction, might it not?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi.
So many interesting discussions! Sorry, to be slow in replying, as the
holidays have been a rather busy time..
Thanks Hilary for the John Kyng link. I assume from the text that John Kyng
must have recently died. Would what Brampton received be anything that
Oliver Kyng would have had an interest in? I would assume not, but it does
establish a link between the two.
Doug, I think there is a good chance that you are right with your idea that
Brampton may have been the ship's captain that brought Edward back to England in
1471, or that he had something to do with organizing the fleet. He must
have had considerable experience as a ship's captain if he was selected to
pursue Edward Woodville. That would have been a sought after task, for whom a
number of people would have been qualified. Perhaps he could also have provided
finance. If so, he provided an invaluable service and it would logically follow
that he should be handsomely rewarded. I lean towards thinking that ship's
captain was his main profession with a link to shipping in the wool and cloth
trade, which would be consistent with the grants that Edward gave him.
None of the articles I have read give any indication as to when he arrived
in England. In addition to the Roth article, Barrie Williams's summary of his
career in a 1984 Ricardian is very good. According to the Domus records, he
first appears there in 1468. Here is the link:
https://archive.org/details/historyofdomusco00adleiala/page/n2
It is possible that he could have been in England before then. If he was a
ship's captain, he may have been in and out of England for some time. He may not
have gone there to be converted, and may have converted some time before he took
up residence there. It was a sanctuary for converted Jews, but especially in the
later years some had already converted and many remained there for the rest of
their lives. There is no indication of what he did at the Domus, but he doesn't
seem the type to sit still for too long. Perhaps he become involved in some
commercial venture, or perhaps he used it as base while continuing as a ship's
captain.
I also agree that he may have been someone who passed on information rather
than a professional spy, although Oliver King may have been a more traditional
spy or organizer of other spies and informers. However, what ever information
Brampton was able to pick up through his social or commercial networks could
have been extremely valuable.
He does seem to be something of a Jack of all trades which is what makes me
think that he was baptized in Portugal when still quite young. If his father was
a Christian nobleman he may have insisted upon it. Brampton did have experience
as a soldier, and Jews were effectively barred from receiving military training
because of the Christian oaths of loyalty to the Knight they knight that they
would be apprenticed to, but the problem could be solved with conversion. There
is a story that he and Edward met at his baptism at the Domus, but there is no
record of this and Edward only personally sponsored one convert known as Edward
of Westminster, who never left the Domus. Accounts about Brampton often assume
that the relationship between the two mushroomed from there, but that is
incorrect. Alternatively, he could have been from a powerful Jewish merchant
family, but then he would have most likely been focused on being a merchant
rather than a ship's captain. Overall, being connected to the nobility has a
ring of truth when we examine Brampton's career.
The reason for my feeling that Brampton had always been well connected is
the ease at which he fits in with royalty in England, Portugal and France. Life
today is supposed to be a meritocracy, but even now few people find favour with
them outside the usual circles of titled people, and anyone selected to
represent the Queen in a serious capacity would be most likely a Lord or at
least someone who had been to somewhere like Eton. So many people served
royalty, even giving their lives in battles, without being rewarded the way
Brampton was. Royalty and nobility were and still are largely a closed circle,
with their own codes of conduct and you had to fit in. If Brampton passed so
seamlessly in these circles, he would have had to have the right sort of
sophistication.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-17 12:26:32
Nico and Doug, I agree with your speculation that Brampton could have been involved with Edward's return to England from Burgundy and that is how they became involved. The trouble is we have been brainwashed by the trads into thinking that Edward met Brampton when he converted to Christianity and Edward supposedly stood as his Godfather. However, Nico as you say E4 only stood as Godfather to one person and he was named as Edward of Westminster and he stayed at the Domus all his life. I would like to suggest that our friends the trads have assumed that this Edward of Westminster was Edward Brampton because as we know they do not do very thorough research.Something that puzzles me, and it may be me mis-reading what has been said. It seems as if it was E4 who sent Brampton after Sir Edward Woodville but surely it would have been Richard because it was after Edward died that Woodville ran off with the treasure. Also another thing that has occurred to me is, if what we are assuming/ speculating about Brampton is correct, wouldn't he be an ideal person to take the Princes out of England.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-17 14:20:51
Hi Doug,By the winter of 1471 Brampton is in Bruges where he
makes the acquaintance of Edward IV. It might have been while gathering together
those ships for which Margaret provided the money, serving as the captain of the
vessel that carried Edward back to England or even both. In any event, the two
met and Edward was apparently impressed enough by Brampton to later remember him
and commission him to go after rebels in the Channel. FWIW, I tend to think that
what likely most impressed Edward was Brampton's organizational skills and
that's why Brampton got that commission... We know Brampton had a residence in Bruges, so it's likely
he traveled between England and there fairly regularly, but it does appear as if
he used the Domus as his base of operations while in London.I agree with you here. Given both Brampton and Edward's timelines, this is the most convincing way for them to have met. I will have to check again, but I got the impression that while Brampton did have a house in Bruges, he moved to there after Bosworth. He may have had a residence there for some time before, but I got the impression that London was his primary residence at least until late 1485. Even so, any involvement with the wool trade would take give him a reason to be involved with Bruges. However, when dissecting what is actually known about Brampton, my feeling is that his primary occupation was as a ship's captain - (not off limit to Jews, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11652-occupations) - probably importing things (including wool and cloth) via Bruges into London. He may have also had a sideline trading some of these things, but perhaps that developed later when Edward gave the grants to import wool. Being a ship's captain wasn't something you dabbled in as it required great skill and experience and I have no doubt Edward was impressed with his competence. Otherwise he would not have given Brampton what must have been a coveted commission to arrest Edward Woodville. Therefore, I think we have correctly identified who Brampton was professionally when he arrived in London.If Brampton was a ship's captain who regularly went to Bruges, that could explain a discrepancy in his Setubal testimony; naming a person that a ship's captain in that area would be very likely to know; Noel de Werbeque, the wantier (maker of ropes for ship's riggings), who was Jean de Werbeque's brother. I tend
towards the idea that until after he arrived in England Brampton was, and
considered himself to be, a Jew. Even being the illegitimate son of some
Portuguese noble wouldn't efface the stain of having a Jewish mother. And when
it came to his mother's community, his status as illegitimate made it all but
impossible for him to remain among them. For one thing, his only potential
marriage partners would have women who suffered from the same disability
illegitimacy. Nor would the stigma end with him and his spouse, it would
continue for generations for his children. IOW, no Jew would allow their
children to intermarry with his, limiting his ability to build up any
family-based influence.How Brampton identified is more complex. He strikes me as a something of a larger than life character and in my experience that type of person tends to be ego driven and their sense of identity isn't dependent on any particular group unless membership of that group is useful to them in some way. That isn't a criticism of him at all; in fact I think it is in many ways a very admirable quality. Clearly he was very action orientated, not a navel gazer who dwelt too much on the past. How he felt about Judaism and Christianity, I have no idea, but if the Domus provided a good place to live in a place which was convenient for expanding his activities and making contacts, then he would make being a convert work for him; if being a converted Jew brought him trouble, he would probably have kept it quiet. At that time in a foreign country, with no passports or IDs you could be anyone you wanted to be, and Brampton strikes me as the sort of person who would make the most of that. Back in Portugal, he would have been more likely to have been identified and pigeon holed for whatever his background was, but if the Christian father's status was considerable more senior (a nobleman) to that of the mother (a blacksmith's wife), and the father actually cared about him, then he would be in a position to put pressure on young Brampton was baptized at an early stage. The mother may not have objected, as baptism doesn't affect one's status as a Jew, which is acquired by having a Jewish mother. That way, he could easily move between both worlds and make the best of what they had to offer.Perhaps it's my not being British, but I do think
you're over-estimating the gap between royalty and non-royalty, in the 15th
century anyway. For example, from which University did Edward IV matriculate?
What were his degrees? What degrees did Edward's father have? See what I mean?
Two things counted, I think; one's pedigree and one's abilities. The first could
cover up a lack of the second even if the second couldn't quite over-come a lack
of the first. British social structure is very intricate, but I suspect that is something that has developed more recently, probably from the Victorian era and wouldn't be relevant to the 15th century. Fortunately, foreigners are exempted from most of the negative judgements because they don't have the nuances that pinpoint the home grown socially. AFAIK, higher education for senior royalty is a new thing, starting with the William and Kate generation (I think anyway, I don't follow the present royals that much). Traditionally, school and university were for intellectuals from the middle class like Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver King. Certainly ability mattered hugely; a lack of it could finish even someone with the most prestigious pedigree, and I have no doubt that a very capable person could elevate themselves considerably, as Brampton is proof of. However, generally rewards and appointments would be given in the area of expertise - in Brampton's case being a ship's captain, expanding his range into the wool trade. I also get the impression that Edward liked him a great deal personally; he was described as a very tall man with a gregarious personality, someone rather like Edward who could have been a natural companion. I may be overestimating the gulf between royalty and non royalty, but while Edward may have taken him to Picquiny as his ships captain and friend, it is unlikely that he would be interacting that much with the other Kings. Even so, if the King of Portugal needed money and Brampton could get him a loan, then maybe that was his intro. However, Alfonso cultivated him beyond expectations. Of course, I don't know for sure, but it is still my instinct that Brampton was related to some kind of prestigious family, whether that was nobility, a prominent Jewish merchant family or money lenders, I can't say. Nico
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 03:15:23 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
I tend to lean towards Brampton
organizing the shipping that carried Edward back to England in 1471. Now, this
is a bit involved, but here goes:
1. 1460 (approx.) Brampton leaves
Portugal and arrives in England. From his arrival until he entered the
Domus he had to be doing something and, as he is later associated with
the wool trade, the simplest conclusion is that he was working in that field,
possibly starting as a hand on vessels transporting wool to
Flanders.
2, At some point likely not too much
before he entered the Domus, being a Jew becomes a major obstacle to
Brampton's plans, so he enters the Domus in 1468 and converts to Roman
Catholicism.
3. By the winter of 1471 Brampton is in Bruges where he
makes the acquaintance of Edward IV. It might have been while gathering together
those ships for which Margaret provided the money, serving as the captain of the
vessel that carried Edward back to England or even both. In any event, the two
met and Edward was apparently impressed enough by Brampton to later remember him
and commission him to go after rebels in the Channel. FWIW, I tend to think that
what likely most impressed Edward was Brampton's organizational skills and
that's why Brampton got that commission. It wouldn't be that hard for Edward
to find someone who was brave, a good fighter and a noble, but someone who could
organize a small fleet of 5-10 ships, man and provision them and carry out the
task assigned was something else. For that, if one wanted the best results, one
turned to an expert such as Brampton.
We know Brampton had a residence in Bruges, so it's likely
he traveled between England and there fairly regularly, but it does appear as if
he used the Domus as his base of operations while in London. I tend
towards the idea that until after he arrived in England Brampton was, and
considered himself to be, a Jew. Even being the illegitimate son of some
Portuguese noble wouldn't efface the stain of having a Jewish mother. And when
it came to his mother's community, his status as illegitimate made it all but
impossible for him to remain among them. For one thing, his only potential
marriage partners would have women who suffered from the same disability
illegitimacy. Nor would the stigma end with him and his spouse, it would
continue for generations for his children. IOW, no Jew would allow their
children to intermarry with his, limiting his ability to build up any
family-based influence.
Perhaps it's my not being British, but I do think
you're over-estimating the gap between royalty and non-royalty, in the 15th
century anyway. For example, from which University did Edward IV matriculate?
What were his degrees? What degrees did Edward's father have? See what I mean?
Two things counted, I think; one's pedigree and one's abilities. The first could
cover up a lack of the second even if the second couldn't quite over-come a lack
of the first. Even so, there really wasn't that much that Brampton would need to
know to make his way among kings and nobles. He'd certainly need to know how to
write English and a knowledge of Latin would also be needed in order to
understand legal documents. Surely all his time in the Domus wasn't
spent learning his Catechism? By the time he likely entered there's no reason to
believe his spoken English wasn't up to snuff and if he asked to be tutored in
Latin; well, it likely made that instructor's day! As a merchant/trader, his
arithmetical skills would be used daily; having to know what a mark was worth at
the Bourse in Bruges or what fees were being charged for exchanging
money in Goldsmith's Street in London. How much volume and weight a particular
ship could safely hold. When it comes to mingling with the upper crust, a polite
manner and an engaging personality could overcome a lack of pedigree and, for
that matter, may have come as a relief after having to deal with people who
believed they were something special because of their grandfather and presumed
upon that descent.
If Brampton passed so seamlessly in these circles, he would
have had to have the right sort of sophistication.
Sophistication such as, say, that had by Sir Noel Coward?
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it!) But you do see what I mean, I hope? In fact,
his not being one of the inner group might have also added to his
attraction, might it not?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi.
So many interesting discussions! Sorry, to be slow in replying, as the
holidays have been a rather busy time..
Thanks Hilary for the John Kyng link. I assume from the text that John Kyng
must have recently died. Would what Brampton received be anything that
Oliver Kyng would have had an interest in? I would assume not, but it does
establish a link between the two.
Doug, I think there is a good chance that you are right with your idea that
Brampton may have been the ship's captain that brought Edward back to England in
1471, or that he had something to do with organizing the fleet. He must
have had considerable experience as a ship's captain if he was selected to
pursue Edward Woodville. That would have been a sought after task, for whom a
number of people would have been qualified. Perhaps he could also have provided
finance. If so, he provided an invaluable service and it would logically follow
that he should be handsomely rewarded. I lean towards thinking that ship's
captain was his main profession with a link to shipping in the wool and cloth
trade, which would be consistent with the grants that Edward gave him.
None of the articles I have read give any indication as to when he arrived
in England. In addition to the Roth article, Barrie Williams's summary of his
career in a 1984 Ricardian is very good. According to the Domus records, he
first appears there in 1468. Here is the link:
https://archive.org/details/historyofdomusco00adleiala/page/n2
It is possible that he could have been in England before then. If he was a
ship's captain, he may have been in and out of England for some time. He may not
have gone there to be converted, and may have converted some time before he took
up residence there. It was a sanctuary for converted Jews, but especially in the
later years some had already converted and many remained there for the rest of
their lives. There is no indication of what he did at the Domus, but he doesn't
seem the type to sit still for too long. Perhaps he become involved in some
commercial venture, or perhaps he used it as base while continuing as a ship's
captain.
I also agree that he may have been someone who passed on information rather
than a professional spy, although Oliver King may have been a more traditional
spy or organizer of other spies and informers. However, what ever information
Brampton was able to pick up through his social or commercial networks could
have been extremely valuable.
He does seem to be something of a Jack of all trades which is what makes me
think that he was baptized in Portugal when still quite young. If his father was
a Christian nobleman he may have insisted upon it. Brampton did have experience
as a soldier, and Jews were effectively barred from receiving military training
because of the Christian oaths of loyalty to the Knight they knight that they
would be apprenticed to, but the problem could be solved with conversion. There
is a story that he and Edward met at his baptism at the Domus, but there is no
record of this and Edward only personally sponsored one convert known as Edward
of Westminster, who never left the Domus. Accounts about Brampton often assume
that the relationship between the two mushroomed from there, but that is
incorrect. Alternatively, he could have been from a powerful Jewish merchant
family, but then he would have most likely been focused on being a merchant
rather than a ship's captain. Overall, being connected to the nobility has a
ring of truth when we examine Brampton's career.
The reason for my feeling that Brampton had always been well connected is
the ease at which he fits in with royalty in England, Portugal and France. Life
today is supposed to be a meritocracy, but even now few people find favour with
them outside the usual circles of titled people, and anyone selected to
represent the Queen in a serious capacity would be most likely a Lord or at
least someone who had been to somewhere like Eton. So many people served
royalty, even giving their lives in battles, without being rewarded the way
Brampton was. Royalty and nobility were and still are largely a closed circle,
with their own codes of conduct and you had to fit in. If Brampton passed so
seamlessly in these circles, he would have had to have the right sort of
sophistication.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
makes the acquaintance of Edward IV. It might have been while gathering together
those ships for which Margaret provided the money, serving as the captain of the
vessel that carried Edward back to England or even both. In any event, the two
met and Edward was apparently impressed enough by Brampton to later remember him
and commission him to go after rebels in the Channel. FWIW, I tend to think that
what likely most impressed Edward was Brampton's organizational skills and
that's why Brampton got that commission... We know Brampton had a residence in Bruges, so it's likely
he traveled between England and there fairly regularly, but it does appear as if
he used the Domus as his base of operations while in London.I agree with you here. Given both Brampton and Edward's timelines, this is the most convincing way for them to have met. I will have to check again, but I got the impression that while Brampton did have a house in Bruges, he moved to there after Bosworth. He may have had a residence there for some time before, but I got the impression that London was his primary residence at least until late 1485. Even so, any involvement with the wool trade would take give him a reason to be involved with Bruges. However, when dissecting what is actually known about Brampton, my feeling is that his primary occupation was as a ship's captain - (not off limit to Jews, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11652-occupations) - probably importing things (including wool and cloth) via Bruges into London. He may have also had a sideline trading some of these things, but perhaps that developed later when Edward gave the grants to import wool. Being a ship's captain wasn't something you dabbled in as it required great skill and experience and I have no doubt Edward was impressed with his competence. Otherwise he would not have given Brampton what must have been a coveted commission to arrest Edward Woodville. Therefore, I think we have correctly identified who Brampton was professionally when he arrived in London.If Brampton was a ship's captain who regularly went to Bruges, that could explain a discrepancy in his Setubal testimony; naming a person that a ship's captain in that area would be very likely to know; Noel de Werbeque, the wantier (maker of ropes for ship's riggings), who was Jean de Werbeque's brother. I tend
towards the idea that until after he arrived in England Brampton was, and
considered himself to be, a Jew. Even being the illegitimate son of some
Portuguese noble wouldn't efface the stain of having a Jewish mother. And when
it came to his mother's community, his status as illegitimate made it all but
impossible for him to remain among them. For one thing, his only potential
marriage partners would have women who suffered from the same disability
illegitimacy. Nor would the stigma end with him and his spouse, it would
continue for generations for his children. IOW, no Jew would allow their
children to intermarry with his, limiting his ability to build up any
family-based influence.How Brampton identified is more complex. He strikes me as a something of a larger than life character and in my experience that type of person tends to be ego driven and their sense of identity isn't dependent on any particular group unless membership of that group is useful to them in some way. That isn't a criticism of him at all; in fact I think it is in many ways a very admirable quality. Clearly he was very action orientated, not a navel gazer who dwelt too much on the past. How he felt about Judaism and Christianity, I have no idea, but if the Domus provided a good place to live in a place which was convenient for expanding his activities and making contacts, then he would make being a convert work for him; if being a converted Jew brought him trouble, he would probably have kept it quiet. At that time in a foreign country, with no passports or IDs you could be anyone you wanted to be, and Brampton strikes me as the sort of person who would make the most of that. Back in Portugal, he would have been more likely to have been identified and pigeon holed for whatever his background was, but if the Christian father's status was considerable more senior (a nobleman) to that of the mother (a blacksmith's wife), and the father actually cared about him, then he would be in a position to put pressure on young Brampton was baptized at an early stage. The mother may not have objected, as baptism doesn't affect one's status as a Jew, which is acquired by having a Jewish mother. That way, he could easily move between both worlds and make the best of what they had to offer.Perhaps it's my not being British, but I do think
you're over-estimating the gap between royalty and non-royalty, in the 15th
century anyway. For example, from which University did Edward IV matriculate?
What were his degrees? What degrees did Edward's father have? See what I mean?
Two things counted, I think; one's pedigree and one's abilities. The first could
cover up a lack of the second even if the second couldn't quite over-come a lack
of the first. British social structure is very intricate, but I suspect that is something that has developed more recently, probably from the Victorian era and wouldn't be relevant to the 15th century. Fortunately, foreigners are exempted from most of the negative judgements because they don't have the nuances that pinpoint the home grown socially. AFAIK, higher education for senior royalty is a new thing, starting with the William and Kate generation (I think anyway, I don't follow the present royals that much). Traditionally, school and university were for intellectuals from the middle class like Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver King. Certainly ability mattered hugely; a lack of it could finish even someone with the most prestigious pedigree, and I have no doubt that a very capable person could elevate themselves considerably, as Brampton is proof of. However, generally rewards and appointments would be given in the area of expertise - in Brampton's case being a ship's captain, expanding his range into the wool trade. I also get the impression that Edward liked him a great deal personally; he was described as a very tall man with a gregarious personality, someone rather like Edward who could have been a natural companion. I may be overestimating the gulf between royalty and non royalty, but while Edward may have taken him to Picquiny as his ships captain and friend, it is unlikely that he would be interacting that much with the other Kings. Even so, if the King of Portugal needed money and Brampton could get him a loan, then maybe that was his intro. However, Alfonso cultivated him beyond expectations. Of course, I don't know for sure, but it is still my instinct that Brampton was related to some kind of prestigious family, whether that was nobility, a prominent Jewish merchant family or money lenders, I can't say. Nico
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 03:15:23 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
I tend to lean towards Brampton
organizing the shipping that carried Edward back to England in 1471. Now, this
is a bit involved, but here goes:
1. 1460 (approx.) Brampton leaves
Portugal and arrives in England. From his arrival until he entered the
Domus he had to be doing something and, as he is later associated with
the wool trade, the simplest conclusion is that he was working in that field,
possibly starting as a hand on vessels transporting wool to
Flanders.
2, At some point likely not too much
before he entered the Domus, being a Jew becomes a major obstacle to
Brampton's plans, so he enters the Domus in 1468 and converts to Roman
Catholicism.
3. By the winter of 1471 Brampton is in Bruges where he
makes the acquaintance of Edward IV. It might have been while gathering together
those ships for which Margaret provided the money, serving as the captain of the
vessel that carried Edward back to England or even both. In any event, the two
met and Edward was apparently impressed enough by Brampton to later remember him
and commission him to go after rebels in the Channel. FWIW, I tend to think that
what likely most impressed Edward was Brampton's organizational skills and
that's why Brampton got that commission. It wouldn't be that hard for Edward
to find someone who was brave, a good fighter and a noble, but someone who could
organize a small fleet of 5-10 ships, man and provision them and carry out the
task assigned was something else. For that, if one wanted the best results, one
turned to an expert such as Brampton.
We know Brampton had a residence in Bruges, so it's likely
he traveled between England and there fairly regularly, but it does appear as if
he used the Domus as his base of operations while in London. I tend
towards the idea that until after he arrived in England Brampton was, and
considered himself to be, a Jew. Even being the illegitimate son of some
Portuguese noble wouldn't efface the stain of having a Jewish mother. And when
it came to his mother's community, his status as illegitimate made it all but
impossible for him to remain among them. For one thing, his only potential
marriage partners would have women who suffered from the same disability
illegitimacy. Nor would the stigma end with him and his spouse, it would
continue for generations for his children. IOW, no Jew would allow their
children to intermarry with his, limiting his ability to build up any
family-based influence.
Perhaps it's my not being British, but I do think
you're over-estimating the gap between royalty and non-royalty, in the 15th
century anyway. For example, from which University did Edward IV matriculate?
What were his degrees? What degrees did Edward's father have? See what I mean?
Two things counted, I think; one's pedigree and one's abilities. The first could
cover up a lack of the second even if the second couldn't quite over-come a lack
of the first. Even so, there really wasn't that much that Brampton would need to
know to make his way among kings and nobles. He'd certainly need to know how to
write English and a knowledge of Latin would also be needed in order to
understand legal documents. Surely all his time in the Domus wasn't
spent learning his Catechism? By the time he likely entered there's no reason to
believe his spoken English wasn't up to snuff and if he asked to be tutored in
Latin; well, it likely made that instructor's day! As a merchant/trader, his
arithmetical skills would be used daily; having to know what a mark was worth at
the Bourse in Bruges or what fees were being charged for exchanging
money in Goldsmith's Street in London. How much volume and weight a particular
ship could safely hold. When it comes to mingling with the upper crust, a polite
manner and an engaging personality could overcome a lack of pedigree and, for
that matter, may have come as a relief after having to deal with people who
believed they were something special because of their grandfather and presumed
upon that descent.
If Brampton passed so seamlessly in these circles, he would
have had to have the right sort of sophistication.
Sophistication such as, say, that had by Sir Noel Coward?
(I'm sorry, I couldn't resist it!) But you do see what I mean, I hope? In fact,
his not being one of the inner group might have also added to his
attraction, might it not?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi.
So many interesting discussions! Sorry, to be slow in replying, as the
holidays have been a rather busy time..
Thanks Hilary for the John Kyng link. I assume from the text that John Kyng
must have recently died. Would what Brampton received be anything that
Oliver Kyng would have had an interest in? I would assume not, but it does
establish a link between the two.
Doug, I think there is a good chance that you are right with your idea that
Brampton may have been the ship's captain that brought Edward back to England in
1471, or that he had something to do with organizing the fleet. He must
have had considerable experience as a ship's captain if he was selected to
pursue Edward Woodville. That would have been a sought after task, for whom a
number of people would have been qualified. Perhaps he could also have provided
finance. If so, he provided an invaluable service and it would logically follow
that he should be handsomely rewarded. I lean towards thinking that ship's
captain was his main profession with a link to shipping in the wool and cloth
trade, which would be consistent with the grants that Edward gave him.
None of the articles I have read give any indication as to when he arrived
in England. In addition to the Roth article, Barrie Williams's summary of his
career in a 1984 Ricardian is very good. According to the Domus records, he
first appears there in 1468. Here is the link:
https://archive.org/details/historyofdomusco00adleiala/page/n2
It is possible that he could have been in England before then. If he was a
ship's captain, he may have been in and out of England for some time. He may not
have gone there to be converted, and may have converted some time before he took
up residence there. It was a sanctuary for converted Jews, but especially in the
later years some had already converted and many remained there for the rest of
their lives. There is no indication of what he did at the Domus, but he doesn't
seem the type to sit still for too long. Perhaps he become involved in some
commercial venture, or perhaps he used it as base while continuing as a ship's
captain.
I also agree that he may have been someone who passed on information rather
than a professional spy, although Oliver King may have been a more traditional
spy or organizer of other spies and informers. However, what ever information
Brampton was able to pick up through his social or commercial networks could
have been extremely valuable.
He does seem to be something of a Jack of all trades which is what makes me
think that he was baptized in Portugal when still quite young. If his father was
a Christian nobleman he may have insisted upon it. Brampton did have experience
as a soldier, and Jews were effectively barred from receiving military training
because of the Christian oaths of loyalty to the Knight they knight that they
would be apprenticed to, but the problem could be solved with conversion. There
is a story that he and Edward met at his baptism at the Domus, but there is no
record of this and Edward only personally sponsored one convert known as Edward
of Westminster, who never left the Domus. Accounts about Brampton often assume
that the relationship between the two mushroomed from there, but that is
incorrect. Alternatively, he could have been from a powerful Jewish merchant
family, but then he would have most likely been focused on being a merchant
rather than a ship's captain. Overall, being connected to the nobility has a
ring of truth when we examine Brampton's career.
The reason for my feeling that Brampton had always been well connected is
the ease at which he fits in with royalty in England, Portugal and France. Life
today is supposed to be a meritocracy, but even now few people find favour with
them outside the usual circles of titled people, and anyone selected to
represent the Queen in a serious capacity would be most likely a Lord or at
least someone who had been to somewhere like Eton. So many people served
royalty, even giving their lives in battles, without being rewarded the way
Brampton was. Royalty and nobility were and still are largely a closed circle,
with their own codes of conduct and you had to fit in. If Brampton passed so
seamlessly in these circles, he would have had to have the right sort of
sophistication.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-17 14:30:11
Hi Mary,You are right; that is my mistake. It was Richard who commissioned Brampton after Edward Woodville. Perhaps this was how he earned his knighthood. I believe there was another instance where Edward appointed him to a fleet in the 1470s. I think it is the patent rolls; I will take another look. I definitely agree with you that he was an ideal person to remove the Princes from England, which is why it is important to take an in depth look at him, what he did exactly and who he associated with. I have always suspected that he was the missing link.Nico
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 12:58:06 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico and Doug, I agree with your speculation that Brampton could have been involved with Edward's return to England from Burgundy and that is how they became involved. The trouble is we have been brainwashed by the trads into thinking that Edward met Brampton when he converted to Christianity and Edward supposedly stood as his Godfather. However, Nico as you say E4 only stood as Godfather to one person and he was named as Edward of Westminster and he stayed at the Domus all his life. I would like to suggest that our friends the trads have assumed that this Edward of Westminster was Edward Brampton because as we know they do not do very thorough research.Something that puzzles me, and it may be me mis-reading what has been said. It seems as if it was E4 who sent Brampton after Sir Edward Woodville but surely it would have been Richard because it was after Edward died that Woodville ran off with the treasure. Also another thing that has occurred to me is, if what we are assuming/ speculating about Brampton is correct, wouldn't he be an ideal person to take the Princes out of England.Mary
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 12:58:06 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico and Doug, I agree with your speculation that Brampton could have been involved with Edward's return to England from Burgundy and that is how they became involved. The trouble is we have been brainwashed by the trads into thinking that Edward met Brampton when he converted to Christianity and Edward supposedly stood as his Godfather. However, Nico as you say E4 only stood as Godfather to one person and he was named as Edward of Westminster and he stayed at the Domus all his life. I would like to suggest that our friends the trads have assumed that this Edward of Westminster was Edward Brampton because as we know they do not do very thorough research.Something that puzzles me, and it may be me mis-reading what has been said. It seems as if it was E4 who sent Brampton after Sir Edward Woodville but surely it would have been Richard because it was after Edward died that Woodville ran off with the treasure. Also another thing that has occurred to me is, if what we are assuming/ speculating about Brampton is correct, wouldn't he be an ideal person to take the Princes out of England.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-18 09:53:01
Hi all, I think it's because most historians of this period, Arthurson for one, go straight to Roth for information. Am I right in thinking that Roth was writing for a Jewish audience, so it's perhaps not surprising that the Domus creeps in? I've tried to see if there are any Portuguese sources online but haven't been successful so far. He sort of vanishes off the map by about 1510, as does his family.Also, from where do we get the original information that his second wife was Margaret Beaumont? Is it just from brother Thomas's will? If you think about it at that time Portugal was a much more exciting place to be for a merchant, with all its African exploration. I reckon the triangular trade thing is very feasible.I don't think you had to be a nobleman to be a diplomat - think of all the bishops, but it is a sort of reward of trust usually given for a purpose, which also brings us back to Vaughan again. Another one mixing in these circles. H
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 14:30:18 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Mary,You are right; that is my mistake. It was Richard who commissioned Brampton after Edward Woodville. Perhaps this was how he earned his knighthood. I believe there was another instance where Edward appointed him to a fleet in the 1470s. I think it is the patent rolls; I will take another look. I definitely agree with you that he was an ideal person to remove the Princes from England, which is why it is important to take an in depth look at him, what he did exactly and who he associated with. I have always suspected that he was the missing link.Nico
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 12:58:06 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico and Doug, I agree with your speculation that Brampton could have been involved with Edward's return to England from Burgundy and that is how they became involved. The trouble is we have been brainwashed by the trads into thinking that Edward met Brampton when he converted to Christianity and Edward supposedly stood as his Godfather. However, Nico as you say E4 only stood as Godfather to one person and he was named as Edward of Westminster and he stayed at the Domus all his life. I would like to suggest that our friends the trads have assumed that this Edward of Westminster was Edward Brampton because as we know they do not do very thorough research.Something that puzzles me, and it may be me mis-reading what has been said. It seems as if it was E4 who sent Brampton after Sir Edward Woodville but surely it would have been Richard because it was after Edward died that Woodville ran off with the treasure. Also another thing that has occurred to me is, if what we are assuming/ speculating about Brampton is correct, wouldn't he be an ideal person to take the Princes out of England.Mary
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 14:30:18 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Mary,You are right; that is my mistake. It was Richard who commissioned Brampton after Edward Woodville. Perhaps this was how he earned his knighthood. I believe there was another instance where Edward appointed him to a fleet in the 1470s. I think it is the patent rolls; I will take another look. I definitely agree with you that he was an ideal person to remove the Princes from England, which is why it is important to take an in depth look at him, what he did exactly and who he associated with. I have always suspected that he was the missing link.Nico
On Wednesday, 17 April 2019, 12:58:06 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Nico and Doug, I agree with your speculation that Brampton could have been involved with Edward's return to England from Burgundy and that is how they became involved. The trouble is we have been brainwashed by the trads into thinking that Edward met Brampton when he converted to Christianity and Edward supposedly stood as his Godfather. However, Nico as you say E4 only stood as Godfather to one person and he was named as Edward of Westminster and he stayed at the Domus all his life. I would like to suggest that our friends the trads have assumed that this Edward of Westminster was Edward Brampton because as we know they do not do very thorough research.Something that puzzles me, and it may be me mis-reading what has been said. It seems as if it was E4 who sent Brampton after Sir Edward Woodville but surely it would have been Richard because it was after Edward died that Woodville ran off with the treasure. Also another thing that has occurred to me is, if what we are assuming/ speculating about Brampton is correct, wouldn't he be an ideal person to take the Princes out of England.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-18 17:48:24
Nico
wrote:
I agree with you here.
Given both Brampton and Edward's timelines, this is the most convincing way for
them to have met. I will have to check again, but I got the impression that
while Brampton did have a house in Bruges, he moved to there after Bosworth. He
may have had a residence there for some time before, but I got the impression
that London was his primary residence at least until late 1485. Even so, any
involvement with the wool trade would take give him a reason to be involved with
Bruges. However, when dissecting what is actually known about Brampton, my
feeling is that his primary occupation was as a ship's captain - (not off
limit to Jews, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11652-occupations)
- probably importing things (including wool and cloth) via Bruges into London.
He may have also had a sideline trading some of these things, but perhaps that
developed later when Edward gave the grants to import wool. Being a ship's
captain wasn't something you dabbled in as it required great skill and
experience and I have no doubt Edward was impressed with his competence.
Otherwise he would not have given Brampton what must have been a coveted
commission to arrest Edward Woodville.. Therefore, I think we have
correctly identified who Brampton was professionally when he arrived in
London.
If Brampton
was a ship's captain who regularly went to Bruges, that could explain a
discrepancy in his Setubal testimony; naming a person that a ship's captain in
that area would be very likely to know; Noel de Werbeque, the wantier
(maker of ropes for ship's riggings), who was Jean de Werbeque's
brother.
Doug
here:
I should
have used eventually in referring to Brampton having a house in Bruges, sorry!
Whether or not Brampton was already a ship captain when he arrived in London, I
don't think we can safely say, can we? In order to rise to such a position by
1470-71, though, he would have had to have been a very quick learner with an
aptitude for seamanship, or perhaps already been fairly well-trained. However,
if we start with him being a well-trained seaman, hard-working with an engaging
personality and add in, perhaps, the ability to read and write (if only in
Portuguese to start with) and a talent for languages, his advancement wouldn't
be surprising. I think I used the term supercargo in another post and that
position may very well have been the one he held. The definition of supercargo
is: A representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible
for overseeing the cargo and its sale. I don't know whether or not English
vessels involved in trade in the 15th century carried supercargoes, but someone
had to keep track of what was on the ship, whose property it was and over-see
either its later sale or delivery. If that position was also the duty of the
vessel's captain, then that could explain some of Brampton's later activities,
couldn't it? That ransom for Alfonso V, for example. He'd have to have
mingled, not only with people who had goods to ship, but also people who had
cash money to invest in trading ventures and it would have been the latter he
likely tapped to get together the money to pay Alfonso's bill.
Nico continued: How Brampton identified
is more complex. He strikes me as a something of a larger than life character
and in my experience that type of person tends to be ego driven and their sense
of identity isn't dependent on any particular group unless membership of that
group is useful to them in some way. That isn't a criticism of him at all; in
fact I think it is in many ways a very admirable quality. Clearly he was very
action orientated, not a navel gazer who dwelt too much on the past. How he felt
about Judaism and Christianity, I have no idea, but if the Domus provided a good
place to live in a place which was convenient for expanding his activities and
making contacts, then he would make being a convert work for him; if being a
converted Jew brought him trouble, he would probably have kept it quiet. At that
time in a foreign country, with no passports or IDs you could be anyone you
wanted to be, and Brampton strikes me as the sort of person who would make the
most of that. Back in Portugal, he would have been more likely to have been
identified and pigeon holed for whatever his background was, but if the
Christian father's status was considerable more senior (a nobleman) to that of
the mother (a blacksmith's wife), and the father actually cared about him, then
he would be in a position to put pressure on young Brampton was baptized at an
early stage. The mother may not have objected, as baptism doesn't affect one's
status as a Jew, which is acquired by having a Jewish mother. That way, he could
easily move between both worlds and make the best of what they had to
offer.
Doug here:
As an illegitimate Jew in Portugal,
Brampton would have been cut off from the rest of the Jewish community or, at
the very least, placed into a position that wouldn't allow him to much more than
eke out an existence-level living. The occupations open to him in the Jewish
community would have been extremely limited, as would his social life. Since we
know Brampton entered the Domus in London, it seems safe to think his
father, whoever he was, wasn't interested enough in him to have him baptized.
Although...could his having been baptized, but then having been raised in the
Jewish community and faith, been the reason for Brampton deciding to leave
Portugal? If he'd been baptized, then grown up in the Jewish faith, couldn't
that leave him open to charges of heresy? The Inquisition wasn't established in
Spain until 1478 and didn't get to Portugal until 1536. In neither case was the
Inquisition forced onto an unwilling Catholic population, which leads me to
wonder if perhaps growing anti-Semitism mightn't have given Brampton that final
push that led him to
London?
Nico concluded: British social structure is
very intricate, but I suspect that is something that has developed more
recently, probably from the Victorian era and wouldn't be relevant to the 15th
century. Fortunately, foreigners are exempted from most of the negative
judgements because they don't have the nuances that pinpoint the home grown
socially. AFAIK, higher education for senior royalty is a new thing, starting
with the William and Kate generation (I think anyway, I don't follow the present
royals that much). Traditionally, school and university were for intellectuals
from the middle class like Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver King. Certainly
ability mattered hugely; a lack of it could finish even someone with the most
prestigious pedigree, and I have no doubt that a very capable person could
elevate themselves considerably, as Brampton is proof of. However, generally
rewards and appointments would be given in the area of expertise - in Brampton's
case being a ship's captain, expanding his range into the wool trade. I also get
the impression that Edward liked him a great deal personally; he was described
as a very tall man with a gregarious personality, someone rather like Edward who
could have been a natural companion. I may be overestimating the gulf between
royalty and non royalty, but while Edward may have taken him to Picquiny as his
ships captain and friend, it is unlikely that he would be interacting that much
with the other Kings. Even so, if the King of Portugal needed money and Brampton
could get him a loan, then maybe that was his intro. However, Alfonso cultivated
him beyond expectations. Of course, I don't know for sure, but it is still my
instinct that Brampton was related to some kind of prestigious family, whether
that was nobility, a prominent Jewish merchant family or money lenders, I can't
say.
Doug here:
I can personally attest to that bit about foreigners being
exempt from the British/English class structure from the period I was stationed
in Cheltenham! Nowadays it seems that structure is based on certain accents, but
back in Brampton's time, standard English was still developing and even two
native English speakers could have trouble understanding each other if the came
from places far enough apart, say, Lincolnshire and Devon, so I don't think
one's accent would have had the same impact as in later
days.
It does seem that Brampton's rise shows what having a
personal relationship with the king could mean (and why the Chamberlain could
rake in the money if he so wished!). Edward's relationship with Brampton appears
to have been based on his appreciation of Brampton's skills as an
organizer/ship's captain, as well as Brampton's personality. There seems to have
been a period from 1470 to 1475 or so, when Brampton might have served as
Edward's go to guy when ships/shipping were involved. For his efforts in
Edward's behalf, Brampton is rewarded with denization papers and a marriage.
Raising the money to cover Alfonso's bills in 1477 seems to have something
Brampton arranged on his own recognizance, but I don't doubt his known
relationship with Edward IV didn't help the process along! Then we don't really
hear of him until he's sent off after Edward Woodville in 1483, is knighted by
Richard in August 1484 and then several years later pops up in the Warbeck
affair. Altogether, a most frustratingly bare-bones resume!
FWIW, I went hunting for information about that pepper
monopoly Arthurson says Alfonso bestowed on Brampton and discovered something
interesting. The pepper monopoly was supposedly for the malagueta pepper, but
that pepper is from the New World and didn't show up in Europe until Columbus
returned from his first voyage. So, either Brampton's monopoly was for a
different pepper spice or else the monopoly was given to Brampton after
1492. Trouble is, Alfonso V of Portugal died in
1481...
Doug
Who is starting to wonder if he really wants Arthurson's
book!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
I agree with you here.
Given both Brampton and Edward's timelines, this is the most convincing way for
them to have met. I will have to check again, but I got the impression that
while Brampton did have a house in Bruges, he moved to there after Bosworth. He
may have had a residence there for some time before, but I got the impression
that London was his primary residence at least until late 1485. Even so, any
involvement with the wool trade would take give him a reason to be involved with
Bruges. However, when dissecting what is actually known about Brampton, my
feeling is that his primary occupation was as a ship's captain - (not off
limit to Jews, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11652-occupations)
- probably importing things (including wool and cloth) via Bruges into London.
He may have also had a sideline trading some of these things, but perhaps that
developed later when Edward gave the grants to import wool. Being a ship's
captain wasn't something you dabbled in as it required great skill and
experience and I have no doubt Edward was impressed with his competence.
Otherwise he would not have given Brampton what must have been a coveted
commission to arrest Edward Woodville.. Therefore, I think we have
correctly identified who Brampton was professionally when he arrived in
London.
If Brampton
was a ship's captain who regularly went to Bruges, that could explain a
discrepancy in his Setubal testimony; naming a person that a ship's captain in
that area would be very likely to know; Noel de Werbeque, the wantier
(maker of ropes for ship's riggings), who was Jean de Werbeque's
brother.
Doug
here:
I should
have used eventually in referring to Brampton having a house in Bruges, sorry!
Whether or not Brampton was already a ship captain when he arrived in London, I
don't think we can safely say, can we? In order to rise to such a position by
1470-71, though, he would have had to have been a very quick learner with an
aptitude for seamanship, or perhaps already been fairly well-trained. However,
if we start with him being a well-trained seaman, hard-working with an engaging
personality and add in, perhaps, the ability to read and write (if only in
Portuguese to start with) and a talent for languages, his advancement wouldn't
be surprising. I think I used the term supercargo in another post and that
position may very well have been the one he held. The definition of supercargo
is: A representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible
for overseeing the cargo and its sale. I don't know whether or not English
vessels involved in trade in the 15th century carried supercargoes, but someone
had to keep track of what was on the ship, whose property it was and over-see
either its later sale or delivery. If that position was also the duty of the
vessel's captain, then that could explain some of Brampton's later activities,
couldn't it? That ransom for Alfonso V, for example. He'd have to have
mingled, not only with people who had goods to ship, but also people who had
cash money to invest in trading ventures and it would have been the latter he
likely tapped to get together the money to pay Alfonso's bill.
Nico continued: How Brampton identified
is more complex. He strikes me as a something of a larger than life character
and in my experience that type of person tends to be ego driven and their sense
of identity isn't dependent on any particular group unless membership of that
group is useful to them in some way. That isn't a criticism of him at all; in
fact I think it is in many ways a very admirable quality. Clearly he was very
action orientated, not a navel gazer who dwelt too much on the past. How he felt
about Judaism and Christianity, I have no idea, but if the Domus provided a good
place to live in a place which was convenient for expanding his activities and
making contacts, then he would make being a convert work for him; if being a
converted Jew brought him trouble, he would probably have kept it quiet. At that
time in a foreign country, with no passports or IDs you could be anyone you
wanted to be, and Brampton strikes me as the sort of person who would make the
most of that. Back in Portugal, he would have been more likely to have been
identified and pigeon holed for whatever his background was, but if the
Christian father's status was considerable more senior (a nobleman) to that of
the mother (a blacksmith's wife), and the father actually cared about him, then
he would be in a position to put pressure on young Brampton was baptized at an
early stage. The mother may not have objected, as baptism doesn't affect one's
status as a Jew, which is acquired by having a Jewish mother. That way, he could
easily move between both worlds and make the best of what they had to
offer.
Doug here:
As an illegitimate Jew in Portugal,
Brampton would have been cut off from the rest of the Jewish community or, at
the very least, placed into a position that wouldn't allow him to much more than
eke out an existence-level living. The occupations open to him in the Jewish
community would have been extremely limited, as would his social life. Since we
know Brampton entered the Domus in London, it seems safe to think his
father, whoever he was, wasn't interested enough in him to have him baptized.
Although...could his having been baptized, but then having been raised in the
Jewish community and faith, been the reason for Brampton deciding to leave
Portugal? If he'd been baptized, then grown up in the Jewish faith, couldn't
that leave him open to charges of heresy? The Inquisition wasn't established in
Spain until 1478 and didn't get to Portugal until 1536. In neither case was the
Inquisition forced onto an unwilling Catholic population, which leads me to
wonder if perhaps growing anti-Semitism mightn't have given Brampton that final
push that led him to
London?
Nico concluded: British social structure is
very intricate, but I suspect that is something that has developed more
recently, probably from the Victorian era and wouldn't be relevant to the 15th
century. Fortunately, foreigners are exempted from most of the negative
judgements because they don't have the nuances that pinpoint the home grown
socially. AFAIK, higher education for senior royalty is a new thing, starting
with the William and Kate generation (I think anyway, I don't follow the present
royals that much). Traditionally, school and university were for intellectuals
from the middle class like Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver King. Certainly
ability mattered hugely; a lack of it could finish even someone with the most
prestigious pedigree, and I have no doubt that a very capable person could
elevate themselves considerably, as Brampton is proof of. However, generally
rewards and appointments would be given in the area of expertise - in Brampton's
case being a ship's captain, expanding his range into the wool trade. I also get
the impression that Edward liked him a great deal personally; he was described
as a very tall man with a gregarious personality, someone rather like Edward who
could have been a natural companion. I may be overestimating the gulf between
royalty and non royalty, but while Edward may have taken him to Picquiny as his
ships captain and friend, it is unlikely that he would be interacting that much
with the other Kings. Even so, if the King of Portugal needed money and Brampton
could get him a loan, then maybe that was his intro. However, Alfonso cultivated
him beyond expectations. Of course, I don't know for sure, but it is still my
instinct that Brampton was related to some kind of prestigious family, whether
that was nobility, a prominent Jewish merchant family or money lenders, I can't
say.
Doug here:
I can personally attest to that bit about foreigners being
exempt from the British/English class structure from the period I was stationed
in Cheltenham! Nowadays it seems that structure is based on certain accents, but
back in Brampton's time, standard English was still developing and even two
native English speakers could have trouble understanding each other if the came
from places far enough apart, say, Lincolnshire and Devon, so I don't think
one's accent would have had the same impact as in later
days.
It does seem that Brampton's rise shows what having a
personal relationship with the king could mean (and why the Chamberlain could
rake in the money if he so wished!). Edward's relationship with Brampton appears
to have been based on his appreciation of Brampton's skills as an
organizer/ship's captain, as well as Brampton's personality. There seems to have
been a period from 1470 to 1475 or so, when Brampton might have served as
Edward's go to guy when ships/shipping were involved. For his efforts in
Edward's behalf, Brampton is rewarded with denization papers and a marriage.
Raising the money to cover Alfonso's bills in 1477 seems to have something
Brampton arranged on his own recognizance, but I don't doubt his known
relationship with Edward IV didn't help the process along! Then we don't really
hear of him until he's sent off after Edward Woodville in 1483, is knighted by
Richard in August 1484 and then several years later pops up in the Warbeck
affair. Altogether, a most frustratingly bare-bones resume!
FWIW, I went hunting for information about that pepper
monopoly Arthurson says Alfonso bestowed on Brampton and discovered something
interesting. The pepper monopoly was supposedly for the malagueta pepper, but
that pepper is from the New World and didn't show up in Europe until Columbus
returned from his first voyage. So, either Brampton's monopoly was for a
different pepper spice or else the monopoly was given to Brampton after
1492. Trouble is, Alfonso V of Portugal died in
1481...
Doug
Who is starting to wonder if he really wants Arthurson's
book!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-21 19:59:03
Hi Hilary and Doug (and all),Hilary: I think it's because most historians of this period,
Arthurson for one, go straight to Roth for information. Am I right in
thinking that Roth was writing for a Jewish audience, so it's perhaps
not surprising that the Domus creeps in? I've tried to see if there are
any Portuguese sources online but haven't been successful so far. He
sort of vanishes off the map by about 1510, as does his family.Also,
from where do we get the original information that his second wife was
Margaret Beaumont? Is it just from brother Thomas's will? If you think
about it at that time Portugal was a much more exciting place to be for a
merchant, with all its African exploration. I reckon the triangular
trade thing is very feasible.I
don't think you had to be a nobleman to be a diplomat - think of all the
bishops, but it is a sort of reward of trust usually given for a
purpose, which also brings us back to Vaughan again. Another one mixing
in these circlesI
believe that Roth wrote the original paper on Brampton for the Jewish
Historical Society. I would also like to find some Portuguese sources,
but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that Brampton may
have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were any
reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a
clue to his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his
eldest son Henry, who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in
Beaumont's 1507 will) must have died around the same time, as his heir
was one of the younger brothers. Most of Brampton's children married
into high status Portuguese families and one of the daughters married
into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de Souzas as
the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian who
later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no
further association with England.Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or there isn't at least an element of truth to it.https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928I
would be interested to find out if either Sir Edward or Sir Henry
Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything about how to
find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give it a
try.The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'As
with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman for diplomatic missions,
but people who rose to high places at that time generally had some
connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case it does
appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type
of family.Doug: The definition of supercargo
is: A representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible
for overseeing the cargo and its sale. I don't know whether or not English
vessels involved in trade in the 15th century carried supercargoes, but someone
had to keep track of what was on the ship, whose property it was and over-see
either its later sale or delivery...He'd have to have
mingled, not only with people who had goods to ship, but also people who had
cash money to invest in trading ventures and it would have been the latter he
likely tapped to get together the money to pay Alfonso's bill. Edward's relationship with Brampton appears
to have been based on his appreciation of Brampton's skills as an
organizer/ship's captain, as well as Brampton's personality.. There seems to have
been a period from 1470 to 1475 or so, when Brampton might have served as
Edward's go to guy when ships/shipping were involved. That could have been Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have done in assisting Alfonso.Overall, I think ship's captain is the most likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as Picquiny.Doug: As an illegitimate Jew in Portugal,
Brampton would have been cut off from the rest of the Jewish community or, at
the very least...
Although...could his having been baptized, but then having been raised in the
Jewish community and faith, been the reason for Brampton deciding to leave
Portugal? If he'd been baptized, then grown up in the Jewish faith, couldn't
that leave him open to charges of heresy? Converted Jews were vulnerable to accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition. Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian although they may have ostracized him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised by his father in that faith. My overall impression is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and social relationships were difficult.Arthurson says Alfonso bestowed on Brampton and discovered something
interesting. The pepper monopoly was supposedly for the malagueta pepper, but
that pepper is from the New World and didn't show up in Europe until Columbus
returned from his first voyage.Well spotted! It was probably something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying it.As for social class and accent, I think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West Midlands.I hope that everyone is having a good Easter,Nico
On Thursday, 18 April 2019, 17:49:09 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I agree with you here.
Given both Brampton and Edward's timelines, this is the most convincing way for
them to have met. I will have to check again, but I got the impression that
while Brampton did have a house in Bruges, he moved to there after Bosworth.. He
may have had a residence there for some time before, but I got the impression
that London was his primary residence at least until late 1485. Even so, any
involvement with the wool trade would take give him a reason to be involved with
Bruges. However, when dissecting what is actually known about Brampton, my
feeling is that his primary occupation was as a ship's captain - (not off
limit to Jews, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11652-occupations)
- probably importing things (including wool and cloth) via Bruges into London.
He may have also had a sideline trading some of these things, but perhaps that
developed later when Edward gave the grants to import wool. Being a ship's
captain wasn't something you dabbled in as it required great skill and
experience and I have no doubt Edward was impressed with his competence.
Otherwise he would not have given Brampton what must have been a coveted
commission to arrest Edward Woodville.. Therefore, I think we have
correctly identified who Brampton was professionally when he arrived in
London.
If Brampton
was a ship's captain who regularly went to Bruges, that could explain a
discrepancy in his Setubal testimony; naming a person that a ship's captain in
that area would be very likely to know; Noel de Werbeque, the wantier
(maker of ropes for ship's riggings), who was Jean de Werbeque's
brother.
Doug
here:
I should
have used eventually in referring to Brampton having a house in Bruges, sorry!
Whether or not Brampton was already a ship captain when he arrived in London, I
don't think we can safely say, can we? In order to rise to such a position by
1470-71, though, he would have had to have been a very quick learner with an
aptitude for seamanship, or perhaps already been fairly well-trained. However,
if we start with him being a well-trained seaman, hard-working with an engaging
personality and add in, perhaps, the ability to read and write (if only in
Portuguese to start with) and a talent for languages, his advancement wouldn't
be surprising. I think I used the term supercargo in another post and that
position may very well have been the one he held. The definition of supercargo
is: A representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible
for overseeing the cargo and its sale. I don't know whether or not English
vessels involved in trade in the 15th century carried supercargoes, but someone
had to keep track of what was on the ship, whose property it was and over-see
either its later sale or delivery. If that position was also the duty of the
vessel's captain, then that could explain some of Brampton's later activities,
couldn't it? That ransom for Alfonso V, for example. He'd have to have
mingled, not only with people who had goods to ship, but also people who had
cash money to invest in trading ventures and it would have been the latter he
likely tapped to get together the money to pay Alfonso's bill.
Nico continued: How Brampton identified
is more complex. He strikes me as a something of a larger than life character
and in my experience that type of person tends to be ego driven and their sense
of identity isn't dependent on any particular group unless membership of that
group is useful to them in some way. That isn't a criticism of him at all; in
fact I think it is in many ways a very admirable quality. Clearly he was very
action orientated, not a navel gazer who dwelt too much on the past. How he felt
about Judaism and Christianity, I have no idea, but if the Domus provided a good
place to live in a place which was convenient for expanding his activities and
making contacts, then he would make being a convert work for him; if being a
converted Jew brought him trouble, he would probably have kept it quiet. At that
time in a foreign country, with no passports or IDs you could be anyone you
wanted to be, and Brampton strikes me as the sort of person who would make the
most of that. Back in Portugal, he would have been more likely to have been
identified and pigeon holed for whatever his background was, but if the
Christian father's status was considerable more senior (a nobleman) to that of
the mother (a blacksmith's wife), and the father actually cared about him, then
he would be in a position to put pressure on young Brampton was baptized at an
early stage. The mother may not have objected, as baptism doesn't affect one's
status as a Jew, which is acquired by having a Jewish mother. That way, he could
easily move between both worlds and make the best of what they had to
offer.
Doug here:
As an illegitimate Jew in Portugal,
Brampton would have been cut off from the rest of the Jewish community or, at
the very least, placed into a position that wouldn't allow him to much more than
eke out an existence-level living. The occupations open to him in the Jewish
community would have been extremely limited, as would his social life. Since we
know Brampton entered the Domus in London, it seems safe to think his
father, whoever he was, wasn't interested enough in him to have him baptized.
Although...could his having been baptized, but then having been raised in the
Jewish community and faith, been the reason for Brampton deciding to leave
Portugal? If he'd been baptized, then grown up in the Jewish faith, couldn't
that leave him open to charges of heresy? The Inquisition wasn't established in
Spain until 1478 and didn't get to Portugal until 1536. In neither case was the
Inquisition forced onto an unwilling Catholic population, which leads me to
wonder if perhaps growing anti-Semitism mightn't have given Brampton that final
push that led him to
London?
Nico concluded: British social structure is
very intricate, but I suspect that is something that has developed more
recently, probably from the Victorian era and wouldn't be relevant to the 15th
century. Fortunately, foreigners are exempted from most of the negative
judgements because they don't have the nuances that pinpoint the home grown
socially. AFAIK, higher education for senior royalty is a new thing, starting
with the William and Kate generation (I think anyway, I don't follow the present
royals that much). Traditionally, school and university were for intellectuals
from the middle class like Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver King. Certainly
ability mattered hugely; a lack of it could finish even someone with the most
prestigious pedigree, and I have no doubt that a very capable person could
elevate themselves considerably, as Brampton is proof of. However, generally
rewards and appointments would be given in the area of expertise - in Brampton's
case being a ship's captain, expanding his range into the wool trade. I also get
the impression that Edward liked him a great deal personally; he was described
as a very tall man with a gregarious personality, someone rather like Edward who
could have been a natural companion. I may be overestimating the gulf between
royalty and non royalty, but while Edward may have taken him to Picquiny as his
ships captain and friend, it is unlikely that he would be interacting that much
with the other Kings. Even so, if the King of Portugal needed money and Brampton
could get him a loan, then maybe that was his intro. However, Alfonso cultivated
him beyond expectations. Of course, I don't know for sure, but it is still my
instinct that Brampton was related to some kind of prestigious family, whether
that was nobility, a prominent Jewish merchant family or money lenders, I can't
say.
Doug here:
I can personally attest to that bit about foreigners being
exempt from the British/English class structure from the period I was stationed
in Cheltenham! Nowadays it seems that structure is based on certain accents, but
back in Brampton's time, standard English was still developing and even two
native English speakers could have trouble understanding each other if the came
from places far enough apart, say, Lincolnshire and Devon, so I don't think
one's accent would have had the same impact as in later
days.
It does seem that Brampton's rise shows what having a
personal relationship with the king could mean (and why the Chamberlain could
rake in the money if he so wished!). Edward's relationship with Brampton appears
to have been based on his appreciation of Brampton's skills as an
organizer/ship's captain, as well as Brampton's personality.. There seems to have
been a period from 1470 to 1475 or so, when Brampton might have served as
Edward's go to guy when ships/shipping were involved. For his efforts in
Edward's behalf, Brampton is rewarded with denization papers and a marriage.
Raising the money to cover Alfonso's bills in 1477 seems to have something
Brampton arranged on his own recognizance, but I don't doubt his known
relationship with Edward IV didn't help the process along! Then we don't really
hear of him until he's sent off after Edward Woodville in 1483, is knighted by
Richard in August 1484 and then several years later pops up in the Warbeck
affair. Altogether, a most frustratingly bare-bones resume!
FWIW, I went hunting for information about that pepper
monopoly Arthurson says Alfonso bestowed on Brampton and discovered something
interesting. The pepper monopoly was supposedly for the malagueta pepper, but
that pepper is from the New World and didn't show up in Europe until Columbus
returned from his first voyage. So, either Brampton's monopoly was for a
different pepper spice or else the monopoly was given to Brampton after
1492. Trouble is, Alfonso V of Portugal died in
1481...
Doug
Who is starting to wonder if he really wants Arthurson's
book!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Arthurson for one, go straight to Roth for information. Am I right in
thinking that Roth was writing for a Jewish audience, so it's perhaps
not surprising that the Domus creeps in? I've tried to see if there are
any Portuguese sources online but haven't been successful so far. He
sort of vanishes off the map by about 1510, as does his family.Also,
from where do we get the original information that his second wife was
Margaret Beaumont? Is it just from brother Thomas's will? If you think
about it at that time Portugal was a much more exciting place to be for a
merchant, with all its African exploration. I reckon the triangular
trade thing is very feasible.I
don't think you had to be a nobleman to be a diplomat - think of all the
bishops, but it is a sort of reward of trust usually given for a
purpose, which also brings us back to Vaughan again. Another one mixing
in these circlesI
believe that Roth wrote the original paper on Brampton for the Jewish
Historical Society. I would also like to find some Portuguese sources,
but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that Brampton may
have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were any
reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a
clue to his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his
eldest son Henry, who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in
Beaumont's 1507 will) must have died around the same time, as his heir
was one of the younger brothers. Most of Brampton's children married
into high status Portuguese families and one of the daughters married
into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de Souzas as
the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian who
later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no
further association with England.Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or there isn't at least an element of truth to it.https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928I
would be interested to find out if either Sir Edward or Sir Henry
Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything about how to
find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give it a
try.The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'As
with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman for diplomatic missions,
but people who rose to high places at that time generally had some
connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case it does
appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type
of family.Doug: The definition of supercargo
is: A representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible
for overseeing the cargo and its sale. I don't know whether or not English
vessels involved in trade in the 15th century carried supercargoes, but someone
had to keep track of what was on the ship, whose property it was and over-see
either its later sale or delivery...He'd have to have
mingled, not only with people who had goods to ship, but also people who had
cash money to invest in trading ventures and it would have been the latter he
likely tapped to get together the money to pay Alfonso's bill. Edward's relationship with Brampton appears
to have been based on his appreciation of Brampton's skills as an
organizer/ship's captain, as well as Brampton's personality.. There seems to have
been a period from 1470 to 1475 or so, when Brampton might have served as
Edward's go to guy when ships/shipping were involved. That could have been Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have done in assisting Alfonso.Overall, I think ship's captain is the most likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as Picquiny.Doug: As an illegitimate Jew in Portugal,
Brampton would have been cut off from the rest of the Jewish community or, at
the very least...
Although...could his having been baptized, but then having been raised in the
Jewish community and faith, been the reason for Brampton deciding to leave
Portugal? If he'd been baptized, then grown up in the Jewish faith, couldn't
that leave him open to charges of heresy? Converted Jews were vulnerable to accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition. Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian although they may have ostracized him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised by his father in that faith. My overall impression is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and social relationships were difficult.Arthurson says Alfonso bestowed on Brampton and discovered something
interesting. The pepper monopoly was supposedly for the malagueta pepper, but
that pepper is from the New World and didn't show up in Europe until Columbus
returned from his first voyage.Well spotted! It was probably something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying it.As for social class and accent, I think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West Midlands.I hope that everyone is having a good Easter,Nico
On Thursday, 18 April 2019, 17:49:09 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I agree with you here.
Given both Brampton and Edward's timelines, this is the most convincing way for
them to have met. I will have to check again, but I got the impression that
while Brampton did have a house in Bruges, he moved to there after Bosworth.. He
may have had a residence there for some time before, but I got the impression
that London was his primary residence at least until late 1485. Even so, any
involvement with the wool trade would take give him a reason to be involved with
Bruges. However, when dissecting what is actually known about Brampton, my
feeling is that his primary occupation was as a ship's captain - (not off
limit to Jews, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11652-occupations)
- probably importing things (including wool and cloth) via Bruges into London.
He may have also had a sideline trading some of these things, but perhaps that
developed later when Edward gave the grants to import wool. Being a ship's
captain wasn't something you dabbled in as it required great skill and
experience and I have no doubt Edward was impressed with his competence.
Otherwise he would not have given Brampton what must have been a coveted
commission to arrest Edward Woodville.. Therefore, I think we have
correctly identified who Brampton was professionally when he arrived in
London.
If Brampton
was a ship's captain who regularly went to Bruges, that could explain a
discrepancy in his Setubal testimony; naming a person that a ship's captain in
that area would be very likely to know; Noel de Werbeque, the wantier
(maker of ropes for ship's riggings), who was Jean de Werbeque's
brother.
Doug
here:
I should
have used eventually in referring to Brampton having a house in Bruges, sorry!
Whether or not Brampton was already a ship captain when he arrived in London, I
don't think we can safely say, can we? In order to rise to such a position by
1470-71, though, he would have had to have been a very quick learner with an
aptitude for seamanship, or perhaps already been fairly well-trained. However,
if we start with him being a well-trained seaman, hard-working with an engaging
personality and add in, perhaps, the ability to read and write (if only in
Portuguese to start with) and a talent for languages, his advancement wouldn't
be surprising. I think I used the term supercargo in another post and that
position may very well have been the one he held. The definition of supercargo
is: A representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible
for overseeing the cargo and its sale. I don't know whether or not English
vessels involved in trade in the 15th century carried supercargoes, but someone
had to keep track of what was on the ship, whose property it was and over-see
either its later sale or delivery. If that position was also the duty of the
vessel's captain, then that could explain some of Brampton's later activities,
couldn't it? That ransom for Alfonso V, for example. He'd have to have
mingled, not only with people who had goods to ship, but also people who had
cash money to invest in trading ventures and it would have been the latter he
likely tapped to get together the money to pay Alfonso's bill.
Nico continued: How Brampton identified
is more complex. He strikes me as a something of a larger than life character
and in my experience that type of person tends to be ego driven and their sense
of identity isn't dependent on any particular group unless membership of that
group is useful to them in some way. That isn't a criticism of him at all; in
fact I think it is in many ways a very admirable quality. Clearly he was very
action orientated, not a navel gazer who dwelt too much on the past. How he felt
about Judaism and Christianity, I have no idea, but if the Domus provided a good
place to live in a place which was convenient for expanding his activities and
making contacts, then he would make being a convert work for him; if being a
converted Jew brought him trouble, he would probably have kept it quiet. At that
time in a foreign country, with no passports or IDs you could be anyone you
wanted to be, and Brampton strikes me as the sort of person who would make the
most of that. Back in Portugal, he would have been more likely to have been
identified and pigeon holed for whatever his background was, but if the
Christian father's status was considerable more senior (a nobleman) to that of
the mother (a blacksmith's wife), and the father actually cared about him, then
he would be in a position to put pressure on young Brampton was baptized at an
early stage. The mother may not have objected, as baptism doesn't affect one's
status as a Jew, which is acquired by having a Jewish mother. That way, he could
easily move between both worlds and make the best of what they had to
offer.
Doug here:
As an illegitimate Jew in Portugal,
Brampton would have been cut off from the rest of the Jewish community or, at
the very least, placed into a position that wouldn't allow him to much more than
eke out an existence-level living. The occupations open to him in the Jewish
community would have been extremely limited, as would his social life. Since we
know Brampton entered the Domus in London, it seems safe to think his
father, whoever he was, wasn't interested enough in him to have him baptized.
Although...could his having been baptized, but then having been raised in the
Jewish community and faith, been the reason for Brampton deciding to leave
Portugal? If he'd been baptized, then grown up in the Jewish faith, couldn't
that leave him open to charges of heresy? The Inquisition wasn't established in
Spain until 1478 and didn't get to Portugal until 1536. In neither case was the
Inquisition forced onto an unwilling Catholic population, which leads me to
wonder if perhaps growing anti-Semitism mightn't have given Brampton that final
push that led him to
London?
Nico concluded: British social structure is
very intricate, but I suspect that is something that has developed more
recently, probably from the Victorian era and wouldn't be relevant to the 15th
century. Fortunately, foreigners are exempted from most of the negative
judgements because they don't have the nuances that pinpoint the home grown
socially. AFAIK, higher education for senior royalty is a new thing, starting
with the William and Kate generation (I think anyway, I don't follow the present
royals that much). Traditionally, school and university were for intellectuals
from the middle class like Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell and Oliver King. Certainly
ability mattered hugely; a lack of it could finish even someone with the most
prestigious pedigree, and I have no doubt that a very capable person could
elevate themselves considerably, as Brampton is proof of. However, generally
rewards and appointments would be given in the area of expertise - in Brampton's
case being a ship's captain, expanding his range into the wool trade. I also get
the impression that Edward liked him a great deal personally; he was described
as a very tall man with a gregarious personality, someone rather like Edward who
could have been a natural companion. I may be overestimating the gulf between
royalty and non royalty, but while Edward may have taken him to Picquiny as his
ships captain and friend, it is unlikely that he would be interacting that much
with the other Kings. Even so, if the King of Portugal needed money and Brampton
could get him a loan, then maybe that was his intro. However, Alfonso cultivated
him beyond expectations. Of course, I don't know for sure, but it is still my
instinct that Brampton was related to some kind of prestigious family, whether
that was nobility, a prominent Jewish merchant family or money lenders, I can't
say.
Doug here:
I can personally attest to that bit about foreigners being
exempt from the British/English class structure from the period I was stationed
in Cheltenham! Nowadays it seems that structure is based on certain accents, but
back in Brampton's time, standard English was still developing and even two
native English speakers could have trouble understanding each other if the came
from places far enough apart, say, Lincolnshire and Devon, so I don't think
one's accent would have had the same impact as in later
days.
It does seem that Brampton's rise shows what having a
personal relationship with the king could mean (and why the Chamberlain could
rake in the money if he so wished!). Edward's relationship with Brampton appears
to have been based on his appreciation of Brampton's skills as an
organizer/ship's captain, as well as Brampton's personality.. There seems to have
been a period from 1470 to 1475 or so, when Brampton might have served as
Edward's go to guy when ships/shipping were involved. For his efforts in
Edward's behalf, Brampton is rewarded with denization papers and a marriage.
Raising the money to cover Alfonso's bills in 1477 seems to have something
Brampton arranged on his own recognizance, but I don't doubt his known
relationship with Edward IV didn't help the process along! Then we don't really
hear of him until he's sent off after Edward Woodville in 1483, is knighted by
Richard in August 1484 and then several years later pops up in the Warbeck
affair. Altogether, a most frustratingly bare-bones resume!
FWIW, I went hunting for information about that pepper
monopoly Arthurson says Alfonso bestowed on Brampton and discovered something
interesting. The pepper monopoly was supposedly for the malagueta pepper, but
that pepper is from the New World and didn't show up in Europe until Columbus
returned from his first voyage. So, either Brampton's monopoly was for a
different pepper spice or else the monopoly was given to Brampton after
1492. Trouble is, Alfonso V of Portugal died in
1481...
Doug
Who is starting to wonder if he really wants Arthurson's
book!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-22 01:01:07
Hilary,
According
to this Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Roth
Roth's
entire life was spent teaching and writing about various aspects of Jewish
history, apparently concentrating on Anglo-Jewish history.
There's
this link:
https://www.algarvehistoryassociation.com/en/portugal/42-sir-edward-brampton-and-perkin-warbeck
which
I found very interesting, but no footnotes or source references. There's a
reference to further commands after 1474, but that may be a reference to
Picquigny. I presume, because of the little icon in the upper left-hand corner
(the Portuguese and UK flags), the Algarve History Association is a mix of
British expats and Portuguese; I can't really say, though.
OTOH,
if the article is accurate, Brampton seems to have gone from operating mainly
between England and the Lowlands after his first arrival in London, to more of a
triangular trade after his assistance in paying Alfonso's French bills;
wool/cloth to Flanders, northern European products to Iberia, and Iberian
products back to London/Flanders. The article says the records show that
Brampton had the right to trade wool to the value of 700 pounds duty free, but
doesn't say whether the duty that was being forgiven was in Spain/Portugal or
England. FWIW, I believe the duty forgiven was for wool Brampton was exporting
from Spain, most likely wool from merino sheep and available only in Castile,
but I haven't any confirming evidence other than it was given in English
currency.
I
did find this link with information on just how much a woolsack weighed,
although I don't know if it will help:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/004049672793692291?journalCode=ytex20
Apparently
a regular woolsack weighed 26 stone, with 14 pounds to the stone, 364 pounds
total. I presume the duty would have been on the value of the wool, but I
haven't a clue what the cost of raw wool was in the 1480s! Still, and even
considering how expensive merino was, if Brampton was importing merino
wool duty free during the 1480/90s, it likely made a nice profit for
him.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
all, I think it's because most historians of this period, Arthurson for one, go
straight to Roth for information. Am I right in thinking that Roth was writing
for a Jewish audience, so it's perhaps not surprising that the Domus creeps in?
I've tried to see if there are any Portuguese sources online but haven't been
successful so far. He sort of vanishes off the map by about 1510, as does his
family.
Also, from where do we get the original information that his second wife
was Margaret Beaumont? Is it just from brother Thomas's will? If you think about
it at that time Portugal was a much more exciting place to be for a merchant,
with all its African exploration. I reckon the triangular trade thing is very
feasible.
I don't think you had to be a nobleman to be a diplomat - think of all the
bishops, but it is a sort of reward of trust usually given for a purpose, which
also brings us back to Vaughan again. Another one mixi ng in these
circles.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
According
to this Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Roth
Roth's
entire life was spent teaching and writing about various aspects of Jewish
history, apparently concentrating on Anglo-Jewish history.
There's
this link:
https://www.algarvehistoryassociation.com/en/portugal/42-sir-edward-brampton-and-perkin-warbeck
which
I found very interesting, but no footnotes or source references. There's a
reference to further commands after 1474, but that may be a reference to
Picquigny. I presume, because of the little icon in the upper left-hand corner
(the Portuguese and UK flags), the Algarve History Association is a mix of
British expats and Portuguese; I can't really say, though.
OTOH,
if the article is accurate, Brampton seems to have gone from operating mainly
between England and the Lowlands after his first arrival in London, to more of a
triangular trade after his assistance in paying Alfonso's French bills;
wool/cloth to Flanders, northern European products to Iberia, and Iberian
products back to London/Flanders. The article says the records show that
Brampton had the right to trade wool to the value of 700 pounds duty free, but
doesn't say whether the duty that was being forgiven was in Spain/Portugal or
England. FWIW, I believe the duty forgiven was for wool Brampton was exporting
from Spain, most likely wool from merino sheep and available only in Castile,
but I haven't any confirming evidence other than it was given in English
currency.
I
did find this link with information on just how much a woolsack weighed,
although I don't know if it will help:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/004049672793692291?journalCode=ytex20
Apparently
a regular woolsack weighed 26 stone, with 14 pounds to the stone, 364 pounds
total. I presume the duty would have been on the value of the wool, but I
haven't a clue what the cost of raw wool was in the 1480s! Still, and even
considering how expensive merino was, if Brampton was importing merino
wool duty free during the 1480/90s, it likely made a nice profit for
him.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
all, I think it's because most historians of this period, Arthurson for one, go
straight to Roth for information. Am I right in thinking that Roth was writing
for a Jewish audience, so it's perhaps not surprising that the Domus creeps in?
I've tried to see if there are any Portuguese sources online but haven't been
successful so far. He sort of vanishes off the map by about 1510, as does his
family.
Also, from where do we get the original information that his second wife
was Margaret Beaumont? Is it just from brother Thomas's will? If you think about
it at that time Portugal was a much more exciting place to be for a merchant,
with all its African exploration. I reckon the triangular trade thing is very
feasible.
I don't think you had to be a nobleman to be a diplomat - think of all the
bishops, but it is a sort of reward of trust usually given for a purpose, which
also brings us back to Vaughan again. Another one mixi ng in these
circles.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-24 16:28:38
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-25 11:08:01
Where to start ....?First of all thanks Nico for the info. I think those accounts that suggest Brampton fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury are almost certainly not true. He was a merchant seaman and, as such there's everything to indicate that he always put himself first, not any particular cause, unless it was one where he made the most money. For example why wasn't he at Bosworth (wasn't he on some Portuguese mission but he could have got back) and where was he in the autumn of 1483; he knew when to make himself scarce, which he also did until 1487 and then he crept back in with HT? As Doug says there are considerable gaps when we don't hear of him at all, he's not on any Commissions, which are the first thing you're selected for when in the royal service. The only exception to the soldier/sailor careerist is Warwick, who was probably more talented on sea than on land and had done good service in this capacity to ROY. That's probably another reason why Edward was jealous of him. Warwick is I reckon one of the most talented and fascinating people of the period - that sealed his death warrant.I don't know whether you can get access to the Calendars of State Papers of Spain under the reign of HT on BHOL without a paywall but the preamble is very interesting because it discusses, amongst other things, the Perkin Warbeck affair. It's almost a precis of Arthurson, but from a Spanish viewpoint. The overriding message is Ferdinand and Isabella's dislike of HT, even after marrying their daughter to his son. In fact every European monarch of import disliked HT for his avarice and his meddling. So, even though they were rivals, and sometimes even at war, they liked nothing better than to put a spoke in HT's plans - they played him off one against another. Ferdinand and Isabella, on the other hand, had liked and trusted Richard.Three interesting things come out of the preamble re Warbeck. Firstly, of all the monarchs he met, and he met a fair few, not one doubted his authenticity and that included F & I. Secondly, F & I offered to send their ambassador, De Sosa, to help HT identify him. Is this the same as your De Sousa family Nico? And thirdly, when the Spanish ambassador was allowed to see PW just before his execution he had changed so much he didn't recognise him - that is interesting! H
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:44 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-25 15:07:06
Hilary,
Perhaps
it would be better to say that while Brampton served Edward and Richard, he
wasn't in their service? Those who served on the better-known commissions as
judges, etc. had as their home of residence someplace in the country where their
family was established. That didn't apply to Brampton, at least not until he'd
inherited property from his wife. Brampton was a merchant trader in wool/wool
cloth who also may have been a sea captain. I really don't think Edward or
Richard would have expected Brampton to sit on the Quarterly Assizes or any
other of the commissions gentry and nobles were employed on. OTOH, when someone
who knew how to organize needed shipping or run down sea-going pirates/rebels
was needed, Edward and Richard turned to the expert Brampton. There's also the
difference between someone who ran his business himself, a business that
required traveling from port to port buying and selling goods, and someone who,
while their income may have been based on profits from farming, weren't actually
involved in the plowing, sowing and reaping of the crops that produced that
income. The latter could be expected to have time available, as well as being in
a physical location that allowed him to sit on those geographically-based
commissions.
I
don't know how much reliance should be placed on how various royals
felt about Perkin's authenticity. They might only be referring to him
having a respectful attitude accompanied by the good manners expected of
royalty, mightn't they? Manners might be fairly easy to learn, but all the
attributes included in the word deportment, would be a bit harder. For
example, one should always be polite to one's social inferiors (often considered
simply one's inferiors), but how one was polite would be the difference
- I think? Even so, at the very least it shows how little Henry was regarded by
his peers.
If
I remember correctly, wasn't Perkin tortured in order to extract a confession?
Might that explain his appearance (says someone who's never been either tortured
or asked to identify someone who had been)?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Where
to start ....?
First of all thanks Nico for the info. I think those accounts that suggest
Brampton fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury are almost certainly not true. He was a
merchant seaman and, as such there's everything to indicate that he always put
himself first, not any particular cause, unless it was one where he made the
most money. For example why wasn't he at Bosworth (wasn't he on some Portuguese
mission but he could have got back) and where was he in the autumn of 1483; he
knew when to make himself scarce, which he also did until 1487 and then he crept
back in with HT? As Doug says there are considerable gaps when we don't hear of
him at all, he's not on any Commissions, which are the first thing you're
selected for when in the royal service. The only exception to the soldier/sailor
careerist is Warwick, who was probably more talented on sea than on land and had
done good service in this capacity to ROY. That's probably another reason why
Edward was jealous of him. Warwick is I reckon one of the most talented and
fascinating people of the period - that sealed his death warrant.
I don't know whether you can get access to the Calendars of State Papers of
Spain under the reign of HT on BHOL without a paywall but the preamble is very
interesting because it discusses, amongst other things, the Perkin Warbeck
affair. It's almost a precis of Arthurson, but from a Spanish viewpoint. The
overriding message is Ferdinand and Isabella's dislike of HT, even after
marrying their daughter to his son. In fact every European monarch of import
disliked HT for his avarice and his meddling. So, even though they were rivals,
and sometimes even at war, they liked nothing better than to put a spoke in HT's
plans - they played him off one against another. Ferdinand and Isabella, on the
other hand, had liked and trusted Richard.
Three interesting things come out of the preamble re Warbeck. Firstly, of
all the monarchs he met, and he met a fair few, not one doubted his authenticity
and that included F & I. Secondly, F & I offered to send their
ambassador, De Sosa, to help HT identify him. Is this the same as your De Sousa
family Nico? And thirdly, when the Spanish ambassador was allowed to see PW just
before his execution he had changed so much he didn't recognise him - that is
interesting!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Perhaps
it would be better to say that while Brampton served Edward and Richard, he
wasn't in their service? Those who served on the better-known commissions as
judges, etc. had as their home of residence someplace in the country where their
family was established. That didn't apply to Brampton, at least not until he'd
inherited property from his wife. Brampton was a merchant trader in wool/wool
cloth who also may have been a sea captain. I really don't think Edward or
Richard would have expected Brampton to sit on the Quarterly Assizes or any
other of the commissions gentry and nobles were employed on. OTOH, when someone
who knew how to organize needed shipping or run down sea-going pirates/rebels
was needed, Edward and Richard turned to the expert Brampton. There's also the
difference between someone who ran his business himself, a business that
required traveling from port to port buying and selling goods, and someone who,
while their income may have been based on profits from farming, weren't actually
involved in the plowing, sowing and reaping of the crops that produced that
income. The latter could be expected to have time available, as well as being in
a physical location that allowed him to sit on those geographically-based
commissions.
I
don't know how much reliance should be placed on how various royals
felt about Perkin's authenticity. They might only be referring to him
having a respectful attitude accompanied by the good manners expected of
royalty, mightn't they? Manners might be fairly easy to learn, but all the
attributes included in the word deportment, would be a bit harder. For
example, one should always be polite to one's social inferiors (often considered
simply one's inferiors), but how one was polite would be the difference
- I think? Even so, at the very least it shows how little Henry was regarded by
his peers.
If
I remember correctly, wasn't Perkin tortured in order to extract a confession?
Might that explain his appearance (says someone who's never been either tortured
or asked to identify someone who had been)?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Where
to start ....?
First of all thanks Nico for the info. I think those accounts that suggest
Brampton fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury are almost certainly not true. He was a
merchant seaman and, as such there's everything to indicate that he always put
himself first, not any particular cause, unless it was one where he made the
most money. For example why wasn't he at Bosworth (wasn't he on some Portuguese
mission but he could have got back) and where was he in the autumn of 1483; he
knew when to make himself scarce, which he also did until 1487 and then he crept
back in with HT? As Doug says there are considerable gaps when we don't hear of
him at all, he's not on any Commissions, which are the first thing you're
selected for when in the royal service. The only exception to the soldier/sailor
careerist is Warwick, who was probably more talented on sea than on land and had
done good service in this capacity to ROY. That's probably another reason why
Edward was jealous of him. Warwick is I reckon one of the most talented and
fascinating people of the period - that sealed his death warrant.
I don't know whether you can get access to the Calendars of State Papers of
Spain under the reign of HT on BHOL without a paywall but the preamble is very
interesting because it discusses, amongst other things, the Perkin Warbeck
affair. It's almost a precis of Arthurson, but from a Spanish viewpoint. The
overriding message is Ferdinand and Isabella's dislike of HT, even after
marrying their daughter to his son. In fact every European monarch of import
disliked HT for his avarice and his meddling. So, even though they were rivals,
and sometimes even at war, they liked nothing better than to put a spoke in HT's
plans - they played him off one against another. Ferdinand and Isabella, on the
other hand, had liked and trusted Richard.
Three interesting things come out of the preamble re Warbeck. Firstly, of
all the monarchs he met, and he met a fair few, not one doubted his authenticity
and that included F & I. Secondly, F & I offered to send their
ambassador, De Sosa, to help HT identify him. Is this the same as your De Sousa
family Nico? And thirdly, when the Spanish ambassador was allowed to see PW just
before his execution he had changed so much he didn't recognise him - that is
interesting!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-25 17:36:00
What if the person who was drawn on a hurdle and hanged was not Perkin AKA Richard of York but some poor criminal chosen by H7 as an imposter because Perkin was the real Richard of York and he could hardly be seen to murder his wife's brother. Just a theory.
Mary
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-25 21:54:41
Hi Doug,This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-25 22:04:46
Hi Hilary and Mary,
As I mentioned in my post to Doug, I think that Brampton did take part in sea battles, but it was unlikely that he fought in any of the land
battles of the Wars of the Roses. It was a completely different military discipline and Warwick was a
rare talent for mastering both.
The Calendar of State Papers for Spain are available on the
Premium BHOL, which I may get, but they also have them in the reference section
of the library. I haven't read the account on Perkin yet, but some of the letters
from the Spanish ambassadors about the Arthur-Catherine marriage show that something
wasn't quite right with Arthur, and Catherine was telling the truth about his
performance (or lack of it). HT must have been quite deluded and desperate to
go ahead with it at all, as Arthur's extremely small size and unhealthy pallor
make it clear that he was not a well boy. It is interesting to consider other
countries accounts, especially with HT who has often been approached from a
rather parochial perspective by some historians. While Ferdinand and Isabella
officially were keen to denounce PW as an imposter, he did have a royal cipher
in the private accounts.
PW is a strange and complex story and I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that he was the same person who was was executed on November 23 1499. While PW was an incorrigible pretender, he was still EofY's
brother, and for all his faults, HT did appear to love his wife and that may
have been just enough to switch Perkin and keep him securely confined, perhaps
in a monastery while someone else was executed in his place. In addition to the
Spanish ambassador's comment about PW being much changed,' Molinet said that
they man who was hanged at Tyburn didn't look like King Edward's son.' The
theory has been suggested in a few books, mostly fiction. A rather good one
called The Shadow Prince had him
eventually end up as Richard of Eastwell. I don't think that is impossible either. There may have been more than one Lambert Simnel, and if this true, I wonder what happened to Warwick.Nico
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 21:54:38 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:
Hi Doug,This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
As I mentioned in my post to Doug, I think that Brampton did take part in sea battles, but it was unlikely that he fought in any of the land
battles of the Wars of the Roses. It was a completely different military discipline and Warwick was a
rare talent for mastering both.
The Calendar of State Papers for Spain are available on the
Premium BHOL, which I may get, but they also have them in the reference section
of the library. I haven't read the account on Perkin yet, but some of the letters
from the Spanish ambassadors about the Arthur-Catherine marriage show that something
wasn't quite right with Arthur, and Catherine was telling the truth about his
performance (or lack of it). HT must have been quite deluded and desperate to
go ahead with it at all, as Arthur's extremely small size and unhealthy pallor
make it clear that he was not a well boy. It is interesting to consider other
countries accounts, especially with HT who has often been approached from a
rather parochial perspective by some historians. While Ferdinand and Isabella
officially were keen to denounce PW as an imposter, he did have a royal cipher
in the private accounts.
PW is a strange and complex story and I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that he was the same person who was was executed on November 23 1499. While PW was an incorrigible pretender, he was still EofY's
brother, and for all his faults, HT did appear to love his wife and that may
have been just enough to switch Perkin and keep him securely confined, perhaps
in a monastery while someone else was executed in his place. In addition to the
Spanish ambassador's comment about PW being much changed,' Molinet said that
they man who was hanged at Tyburn didn't look like King Edward's son.' The
theory has been suggested in a few books, mostly fiction. A rather good one
called The Shadow Prince had him
eventually end up as Richard of Eastwell. I don't think that is impossible either. There may have been more than one Lambert Simnel, and if this true, I wonder what happened to Warwick.Nico
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 21:54:38 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:
Hi Doug,This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-26 09:54:36
Doug, Nico, I wonder if as well as knowing Brampton in Bruges, Richard used him in the apprehension of Fauconberg? Remember after Tewkesbury Edward sent Richard to the south coast to arrest him - Rivers should have gone but was preparing for a pilgrimage (on which he never went). What made me think of that was I'm sure I came across somewhere negotiations for the return of ships taken by Fauconberg, can't remember whether it was with Bruges or Spain, will look it up.I think Richard used Brampton because his trust had been tested many times - the 'loyalty' thing. Like you, Nico, I think Brampton was typical of his times, times which were changing rapidly. You have a dwindling nobility scratching around to maintain their high pedigrees, 'poor, proud and pretty' (as my mother would say), a merchant and farming class whose motto was 'money makythe the man' but very handy for a loan and a country gentry prepared to get in the saddle for whoever, like the Woodvilles, promised the biggest reward. And then there's the clergy ...... It's sad that Edward and Richard get so little credit for managing what was really the beginning of a first industrial revolution. H
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 21:54:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship.. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St.. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 21:54:48 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship.. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St.. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-26 10:18:15
Nico, Mary, that's the direction that I was going. You see it's a very clever double bluff. I don't think HT would kill his wife's brother - I agree Nico, he did come to love her - and I don't think his ma would countenance the public hanging of a Plantagenet, or even the killing of another one after Richard. So what could HT do? Spirit him away somewhere he could keep an eye on him in exchange for his life and maintenance. And if that applied to ROY it could also apply to Warwick, and indeed to the illegitimate child of Richard who was rumoured to have been put to death about the same time.What HT desperately needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders; look how they'd affected Richard. So if he could say they were all dead that would be the end of it - he hoped. And it has worked, hasn't it? Even Anne Wroe dismisses the claim that PW was ROY because these people said he didn't look like Edward, for a start he was too small. As Mary said, what if some poor soul who was condemned for some other crime anyway agreed to the scaffold confession in return for, say, a payment to his family?I've been in the main a sceptic about PW but when you put things together it's more complex. There are all these people, like Clifford and Dean Worsley, who are pardoned. And then there's the manner of execution itself. Hanging is a strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't favour beheading to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you would expect the full HDQ - after all this was someone who'd set out to dethrone him. It's really strange.Finally, I also agree that far too little attention is paid to foreign observers; they are scarcely more biased than More or Croyland, and if there are inaccuracies they are usually easier to spot. No-one would ever dream of studying Britain in the nineteenth century without also studying foreign events, and that's not just about the Empire. Yet most historians can't even be bothered to give more than a page to the Scottish war, and that involved Richard and was just up the road. I do think Richard of Eastwell was someone, but who? H
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 22:04:52 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary and Mary,
As I mentioned in my post to Doug, I think that Brampton did take part in sea battles, but it was unlikely that he fought in any of the land
battles of the Wars of the Roses. It was a completely different military discipline and Warwick was a
rare talent for mastering both.
The Calendar of State Papers for Spain are available on the
Premium BHOL, which I may get, but they also have them in the reference section
of the library. I haven't read the account on Perkin yet, but some of the letters
from the Spanish ambassadors about the Arthur-Catherine marriage show that something
wasn't quite right with Arthur, and Catherine was telling the truth about his
performance (or lack of it). HT must have been quite deluded and desperate to
go ahead with it at all, as Arthur's extremely small size and unhealthy pallor
make it clear that he was not a well boy. It is interesting to consider other
countries accounts, especially with HT who has often been approached from a
rather parochial perspective by some historians. While Ferdinand and Isabella
officially were keen to denounce PW as an imposter, he did have a royal cipher
in the private accounts.
PW is a strange and complex story and I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that he was the same person who was was executed on November 23 1499. While PW was an incorrigible pretender, he was still EofY's
brother, and for all his faults, HT did appear to love his wife and that may
have been just enough to switch Perkin and keep him securely confined, perhaps
in a monastery while someone else was executed in his place. In addition to the
Spanish ambassador's comment about PW being much changed,' Molinet said that
they man who was hanged at Tyburn didn't look like King Edward's son.' The
theory has been suggested in a few books, mostly fiction. A rather good one
called The Shadow Prince had him
eventually end up as Richard of Eastwell. I don't think that is impossible either. There may have been more than one Lambert Simnel, and if this true, I wonder what happened to Warwick.Nico
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 21:54:38 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:
Hi Doug,This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St.. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 22:04:52 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Hilary and Mary,
As I mentioned in my post to Doug, I think that Brampton did take part in sea battles, but it was unlikely that he fought in any of the land
battles of the Wars of the Roses. It was a completely different military discipline and Warwick was a
rare talent for mastering both.
The Calendar of State Papers for Spain are available on the
Premium BHOL, which I may get, but they also have them in the reference section
of the library. I haven't read the account on Perkin yet, but some of the letters
from the Spanish ambassadors about the Arthur-Catherine marriage show that something
wasn't quite right with Arthur, and Catherine was telling the truth about his
performance (or lack of it). HT must have been quite deluded and desperate to
go ahead with it at all, as Arthur's extremely small size and unhealthy pallor
make it clear that he was not a well boy. It is interesting to consider other
countries accounts, especially with HT who has often been approached from a
rather parochial perspective by some historians. While Ferdinand and Isabella
officially were keen to denounce PW as an imposter, he did have a royal cipher
in the private accounts.
PW is a strange and complex story and I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that he was the same person who was was executed on November 23 1499. While PW was an incorrigible pretender, he was still EofY's
brother, and for all his faults, HT did appear to love his wife and that may
have been just enough to switch Perkin and keep him securely confined, perhaps
in a monastery while someone else was executed in his place. In addition to the
Spanish ambassador's comment about PW being much changed,' Molinet said that
they man who was hanged at Tyburn didn't look like King Edward's son.' The
theory has been suggested in a few books, mostly fiction. A rather good one
called The Shadow Prince had him
eventually end up as Richard of Eastwell. I don't think that is impossible either. There may have been more than one Lambert Simnel, and if this true, I wonder what happened to Warwick.Nico
On Thursday, 25 April 2019, 21:54:38 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:
Hi Doug,This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family....Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance...What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?Sorry that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton relationship. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that he
was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was
anything unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed
services for kings, but received much more basic compensation.I think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at
the Court, but when you put everything we know about him together, then
it is clear that he was someone who was never off the radar, and some
of his services and accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship? If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St.. Michael's Mount and Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures. Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted him, but since he had been in the
North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton must have maintained his
usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly eventually
entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes. This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own explanation at Setubal is none too credible. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him.As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jew in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement! From what I have read, Portugal was generally more tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his way. I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole business go away. Nico
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 16:31:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico
wrote:
I believe that Roth wrote the original paper on
Brampton for the Jewish Historical Society. I would also like to find some
Portuguese sources, but haven't had any luck either. The problem is also that
Brampton may have been using another name, so he would be missed if there were
any reference to him from the 1460s in the Portuguese archives. If there is
anything after that, there may be a references that states or gives a clue to
his family. I wouldn't rule it out. He died in 1508, and his eldest son Henry,
who was knighted by HT in 1500 (mentioned in Beaumont's 1507 will) must have
died around the same time, as his heir was one of the younger brothers. Most of
Brampton's children married into high status Portuguese families and one of the
daughters married into the de Souza family. I'm not sure if it is the same de
Souzas as the ambassador who also gave testimony at Setubal and the historian
who later recorded much the information that we have on Brampton more than a
century later. He didn't get any land back and the family had no further
association with England.
Here is the family tree claimed by Brampton's
family. It may not be accurate, but there is nothing to prove that it isn't, or
there isn't at least an element of truth to it.
https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928
I would be interested to find out if either Sir
Edward or Sir Henry Brampton left a will in Portugal. I don't know anything
about how to find it, but when things return to normal after Easter, I may give
it a try.
The information on Margaret Beaumont is from
Thomas' will, but there were also references in Portuguese documents as
'Margarita Bemond.'
As with Vaughan, you didn't have to be a nobleman
for diplomatic missions, but people who rose to high places at that time
generally had some connection to a family of some significance. In Vaughans case
it does appear to have been the Tretower Vaughans who had great power in the
Marches. My suspicion is that Brampton was connected to a similar type of
family.
Doug here:
There was something about that last paragraph
that bothered me, but at first I just couldn't figure what it was. I think
perhaps we're looking at two completely different situations with regard to how
Vaughan and Brampton, respectively, first came to Edward's attention? In
Vaughan's case, it may very well be true that it was his relationship to the
Tretower Vaughans that placed him (Vaughan) in a position to come to Edward's
notice. IOW, had Edward not already known the Tretower Vaughans, it's likely
Thomas Vaughan would never have come to Edward's attention. But that wasn't the
situation with Brampton. Brampton was, as best we can tell, already associated
with woolen trade when Edward was forced to flee to Flanders in 1470. We also
know that Edward hung out with merchants in London, both before and after the
Re-Adeption. In 1471 Edward needed shipping to carry him back to England and
there's nothing that I can find that disproves the idea that it may have been
Edward himself who initiated the search for shipping amongst merchants in
Flanders, some of whom he may actually known personally. This is not to say that
Edward knew Brampton before 1471, only that the connection between Edward and
Brampton seems to me to be more likely to have been initiated by Edward's search
amongst those merchants in Flanders in 1470/71, and not by any recommendation
from some important family.
Actually, I don't see Brampton's rise as being
all that spectacular. He, very ably seemingly, provided some service to Edward
in 1471, as well as personally making Edward's acquaintance. In 1472, Edward
commissioned Brampton to go after some rebels in the Channel and, unless two
separate episodes got conflated, did the same in 1474, blockading St. Michael's
Mount. In return, Brampton received papers of denization and a marriage with a
wealthy(ish) widow (those events may have happened in reverse order). In 1475,
Brampton is reported to have accompanied Edward to Picguigny (possibly as a
reward for organizing the shipping that carried Edward and his forces to
France?), but then isn't noted in English affairs until he was sent off after
Woodville in 1484. What this tells me is that Brampton served as the person
Edward turned to when he needed shipping, whether to go after rebels/pirates or
organize the transporting of troops to France. Other than that, Brampton doesn't
turn up in the records. For that matter, he wasn't knighted until 1484 by
Richard, even though he'd been involved in several sea fights and provided
extremely valuable services to Edward!
After Picguigny there's a two-year gap before
Brampton shows up with the money to spring Alfonso. FWIW, I wonder if that
wasn't done on Brampton's initiative? We know he traveled between London and
Flanders; we also know Portuguese goods were brought to Flanders to trade for
northern European wares. What would be more natural than for Brampton to
discover from Portuguese merchants that the king of the country he'd been forced
to leave, for whatever reason/s, was in dire need of cash in order to return to
Portugal? What better way to get involved in carrying goods between Portugal and
Flanders than to do a service for Alfonso? It'd worked with Edward, hadn't
it?
I do find it very interesting that Brampton's
involvement with England fades after the Yorkists, especially the two kings with
whom he was personally acquainted, are ousted. He then seems to have
concentrated more on his trading ventures between Portugal and Flanders,
locating himself and his family in Portugal; where, as best I can tell, he
enjoyed, to some extent, a relationship with the Portuguese kings that he had
with Edward.
Nico wrote:That could have been
Brampton's function. If he were a ship's captain, he would have handled that or
supervised who ever did. AFAIK a ship's captain has the ultimate responsibility
for whoever and whatever is on their ship, ensuring that they reach their
destination safely. As you say, that would have placed him in a position
to make contacts and probably know where to raise money where needed as may have
done in assisting Alfonso.
Overall, I think ship's captain is the most
likely springboard for Brampton's career. He wouldn't have been selected for the
Woodville venture if he didn't have extensive experience and proven expertise in
that area. The contacts picked up here could have expanded into merchant
activities. I'm not sure where he picked up the sort of soldiering skills that
would be essential for a battle like Barnet or Tewkesbury, so I'm sceptical that
he was actually there, and being a veteran of 'many battles' may have referred
to raising finance. However, if he was related to the family in the genealogy he
may have had some military opportunities too.In the 1470s, there is no doubt
that Edward had great confidence in Brampton's shipping skills, which was a
testimonial to the fact that he was very good at what he did. Along the way, he
probably learned a number of languages, certainly an asset in situations such as
Picquiny.
Doug here:
It's entirely possible, of course, that Brampton was both a ship's captain
and a merchant trader. The two wouldn't have been mutually exclusive and the
skills necessary for the former could place him in a position to start buying
into cargoes, splitting both the costs and profits. In regards to him being at
Barnet or Tewksbury, I think what may have happened is that the WotR isn't known
for its' sea battles, so when someone is referenced as having participated in
battles it was mistakenly presumed those battles were on land. We know,
however, that there most definitely was fighting at sea, even if it didn't
involve massed fleets.
Nico continued:
Converted Jews were vulnerable to
accusations of heresy, but Brampton was too early for the Inquisition.
Nevertheless, there has always been anti-semitism, and Brampton's Jewish
background could have been used against him. I don't know if the Jewish
community would have ostricized the illegitimate son of a Jewish mother and a
Christian father or any sort of illegitimate person, but it is the mother's
faith that counts in Judaism. As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, even if
you convert you don't cease to be a Jew. In the 15th Century, illegitimacy
itself doesn't seem to be that much of a stigma or barrier, especially in the
upper class, and people appear to have been more accepting of it and less prissy
than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, if his mother
was known to be Jewish surely he would have been accepted as a member of that
community, even if they disliked his mother's relationship with a Christian
although they may have ostracized
him or treated him with suspicion if he converted to Christianity or was raised
by his father in that faith. My overall impression
is that his main purpose for arriving in England was a commercial venture of
some kind, but he may have felt happier in other countries if his own family and
social relationships were difficult.
Doug here:
If Wikipedia has the dates
right, the Inquisition arrived in Portugal in 1536 and was invited in because of
the number of Jews who'd fled to Portugal after being expelled from Spain in
1492. The thing is, there are many places, Venice for example, where the
Inquisition was never allowed in, or so severely circumscribed in its operations
as to be a nullity. For the Inquisition to flourish, there needed to be a
wide-spread anti-semitism that infected all classes and had done so for quite
some time before the actual installation of the Inquisition and I
wonder if that mass feeling wasn't present already in Portugal, only waiting for
the Jewish population to become larger more noticeable before anti-Jewish
actions were taken?
FWIW, I don't think it would have
been a case of him being ostracized by the Jewish community, but he definitely
would have been very limited in the occupations open to him. As for marriage,
his only option would have been to marry a Jewish in similar
circumstances as himself: illegitimate. Which would also mean their children
would have, for I believe 10 generations, also have been limited to only
marrying other illegitimate Jews. To say he wouldn't have any social life would
be an understatement!
When it comes to how his illegitimacy
would have been viewed by the Catholic majority a lot would depend on who his
father was, wouldn't it? As best I can tell, all attempts to link Brampton to
any Portuguese family have taken place after Brampton returned to
Portugal, when being related to someone of importance, even on the wrong side of
the blanket, would help. Call me skeptical, but it sounds too much like those
efforts Hilary recounted of wealthy merchant class heiresses, upon marrying into
the nobility or gentry, suddenly discovering a link to a noble
family...
Nico
concluded:
Well spotted! It was probably
something from Africa, where most Portuguese discoveries were at the time. It
does seem a bit early for anything from the New World or the Spice Islands. As
for Arthurson's book, I found it very informative about the international
relations aspect which is his speciality. It is also well researched for facts
about events during the Perkin Warbeck affair, but he relied too heavily on
Michael Hick's biased information about the historical background. It is a good
reference guide, so you can't really go wrong buying
it.
As for social class and accent, I
think that you are correct about accent having much less impact than it does
now, and class structure being judged on other factors. Even some of the
nobility are believed to have had local accents (especially in the North and
South West.) A few years a linguist analysed Richard's spelling and writing
style and concluded that he most likely had an accent similar to Birmingham/West
Midlands.
Doug here:
You're right that Brampton's pepper monopoly was from
Africa. I re-read the Wikipedia article on malaguete and
discovered that it was named after the
meleguete pepper which comes, surprise,
surprise!, from West Africa.
I'll keep Arthurson's book on my To Buy list, just not at
the top!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-26 14:56:41
With regard to "Perkin" being spirited off somewhere. Don't forget that the lovely Henry kept Katherine Gordon at Court and wouldn't let her leave and it was only after he died that H8 let her leave. She re-married several times, the second time to Sir Matthew Craddock, the Steward of the Gower. Perkin's son was supposed to have been taken to live in Reynoldston which is on the Gower Peninsular. There is also a legend about a Perkins family in that area and that they were supposedly descended from Perkin Warbeck. What if "Perkin" went to live with his son? There would have been lots of Tudor's supporters in South Wales to keep an eye on him. If Katherine re-married then possibly "Perkin" had died by then.Though we know that H8 was not too fussy about marrying again while his first wife was still alive and he wasn't legally divorced.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-04-27 12:08:44
Mary,
While we haven't the evidence to definitely say that the person executed
was, or wasn't, Richard of Shrewsbury, it does seem to me that is, currently
anyway, the least likely hypothesis. My understanding is that, whoever it
was, he had been tortured in order to extract some sort of confession. It's
also my understanding that Tudor never released that confession, no copy is
known to exist, and what we know about it's contents is limited to what
Tudor, or those speaking for him, said was in it.
As I wrote in a different post, I've never been tortured, but I have read
accounts of those who have been and, because of what they went through, were
afterwards scarcely recognizable by people who knew them. Nor do I think
that Tudor would have had any qualms about having his wife's brother
executed if he thought that death would benefit him, whether in providing
greater security for his dynasty or, more personally, for his own position
as king.
Doug
(my apologies for taking so long to reply)
Mary wrote:
"What if the person who was drawn on a hurdle and hanged was not Perkin AKA
Richard of York but some poor criminal chosen by H7 as an imposter because
Perkin was the real Richard of York and he could hardly be seen to murder
his wife's brother. Just a theory."
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
While we haven't the evidence to definitely say that the person executed
was, or wasn't, Richard of Shrewsbury, it does seem to me that is, currently
anyway, the least likely hypothesis. My understanding is that, whoever it
was, he had been tortured in order to extract some sort of confession. It's
also my understanding that Tudor never released that confession, no copy is
known to exist, and what we know about it's contents is limited to what
Tudor, or those speaking for him, said was in it.
As I wrote in a different post, I've never been tortured, but I have read
accounts of those who have been and, because of what they went through, were
afterwards scarcely recognizable by people who knew them. Nor do I think
that Tudor would have had any qualms about having his wife's brother
executed if he thought that death would benefit him, whether in providing
greater security for his dynasty or, more personally, for his own position
as king.
Doug
(my apologies for taking so long to reply)
Mary wrote:
"What if the person who was drawn on a hurdle and hanged was not Perkin AKA
Richard of York but some poor criminal chosen by H7 as an imposter because
Perkin was the real Richard of York and he could hardly be seen to murder
his wife's brother. Just a theory."
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-27 14:01:33
Nico wrote:
Sorry
that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am
inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton
relationship.. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton
had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You
are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since
Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to
rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they
were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed
Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that
he was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was anything
unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed services for
kings, but received much more basic compensation.I
think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at the Court, but
when you put everything we know about him together, then it is clear that he was
someone who was never off the radar, and some of his services and
accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what
sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship?
If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make
the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily
vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St.. Michael's Mount and
Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval
expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of
men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures.
Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is
that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted
him, but since he had been in the North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton
must have maintained his usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly
eventually entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes.
This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe
Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal
with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own
explanation at Setubal is none too credible.
Doug here:
FWIW, my understanding is that until steam replaced sail
as the vessel's motive power, the major difference between a merchant sea
captain and a naval sea captain was who paid him. During the Middle Ages that
difference was even less, usually the naval captain was some merchant
captain serving for a period under a royal commission. The tactics employed at
sea didn't change from those of Classical times until Drake/Hawkins developed
the concept of remaining at a distance while pounding one's adversary with
cannon in the 1570/80s. So Brampton, as a naval commander, would have been in
charge of merchant vessels, likely filled with archers and men-at-arms, the idea
being to clear the decks of an enemy vessel using the bowmen, then closing and
grappling with the men-at-arms swarming over the sides from their ship to the
enemy's and fighting it out on the deck much like a battle on
land.
Any naval expertise required by Brampton he could have
gained simply by learning how to maneuver a vessel to place it in the best
position to launch that arrow attack before closing and fighting it out,
literally, hand-to-hand. IOW, Brampton only needed knowledge that any good sea
captain would have. What he'd also need, and something most merchant captains
wouldn't have, would have been a willingness to place his ship in danger the
ultimate no-no for a merchant captain whose priority would have been to get his
ship and it's cargo safely intact to port.
To be honest, I've been trying to figure out just how
Brampton became Alfonso's sponsor, supposedly replacing Charles of Burgundy in
that role. It's my understanding that Charles and Louis weren't on good terms,
to say the least, and the only explanation I can arrive at is that Charles
provided monetary support to Alfonso in order to divert Louis' attention away
from Burgundy and towards Iberia.
At any rate, it appears that between Picguigny in 1475
and being commissioned to go after Woodville in 1483, Brampton expanded his
trading efforts to Portugal beginning with his providing money so Alfonso could
return to his kingdom. IOW, that was a period when Edward didn't particularly
have any need for Brampton's services, so Brampton likely spent that time
trading between England, Flanders and Portugal. Then, in spring/summer 1483, the
services for which he'd become known were again required by the English
government, now headed by Richard. The only thing I find odd about Brampton
being knighted in 1484 for his services at sea for the House of York is that his
knighthood came after a failure in that he didn't capture
Woodville. OTOH, if Brampton was involved in transporting Richard of
Shrewsbury to Flanders, that might better explain his being
knighted.
Nico continued:
From what I have read, Portugal was generally more
tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the
level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on
Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no
connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the
boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman
wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less
accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry
other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects
depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible
date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was
more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how
Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families
trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general
impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly
prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his
way.
Doug here:
My knowledge of Jewish illegitimacy and how someone
would be affected is based on some footnotes from a Wikipedia article,
so I don't know how definitive what I wrote is. It may be that the marriage
limitations and the 10 generations thing would have been limited to those who
were more strict observants of Judaism than the general Jewish
population.
If I understand it correctly, regardless of whether
Brampton left Portugal in the late 1450s or sometime during the 1460s, at that
point in time Portugal would have been considered a backwater, economically
anyway, with limited chances of advancement if one were illegitimate
and Jewish. The former might be overcome if the other side of that
blanket was a family of sufficient importance, but that doesn't seem to be the
case here and conversion, while it might help in winning over some of the
Catholic majority, would just be yet another barrier between Brampton and the
Jewish community.
From his career after he comes to our notice, it
seems clear Brampton was already involved in the wool trade in some position
before he arrived at the Domus Converso in 1468. He may not have yet
become a captain, although that seems to have happened by the time he first met
Edward. Lacking further information for that period of his life, I tend towards
the view that Brampton, upon moving to England/Flanders, showed enough promise
to make his way up the ladder from seaman to captain and on the way amassed
enough savings to begin his involvement in trading on his own. Further than
that...
Nico concluded:
After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the
Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton
was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal
denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus
securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not
doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could
have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole
business go
away.
Doug
here:
I don't suppose there's an actual transcript of what was said
at Setubal, is there? Apart from what Tudor said was in it, I mean. A copy that
Tudor wouldn't have first had the chance to alter?
Tyrrell supposed confessed, but there's no confession in the
records. Was one ever published for Warbeck? IOW, when it comes to Henry Tudor
and what he says happened, confirmation by a second, uninterested party
is absolutely necessary. IMO, anyway.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Sorry
that I had to snip what is a good summary of Brampton's career, and I am
inclined to agree with you on the meritocratic nature of the Edward-Brampton
relationship.. Edward was involved with merchants, and at some point Brampton
had an opportunity to impress him with his a ability as a ship's captain. You
are quite right about the differentiation with Vaughan in this case; since
Edward met Brampton in either in London or Flanders, he wouldn't have needed to
rely on a family recommendation from Brampton's family in Portugal, whoever they
were. Brampton must have been good at what he did and certainly impressed
Edward. Perhaps 'spectacular' is the wrong word, but I do think that
he was exceptionally well rewarded. I'm not suggesting that there was anything
unfair about that or that he didn't earn it, but many performed services for
kings, but received much more basic compensation.I
think you are correct that Brampton wasn't a habitual fixture at the Court, but
when you put everything we know about him together, then it is clear that he was
someone who was never off the radar, and some of his services and
accomplishments to Edward may have been unrecorded.
Another dimension in analysis of his career is the question of what
sort of ship's captain was he - merchant or warship?
If you could command a warship, I have no doubt you could make
the transition to a merchant ship without much difficulty, but not necessarily
vice versa. Brampton's commissions for the 1472 rebels, St.. Michael's Mount and
Edward Woodville all indicate that he had extensive and accomplished naval
expertise, most likely achieved in Portugal. There would have been a number of
men in England that could have been selected for these prestigious ventures.
Brampton's reputation as a sea warrior must have been stellar and my guess is
that he initially made his name in a sea battle. It was actually Richard who knighted
him, but since he had been in the North for most of Edward's reign, Brampton
must have maintained his usefulness for Richard to be aware of him and possibly
eventually entrust him with the custody of one or both of the Princes.
This is somewhat dependent on whether you believe
Perkin or not, but it was on record that the person known as PW went to Portugal
with Brampton's wife. Therefore, he is in the story somewhere, and his own
explanation at Setubal is none too credible.
Doug here:
FWIW, my understanding is that until steam replaced sail
as the vessel's motive power, the major difference between a merchant sea
captain and a naval sea captain was who paid him. During the Middle Ages that
difference was even less, usually the naval captain was some merchant
captain serving for a period under a royal commission. The tactics employed at
sea didn't change from those of Classical times until Drake/Hawkins developed
the concept of remaining at a distance while pounding one's adversary with
cannon in the 1570/80s. So Brampton, as a naval commander, would have been in
charge of merchant vessels, likely filled with archers and men-at-arms, the idea
being to clear the decks of an enemy vessel using the bowmen, then closing and
grappling with the men-at-arms swarming over the sides from their ship to the
enemy's and fighting it out on the deck much like a battle on
land.
Any naval expertise required by Brampton he could have
gained simply by learning how to maneuver a vessel to place it in the best
position to launch that arrow attack before closing and fighting it out,
literally, hand-to-hand. IOW, Brampton only needed knowledge that any good sea
captain would have. What he'd also need, and something most merchant captains
wouldn't have, would have been a willingness to place his ship in danger the
ultimate no-no for a merchant captain whose priority would have been to get his
ship and it's cargo safely intact to port.
To be honest, I've been trying to figure out just how
Brampton became Alfonso's sponsor, supposedly replacing Charles of Burgundy in
that role. It's my understanding that Charles and Louis weren't on good terms,
to say the least, and the only explanation I can arrive at is that Charles
provided monetary support to Alfonso in order to divert Louis' attention away
from Burgundy and towards Iberia.
At any rate, it appears that between Picguigny in 1475
and being commissioned to go after Woodville in 1483, Brampton expanded his
trading efforts to Portugal beginning with his providing money so Alfonso could
return to his kingdom. IOW, that was a period when Edward didn't particularly
have any need for Brampton's services, so Brampton likely spent that time
trading between England, Flanders and Portugal. Then, in spring/summer 1483, the
services for which he'd become known were again required by the English
government, now headed by Richard. The only thing I find odd about Brampton
being knighted in 1484 for his services at sea for the House of York is that his
knighthood came after a failure in that he didn't capture
Woodville. OTOH, if Brampton was involved in transporting Richard of
Shrewsbury to Flanders, that might better explain his being
knighted.
Nico continued:
From what I have read, Portugal was generally more
tolerant of its Jewish community than Spain. It is difficult to estimate the
level of an undercurrent of antisemitism and the effect it would have had on
Brampton, but if he were raised exclusively within the Jewish community with no
connections outside of it, it would be difficult to progress beyond the
boundaries of the traditional Jewish occupations. While being a merchant seaman
wouldn't be out of the question, commanding warships would have been less
accessible. I didn't know that in Judaism illegitimate people could only marry
other illegitimate people, but as you say, that would have made his prospects
depressingly limited, which would have made conversion at the earliest possible
date an attractive proposition. From the Catholic perspective, illegitimacy was
more helpful if the father was socially prominent, and this may have been how
Brampton got his introduction to seafaring. There was a lot of fiddling families
trees and the Alardo genealogy may be totally fake, but I get the general
impression that they are low to mid ranking gentry; not particularly
prestigious, but enough of a connection to get Brampton on his
way.
Doug here:
My knowledge of Jewish illegitimacy and how someone
would be affected is based on some footnotes from a Wikipedia article,
so I don't know how definitive what I wrote is. It may be that the marriage
limitations and the 10 generations thing would have been limited to those who
were more strict observants of Judaism than the general Jewish
population.
If I understand it correctly, regardless of whether
Brampton left Portugal in the late 1450s or sometime during the 1460s, at that
point in time Portugal would have been considered a backwater, economically
anyway, with limited chances of advancement if one were illegitimate
and Jewish. The former might be overcome if the other side of that
blanket was a family of sufficient importance, but that doesn't seem to be the
case here and conversion, while it might help in winning over some of the
Catholic majority, would just be yet another barrier between Brampton and the
Jewish community.
From his career after he comes to our notice, it
seems clear Brampton was already involved in the wool trade in some position
before he arrived at the Domus Converso in 1468. He may not have yet
become a captain, although that seems to have happened by the time he first met
Edward. Lacking further information for that period of his life, I tend towards
the view that Brampton, upon moving to England/Flanders, showed enough promise
to make his way up the ladder from seaman to captain and on the way amassed
enough savings to begin his involvement in trading on his own. Further than
that...
Nico concluded:
After Bosworth Brampton's primary loyalty was to the
Portuguese crown, which was allied to the Spain and ultimately to HT. Brampton
was never officially recorded as being in HT's service, but his formal
denunciation of Perkin at Setubal was invaluable in discrediting him, and thus
securing the Tudor dynasty, and Brampton's teenage son was knighted for not
doing anything at all, but not a bad reward for Brampton who (imho anyway) could
have invented the backstory of the Werbeques which ultimately made the whole
business go
away.
Doug
here:
I don't suppose there's an actual transcript of what was said
at Setubal, is there? Apart from what Tudor said was in it, I mean. A copy that
Tudor wouldn't have first had the chance to alter?
Tyrrell supposed confessed, but there's no confession in the
records. Was one ever published for Warbeck? IOW, when it comes to Henry Tudor
and what he says happened, confirmation by a second, uninterested party
is absolutely necessary. IMO, anyway.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-27 23:21:47
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-28 17:23:27
Hilar
y,
I
agree that HT might not kill his wife's brother if he had to do it himself;
otherwise, I fall back on what happened to Warwick and others.
If
we tie together two separate points you made, perhaps that might strengthen the
case for it being Richard/Perkin being hanged? You wrote What HT desperately
needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders... and later that
Hanging is a strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't
favour beheading to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you'd
expect the full HDQ...
Putting
these two together and you have a king executing someone for treason but
not treating that person as a non-noble would have been. It's
my understanding that whether or not a noble was beheaded was considered a
boon to be granted, or withheld, at the pleasure of the monarch. OTOH, the law
stated quite clearly how a non-noble was to die hung, but not until dead, then
cut down, bowels removed and butchered into quarters. If we look at what HT was
faced with, a desperate need to remove a royal opponent that he dared not
recognize as even being royal, his actions look to me as if HT, once again,
wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. He declared Richard/Perkin to be an
imposter, but executed him without treated him as an imposter. HT dared not have
him beheaded as if he was a royal, but he could spare him the horrible agonies
associated with being hung, drawn and quartered that was the fate of a
commoner.
Doug
who
also would like to see more foreign input on these events
Hilary
wrote:
Nico,
Mary, that's the direction that I was going. You see it's a very clever double
bluff. I don't think HT would kill his wife's brother - I agree Nico, he did
come to love her - and I don't think his ma would countenance the public hanging
of a Plantagenet, or even the killing of another one after Richard. So what
could HT do? Spirit him away somewhere he could keep an eye on him in exchange
for his life and maintenance. And if that applied to ROY it could also apply to
Warwick, and indeed to the illegitimate child of Richard who was rumoured to
have been put to death about the same time.
What HT desperately needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders;
look how they'd affected Richard. So if he could say they were all dead that
would be the end of it - he hoped. And it has worked, hasn't it? Even Anne Wroe
dismisses the claim that PW was ROY because these people said he didn't look
like Edward, for a start he was too small. As Mary said, what if some poor soul
who was condemned for some other crime anyway agreed to the scaffold confession
in return for, say, a payment to his family?
I've been in the main a sceptic about PW but when you put things together
it's more complex. There are all these people, like Clifford and Dean Worsley,
who are pardoned. And then there's the manner of execution itself. Hanging is a
strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't favour beheading
to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you would expect the full
HDQ - after all this was someone who'd set out to dethrone him. It's really
strange..
Finally, I also agree that far too little attention is paid to foreign
observers; they are scarcely more biased than More or Croyland, and if there are
inaccuracies they are usually easier to spot. No-one would ever dream of
studying Britain in the nineteenth century without also studying foreign events,
and that's not just about the Empire. Yet most historians can't even be bothered
to give more than a page to the Scottish war, and that involved Richard and was
just up the road.
I do think Richard of Eastwell was someone, but who?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
y,
I
agree that HT might not kill his wife's brother if he had to do it himself;
otherwise, I fall back on what happened to Warwick and others.
If
we tie together two separate points you made, perhaps that might strengthen the
case for it being Richard/Perkin being hanged? You wrote What HT desperately
needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders... and later that
Hanging is a strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't
favour beheading to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you'd
expect the full HDQ...
Putting
these two together and you have a king executing someone for treason but
not treating that person as a non-noble would have been. It's
my understanding that whether or not a noble was beheaded was considered a
boon to be granted, or withheld, at the pleasure of the monarch. OTOH, the law
stated quite clearly how a non-noble was to die hung, but not until dead, then
cut down, bowels removed and butchered into quarters. If we look at what HT was
faced with, a desperate need to remove a royal opponent that he dared not
recognize as even being royal, his actions look to me as if HT, once again,
wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. He declared Richard/Perkin to be an
imposter, but executed him without treated him as an imposter. HT dared not have
him beheaded as if he was a royal, but he could spare him the horrible agonies
associated with being hung, drawn and quartered that was the fate of a
commoner.
Doug
who
also would like to see more foreign input on these events
Hilary
wrote:
Nico,
Mary, that's the direction that I was going. You see it's a very clever double
bluff. I don't think HT would kill his wife's brother - I agree Nico, he did
come to love her - and I don't think his ma would countenance the public hanging
of a Plantagenet, or even the killing of another one after Richard. So what
could HT do? Spirit him away somewhere he could keep an eye on him in exchange
for his life and maintenance. And if that applied to ROY it could also apply to
Warwick, and indeed to the illegitimate child of Richard who was rumoured to
have been put to death about the same time.
What HT desperately needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders;
look how they'd affected Richard. So if he could say they were all dead that
would be the end of it - he hoped. And it has worked, hasn't it? Even Anne Wroe
dismisses the claim that PW was ROY because these people said he didn't look
like Edward, for a start he was too small. As Mary said, what if some poor soul
who was condemned for some other crime anyway agreed to the scaffold confession
in return for, say, a payment to his family?
I've been in the main a sceptic about PW but when you put things together
it's more complex. There are all these people, like Clifford and Dean Worsley,
who are pardoned. And then there's the manner of execution itself. Hanging is a
strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't favour beheading
to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you would expect the full
HDQ - after all this was someone who'd set out to dethrone him. It's really
strange..
Finally, I also agree that far too little attention is paid to foreign
observers; they are scarcely more biased than More or Croyland, and if there are
inaccuracies they are usually easier to spot. No-one would ever dream of
studying Britain in the nineteenth century without also studying foreign events,
and that's not just about the Empire. Yet most historians can't even be bothered
to give more than a page to the Scottish war, and that involved Richard and was
just up the road.
I do think Richard of Eastwell was someone, but who?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-04-28 21:02:31
Hi,
I can see
this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he was well confined
was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT may have been willing to
take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was concerned, once justice
was seen to have done, and Perkin officially dead, that may have been
enough. HT was someone who never had much stability in his early life, and the
idea of losing the love and respect of EofY may have been just too much for
him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly emotional man, but he was not
without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and EofY died, and it is
possible that he could have seen something of his younger self in Perkin. If PW
was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an inheritance that HT had
given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also agree with you Hilary that MB would have
disapproved. If he resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine marriage, it may have given him a
sense of being in control. Although Warwick was only a cousin, beheading him
wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the
best option. Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell,
but since he was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far
fetched book called Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the
Ricardian, but was never made available other than at a ridiculous price from
the author's website, which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury
Abbey. I didn't find the other ideas in the book credible (although I would
love to read it), but I wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks Doug
for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have been
possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before
the execution to maintain secrecy. The
Tower plot with Cleymonde and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that
could have also have been staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the
imprisonment and torture, there is a record of HT making payments for very
expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession.
It is unfortunate that they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar'
the herald could have been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if
it was really Jean de Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information
from him. According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's
confession says that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the
official story of PW, although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai
archives that Jean de Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of
rope and ship's accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and
Jean sound like possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to
Noel, but has been misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were
two versions of the confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't
been able to find a copy of the French confession online, but there were significant
differences in the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he
attended and his teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an
organist.' My feeling is that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or
another Plantagenet) and sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques
possibly having some involvement.Nico
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
I can see
this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he was well confined
was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT may have been willing to
take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was concerned, once justice
was seen to have done, and Perkin officially dead, that may have been
enough. HT was someone who never had much stability in his early life, and the
idea of losing the love and respect of EofY may have been just too much for
him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly emotional man, but he was not
without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and EofY died, and it is
possible that he could have seen something of his younger self in Perkin. If PW
was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an inheritance that HT had
given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also agree with you Hilary that MB would have
disapproved. If he resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine marriage, it may have given him a
sense of being in control. Although Warwick was only a cousin, beheading him
wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the
best option. Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell,
but since he was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far
fetched book called Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the
Ricardian, but was never made available other than at a ridiculous price from
the author's website, which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury
Abbey. I didn't find the other ideas in the book credible (although I would
love to read it), but I wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks Doug
for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have been
possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before
the execution to maintain secrecy. The
Tower plot with Cleymonde and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that
could have also have been staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the
imprisonment and torture, there is a record of HT making payments for very
expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession.
It is unfortunate that they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar'
the herald could have been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if
it was really Jean de Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information
from him. According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's
confession says that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the
official story of PW, although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai
archives that Jean de Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of
rope and ship's accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and
Jean sound like possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to
Noel, but has been misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were
two versions of the confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't
been able to find a copy of the French confession online, but there were significant
differences in the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he
attended and his teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an
organist.' My feeling is that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or
another Plantagenet) and sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques
possibly having some involvement.Nico
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ
2019-04-29 15:50:39
Nico,
Thanks for those links; I'll be going through them and maybe they'll
provide something, one way or the other.
I did notice, after a quick glance through that second link, that the
elder Warbeck quite obviously wasn't a mere boatman, but rather someone a
well-to-do merchant captain such as Brampton might get to know while doing
business in Flanders. Methinks the Tudor historians may have overdone their
attempts to denigrate Richard/Perkin's parentage. Minor official or merchant
seemingly wasn't lowly enough...
Doug
Nico wrote:
I can see this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he
was well confined was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT
may have been willing to take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was
concerned, once justice was seen to have done, and Perkin
officially dead, that may have been enough. HT was someone who never had
much stability in his early life, and the idea of losing the love and respect of
EofY may have been just too much for him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly
emotional man, but he was not without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and
EofY died, and it is possible that he could have seen something of his younger
self in Perkin. If PW was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an
inheritance that HT had given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also
agree with you Hilary that MB would have disapproved. If he
resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine
marriage, it may have given him a sense of being in control. Although Warwick
was only a cousin, beheading him wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if
Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to
be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the best option.
Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell, but since he
was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far fetched book called
Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the Ricardian, but was
never made available other than at a ridiculous price from the author's website,
which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury Abbey. I didn't find the
other ideas in the book credible (although I would love to read it), but I
wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks
Doug for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have
been possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before the
execution to maintain secrecy. The Tower plot with Cleymonde
and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that could have also have been
staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the imprisonment and torture, there
is a record of HT making payments for very expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English
confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession. It is unfortunate that
they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar' the herald could have
been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if it was really Jean de
Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information from him.
According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's confession says
that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the official story of PW,
although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai archives that Jean de
Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of rope and ship's
accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and Jean sound like
possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to Noel, but has been
misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were two versions of the
confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't been able to find a
copy of the French confession online, but there were significant differences in
the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he attended and his
teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an organist.' My feeling is
that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or another Plantagenet) and
sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques possibly having some
involvement.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Thanks for those links; I'll be going through them and maybe they'll
provide something, one way or the other.
I did notice, after a quick glance through that second link, that the
elder Warbeck quite obviously wasn't a mere boatman, but rather someone a
well-to-do merchant captain such as Brampton might get to know while doing
business in Flanders. Methinks the Tudor historians may have overdone their
attempts to denigrate Richard/Perkin's parentage. Minor official or merchant
seemingly wasn't lowly enough...
Doug
Nico wrote:
I can see this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he
was well confined was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT
may have been willing to take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was
concerned, once justice was seen to have done, and Perkin
officially dead, that may have been enough. HT was someone who never had
much stability in his early life, and the idea of losing the love and respect of
EofY may have been just too much for him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly
emotional man, but he was not without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and
EofY died, and it is possible that he could have seen something of his younger
self in Perkin. If PW was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an
inheritance that HT had given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also
agree with you Hilary that MB would have disapproved. If he
resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine
marriage, it may have given him a sense of being in control. Although Warwick
was only a cousin, beheading him wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if
Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to
be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the best option.
Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell, but since he
was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far fetched book called
Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the Ricardian, but was
never made available other than at a ridiculous price from the author's website,
which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury Abbey. I didn't find the
other ideas in the book credible (although I would love to read it), but I
wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks
Doug for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have
been possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before the
execution to maintain secrecy. The Tower plot with Cleymonde
and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that could have also have been
staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the imprisonment and torture, there
is a record of HT making payments for very expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English
confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession. It is unfortunate that
they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar' the herald could have
been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if it was really Jean de
Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information from him.
According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's confession says
that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the official story of PW,
although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai archives that Jean de
Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of rope and ship's
accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and Jean sound like
possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to Noel, but has been
misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were two versions of the
confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't been able to find a
copy of the French confession online, but there were significant differences in
the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he attended and his
teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an organist.' My feeling is
that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or another Plantagenet) and
sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques possibly having some
involvement.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-04-29 15:56:21
Mary,
Thank you for thinking of the Journals. Sorry to say, that
possible source never crossed my mind! I did a quick check and it looks as if
should it contain anything on this topic, it'll be easy to find. Thanks
again!
Doug
Mary wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available
on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index.
Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy
Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed
that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be
lots of information on various subjects.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Thank you for thinking of the Journals. Sorry to say, that
possible source never crossed my mind! I did a quick check and it looks as if
should it contain anything on this topic, it'll be easy to find. Thanks
again!
Doug
Mary wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available
on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index.
Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy
Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed
that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be
lots of information on various subjects.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-05-01 12:23:53
Thanks very much for this Mary. Been working, just catching up ... again!
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-01 12:34:57
Or .... perhaps HT himself wasn't really sure? He'd never personally seen ROY who would still have been a boy when he became king. And children can change quite significantly in their teens; even his sister might not really have been sure. Was this the truth or just a foreign game to undermine his kingship, as Arthurson claims? I said in an earlier post that the Spanish and other European monarchs thought Perkin was credible, and it's more than just he spoke and behaved like a prince, he had the bearing and ease of someone who had been in these circles for most of his life. Even the most accomplished actor would surely come up against something for which his training had not prepared him?As I've said, I was until very recently a real sceptic on this but there was definitely something going on in Brampton (and London) circles from probably before 1483. Our trouble is everything is so marred by Tudor propaganda that we really do need those foreigners to help us. H
On Sunday, 28 April 2019, 17:23:33 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilar
y,
I
agree that HT might not kill his wife's brother if he had to do it himself;
otherwise, I fall back on what happened to Warwick and others.
If
we tie together two separate points you made, perhaps that might strengthen the
case for it being Richard/Perkin being hanged? You wrote What HT desperately
needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders... and later that
Hanging is a strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't
favour beheading to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you'd
expect the full HDQ...
Putting
these two together and you have a king executing someone for treason but
not treating that person as a non-noble would have been. It's
my understanding that whether or not a noble was beheaded was considered a
boon to be granted, or withheld, at the pleasure of the monarch. OTOH, the law
stated quite clearly how a non-noble was to die hung, but not until dead, then
cut down, bowels removed and butchered into quarters. If we look at what HT was
faced with, a desperate need to remove a royal opponent that he dared not
recognize as even being royal, his actions look to me as if HT, once again,
wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. He declared Richard/Perkin to be an
imposter, but executed him without treated him as an imposter. HT dared not have
him beheaded as if he was a royal, but he could spare him the horrible agonies
associated with being hung, drawn and quartered that was the fate of a
commoner.
Doug
who
also would like to see more foreign input on these events
Hilary
wrote:
Nico,
Mary, that's the direction that I was going. You see it's a very clever double
bluff. I don't think HT would kill his wife's brother - I agree Nico, he did
come to love her - and I don't think his ma would countenance the public hanging
of a Plantagenet, or even the killing of another one after Richard. So what
could HT do? Spirit him away somewhere he could keep an eye on him in exchange
for his life and maintenance. And if that applied to ROY it could also apply to
Warwick, and indeed to the illegitimate child of Richard who was rumoured to
have been put to death about the same time.
What HT desperately needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders;
look how they'd affected Richard. So if he could say they were all dead that
would be the end of it - he hoped. And it has worked, hasn't it? Even Anne Wroe
dismisses the claim that PW was ROY because these people said he didn't look
like Edward, for a start he was too small. As Mary said, what if some poor soul
who was condemned for some other crime anyway agreed to the scaffold confession
in return for, say, a payment to his family?
I've been in the main a sceptic about PW but when you put things together
it's more complex. There are all these people, like Clifford and Dean Worsley,
who are pardoned. And then there's the manner of execution itself. Hanging is a
strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't favour beheading
to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you would expect the full
HDQ - after all this was someone who'd set out to dethrone him. It's really
strange..
Finally, I also agree that far too little attention is paid to foreign
observers; they are scarcely more biased than More or Croyland, and if there are
inaccuracies they are usually easier to spot. No-one would ever dream of
studying Britain in the nineteenth century without also studying foreign events,
and that's not just about the Empire. Yet most historians can't even be bothered
to give more than a page to the Scottish war, and that involved Richard and was
just up the road.
I do think Richard of Eastwell was someone, but who?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Sunday, 28 April 2019, 17:23:33 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilar
y,
I
agree that HT might not kill his wife's brother if he had to do it himself;
otherwise, I fall back on what happened to Warwick and others.
If
we tie together two separate points you made, perhaps that might strengthen the
case for it being Richard/Perkin being hanged? You wrote What HT desperately
needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders... and later that
Hanging is a strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't
favour beheading to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you'd
expect the full HDQ...
Putting
these two together and you have a king executing someone for treason but
not treating that person as a non-noble would have been. It's
my understanding that whether or not a noble was beheaded was considered a
boon to be granted, or withheld, at the pleasure of the monarch. OTOH, the law
stated quite clearly how a non-noble was to die hung, but not until dead, then
cut down, bowels removed and butchered into quarters. If we look at what HT was
faced with, a desperate need to remove a royal opponent that he dared not
recognize as even being royal, his actions look to me as if HT, once again,
wanted to have his cake and eat it, too. He declared Richard/Perkin to be an
imposter, but executed him without treated him as an imposter. HT dared not have
him beheaded as if he was a royal, but he could spare him the horrible agonies
associated with being hung, drawn and quartered that was the fate of a
commoner.
Doug
who
also would like to see more foreign input on these events
Hilary
wrote:
Nico,
Mary, that's the direction that I was going. You see it's a very clever double
bluff. I don't think HT would kill his wife's brother - I agree Nico, he did
come to love her - and I don't think his ma would countenance the public hanging
of a Plantagenet, or even the killing of another one after Richard. So what
could HT do? Spirit him away somewhere he could keep an eye on him in exchange
for his life and maintenance. And if that applied to ROY it could also apply to
Warwick, and indeed to the illegitimate child of Richard who was rumoured to
have been put to death about the same time.
What HT desperately needed was closure to all these rumours and pretenders;
look how they'd affected Richard. So if he could say they were all dead that
would be the end of it - he hoped. And it has worked, hasn't it? Even Anne Wroe
dismisses the claim that PW was ROY because these people said he didn't look
like Edward, for a start he was too small. As Mary said, what if some poor soul
who was condemned for some other crime anyway agreed to the scaffold confession
in return for, say, a payment to his family?
I've been in the main a sceptic about PW but when you put things together
it's more complex. There are all these people, like Clifford and Dean Worsley,
who are pardoned. And then there's the manner of execution itself. Hanging is a
strange punishment for this sort of crime. No doubt HT didn't favour beheading
to indicate that PW wasn't of noble blood, but then you would expect the full
HDQ - after all this was someone who'd set out to dethrone him. It's really
strange..
Finally, I also agree that far too little attention is paid to foreign
observers; they are scarcely more biased than More or Croyland, and if there are
inaccuracies they are usually easier to spot. No-one would ever dream of
studying Britain in the nineteenth century without also studying foreign events,
and that's not just about the Empire. Yet most historians can't even be bothered
to give more than a page to the Scottish war, and that involved Richard and was
just up the road.
I do think Richard of Eastwell was someone, but who?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-01 13:04:03
Hi Doug, so sorry to have taken all this time to reply to this, I'm really behind.I've had some thoughts which sort of blend in with what you think about the timing of the revelation of the PreContract and what I thought (i.e. pre or after the death of Hastings)I think we all agree that during May 1483 things calmed down quite a lot, the Council got back to business and the Coronation planning was under way. By the end of May, very early June the person who had knowledge of the PreContract was getting itchy. Like you, I don't think it was a woman or someone with direct access to the Council and therefore Stillington was chosen as the conduit because of his legal knowledge, his former political clout and his knowledge of Church Law. Both our possible suspects, Talbot lawyer Newton and Confessor Ingleby, knew Stillington personally; he was Newton's Bishop and Ingleby's in-law, so quite a natural choice.But if you think this through what could Stillington do, rush into the Council claiming he had a Newsflash and the Coronation would have to be cancelled? That way would probably lead to an uncomfortable period in the Tower. So would not his natural choice be to discuss it with his clerical friends? No good choosing Bourchier, he was old and 'of the Blood'. But his fellow archbishop, Rotherham, was a Yorkshireman and who better than Stillington's old chum Morton who he'd known since Oxford in the 1440s and with whom he'd served Henry VI (and who incidentally also originated from York but that's another story)? Of course once Morton knew, then King knew and Reggie knew, as did MB who would make sure EW knew. I doubt Stillington would know what he had set in motion.EW's reaction would be once more to panic, so she sends for her former Treasurer, John Forster and probably Dorset. They agree that the answer once more is to get rid of Richard before he finds out, but if they're clever they can also get rid of another arch-enemy, Hastings. During probably a fireside chat with Morton (or Forster) Hastings is given the story that historians have believed for five hundred years. Richard and Buckingham are plotting to depose Edward and put Richard on the throne. Hastings is distraught, won over and agrees to be part of the plot to do the job. The rest is history, but the plotters also know that if the plot fails, Hastings must die before he talks. And this of course makes sense of JAH's allegation that he died not of beheading but during a skirmish with a Tower guard.Stillington, seeing both his confidants arrested, has no option to reveal what he knows to the Council at once. But who was in a position to glean there was possible trouble for Richard and warn him? Perhaps Stanley?If you begin to look at it this way it does start to hang together, I think? H
On Thursday, 11 April 2019, 17:45:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I'm
not really up on Royal Council protocol, but it does seem to me that if the
knowledge of the Pre-Contract was held by a person who normally wouldn't be at a
Council meeting, then that person would need, first, access to someone who did
attend Council meetings and, second, for that someone to be of sufficient
stature that the notion wasn't dismissed out-right. Stillington, would, I think,
fit both requirements, wouldn't he? His legal knowledge may very well have been
the reason for his being used as the conduit for the information in the first
place. And then that same legal knowledge placed Stillington in the position of
being the best qualified person to make the bill. Of course, that still leaves
us with trying to discover who was Stillington's Deep Throat (the source for
many of the Watergate newspaper articles), but it would thin it down some, if
only by eliminating anyone who could have attended a Council meeting in their
own right. My money is on that someone either being a member of the clergy
lacking direct access to the Council, IOW not a Bishop or Abbot, or a woman..
Further than that, though...
I
know I've often referred to the aim of the Woodville plot as young Edward's
coronation, but perhaps that isn't the best term? What the Woodvilles needed
was to have young Edward remake the Council and then have that remade Council
strip the Protector of all, or nearly all, his powers and authority. That
wouldn't need an actual coronation ceremony, would it, only young Edward
chairing a meeting of the Council? However, whether or not young Edward was
going to crowned or not at the beginning of May, that was, as you noted, a month
after Edward IV died. OTOH, whoever it was with the knowledge of the
Pre-Contract had several things to do in the time between the death of Edward IV
and the Pre-Contract being placed before the Council. First they had to decide
whether or not to even reveal what they knew. Then they had to get to London.
Then they had to get the ear of someone on the Council, and not just any
someone, but someone with enough clout to be taken seriously. Then they had to
convince that person that, yes, Edward had been married to Eleanor Butler when
he went through a marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville. After all, whoever
it was who was going to introduce the Pre-Contract needed first to be convinced
he wouldn't be risking his reputation or his life. All that, I think, could
easily explain the time-lag between the death of Edward IV and the Council
taking up the matter, couldn't it?
I
haven't any direct evidence to support my suggested dates for the Pre-Contract
being brought before the Council, only inferences based on the importance of the
matter under discussion and what experience I've gained from sitting on
committees myself. If we start with Hastings' execution on 13 June, the first
question needing answered is: Why? If the answer to that question is, as I think
it is, that Hastings was involved with the Woodvilles (and others) in a plot to
kill Richard, we're again faced with a Why; what could have happened to get
Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles? My reply is: The matter of the
Pre-Contract and whether or not young Edward was going to remain on the throne.
Maybe it's me, but I really can't imagine anything else that stood the slightest
chance of serving as a link between such two opposed groups.
Now,
as best we can tell, the first public notice of what had been
going on in the Council meetings was Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's Cross. However,
just because that was the first public notice, even if Richard deprecated Shaa's
hastiness, that doesn't mean the Council hadn't already had the matter under
discussion for some time. I admit that, at first, it did seem strange that such
an important matter might remain under the table for so long, but then it
occurred to me; who would benefit from knowledge of the Pre-Contract getting
out? It certainly wouldn't benefit the those supporting young Edward! And if,
regardless of what later chroniclers/Shakespeare wrote, Richard wasn't aiming
for the crown from the get-go, then he didn't have any reason either. In fact,
whether the Pre-Contract was accepted as being valid or not, the matter in and
of itself presented nothing but problems. Disallow the Pre-Contract's validity
and the Council would be forced to spend time and effort in ensuring it, and
whoever originated it, never spoke of it again. But even that couldn't erase the
knowledge the matter had been brought before the Council from the
memories of those Council members. OTOH, accept the Pre-Contract as being
factual and they were faced with removing young Edward, already proclaimed as
king, and replacing him with, almost certainly, his uncle, the Duke of
Gloucester. No problems!
Whether
or not the Tower itself was to be the scene of the attempt on Richard and
Buckingham, I can't say. It was, as you note, the center of a lot of the royal
government as well as being home to quite a large number of people. However,
there's also the fact that, AFAIK, it was against the law for anyone to go armed
into the presence of the king. Whether that law would also apply to the person
of the Protector, someone acting in the king's stead, I don't know, but I
wouldn't be surprised to find that it did. Even so, we have no record of when or
how often Richard met with his nephew, so we can't say with any certainty if
Richard did indeed walk about the Tower and its' grounds armed or not. If, as I
think likely, it was the latter case, then the plot could very have been one
where an undetermined number of armed men were quietly brought into the Tower
grounds where they'd wait for a chance to attack Richard. Of course, it's also
entirely possible that the attempt on Richard and Buckingham was to take place
outside the Tower; the streets/lanes in the vicinity of the Tower serving as the
urban equivalent of those roads near Grafton Regis?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, as part of this I promised earlier that I'd get back about the JAH claim
that Stillington revealed the Pre-Contract on 9 June.
Now the one area where JAH and I part company is on the subject of
Stillington and his role in the Pre-Contract. For a start. JAH has always
claimed that Edward promoted him as a reward for concealing it. In fact
Stillington had held exactly the same office and the same salary under
Henry VI. He had been well-liked by Henry VI and undertaken diplomatic missions
for him. With his passion for founding schools S was probably much more of a
mind with HVI than with Edward. And in that he was a natural successor to Bishop
Beckington, the co-founder of Eton.
JAH now claims that S left London after 1473, when he resigned the Privy
Seal and went to the West Country. In fact from the Registers at Wells we know
that he was there very little and is much more likely to have been in London as
he was still Dean of St Martin le Grand and remained so until 1485. So JAH is
saying that Stillington must have been the one who revealed the Pre-Contract
because he happened to be in London at a coronation meeting on 9 June.
Sorry JAH!
I do think that Stillington had a role in drafting TR as he probably had
the most astute legal mind on the Council, but I don't think we can take 9 June
as a definitive date for the revelation on this basis. And why were half the
Council still planning the Coronation on 13th?
There is one question I would ask. Whoever knew about the Pre-Contract knew
they were holding a hot potato from the day of Edward's death. The coronation
was originally fixed for 4 May. Why did their conscience not kick in till June?
I haven't got an answer unless it was someone fed up with the Woodville plots -
or it was Buckingham who'd manoeuvred himself into an important position in the
interim.
I know I haven't really answered your question but that's why I think the
revelation didn't happen until after Hastings's death. JAH himself says that the
Plumptons didn't mention it in their correspondence on 23 June and one would
have thought they would.
Finally, the Tower was extremely accessible; it was no more a prison then
than any other castle or royal residence. For a start about 100 people lived
there and in its grounds. It held not just the Mint but the Royal Armoury and
the Menagerie - which was open to the public. In Richard's day there was nothing
forbidding coming and going to the Tower; thank the Tudors for that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 11 April 2019, 17:45:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I'm
not really up on Royal Council protocol, but it does seem to me that if the
knowledge of the Pre-Contract was held by a person who normally wouldn't be at a
Council meeting, then that person would need, first, access to someone who did
attend Council meetings and, second, for that someone to be of sufficient
stature that the notion wasn't dismissed out-right. Stillington, would, I think,
fit both requirements, wouldn't he? His legal knowledge may very well have been
the reason for his being used as the conduit for the information in the first
place. And then that same legal knowledge placed Stillington in the position of
being the best qualified person to make the bill. Of course, that still leaves
us with trying to discover who was Stillington's Deep Throat (the source for
many of the Watergate newspaper articles), but it would thin it down some, if
only by eliminating anyone who could have attended a Council meeting in their
own right. My money is on that someone either being a member of the clergy
lacking direct access to the Council, IOW not a Bishop or Abbot, or a woman..
Further than that, though...
I
know I've often referred to the aim of the Woodville plot as young Edward's
coronation, but perhaps that isn't the best term? What the Woodvilles needed
was to have young Edward remake the Council and then have that remade Council
strip the Protector of all, or nearly all, his powers and authority. That
wouldn't need an actual coronation ceremony, would it, only young Edward
chairing a meeting of the Council? However, whether or not young Edward was
going to crowned or not at the beginning of May, that was, as you noted, a month
after Edward IV died. OTOH, whoever it was with the knowledge of the
Pre-Contract had several things to do in the time between the death of Edward IV
and the Pre-Contract being placed before the Council. First they had to decide
whether or not to even reveal what they knew. Then they had to get to London.
Then they had to get the ear of someone on the Council, and not just any
someone, but someone with enough clout to be taken seriously. Then they had to
convince that person that, yes, Edward had been married to Eleanor Butler when
he went through a marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville. After all, whoever
it was who was going to introduce the Pre-Contract needed first to be convinced
he wouldn't be risking his reputation or his life. All that, I think, could
easily explain the time-lag between the death of Edward IV and the Council
taking up the matter, couldn't it?
I
haven't any direct evidence to support my suggested dates for the Pre-Contract
being brought before the Council, only inferences based on the importance of the
matter under discussion and what experience I've gained from sitting on
committees myself. If we start with Hastings' execution on 13 June, the first
question needing answered is: Why? If the answer to that question is, as I think
it is, that Hastings was involved with the Woodvilles (and others) in a plot to
kill Richard, we're again faced with a Why; what could have happened to get
Hastings to ally himself with the Woodvilles? My reply is: The matter of the
Pre-Contract and whether or not young Edward was going to remain on the throne.
Maybe it's me, but I really can't imagine anything else that stood the slightest
chance of serving as a link between such two opposed groups.
Now,
as best we can tell, the first public notice of what had been
going on in the Council meetings was Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's Cross. However,
just because that was the first public notice, even if Richard deprecated Shaa's
hastiness, that doesn't mean the Council hadn't already had the matter under
discussion for some time. I admit that, at first, it did seem strange that such
an important matter might remain under the table for so long, but then it
occurred to me; who would benefit from knowledge of the Pre-Contract getting
out? It certainly wouldn't benefit the those supporting young Edward! And if,
regardless of what later chroniclers/Shakespeare wrote, Richard wasn't aiming
for the crown from the get-go, then he didn't have any reason either. In fact,
whether the Pre-Contract was accepted as being valid or not, the matter in and
of itself presented nothing but problems. Disallow the Pre-Contract's validity
and the Council would be forced to spend time and effort in ensuring it, and
whoever originated it, never spoke of it again. But even that couldn't erase the
knowledge the matter had been brought before the Council from the
memories of those Council members. OTOH, accept the Pre-Contract as being
factual and they were faced with removing young Edward, already proclaimed as
king, and replacing him with, almost certainly, his uncle, the Duke of
Gloucester. No problems!
Whether
or not the Tower itself was to be the scene of the attempt on Richard and
Buckingham, I can't say. It was, as you note, the center of a lot of the royal
government as well as being home to quite a large number of people. However,
there's also the fact that, AFAIK, it was against the law for anyone to go armed
into the presence of the king. Whether that law would also apply to the person
of the Protector, someone acting in the king's stead, I don't know, but I
wouldn't be surprised to find that it did. Even so, we have no record of when or
how often Richard met with his nephew, so we can't say with any certainty if
Richard did indeed walk about the Tower and its' grounds armed or not. If, as I
think likely, it was the latter case, then the plot could very have been one
where an undetermined number of armed men were quietly brought into the Tower
grounds where they'd wait for a chance to attack Richard. Of course, it's also
entirely possible that the attempt on Richard and Buckingham was to take place
outside the Tower; the streets/lanes in the vicinity of the Tower serving as the
urban equivalent of those roads near Grafton Regis?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, as part of this I promised earlier that I'd get back about the JAH claim
that Stillington revealed the Pre-Contract on 9 June.
Now the one area where JAH and I part company is on the subject of
Stillington and his role in the Pre-Contract. For a start. JAH has always
claimed that Edward promoted him as a reward for concealing it. In fact
Stillington had held exactly the same office and the same salary under
Henry VI. He had been well-liked by Henry VI and undertaken diplomatic missions
for him. With his passion for founding schools S was probably much more of a
mind with HVI than with Edward. And in that he was a natural successor to Bishop
Beckington, the co-founder of Eton.
JAH now claims that S left London after 1473, when he resigned the Privy
Seal and went to the West Country. In fact from the Registers at Wells we know
that he was there very little and is much more likely to have been in London as
he was still Dean of St Martin le Grand and remained so until 1485. So JAH is
saying that Stillington must have been the one who revealed the Pre-Contract
because he happened to be in London at a coronation meeting on 9 June.
Sorry JAH!
I do think that Stillington had a role in drafting TR as he probably had
the most astute legal mind on the Council, but I don't think we can take 9 June
as a definitive date for the revelation on this basis. And why were half the
Council still planning the Coronation on 13th?
There is one question I would ask. Whoever knew about the Pre-Contract knew
they were holding a hot potato from the day of Edward's death. The coronation
was originally fixed for 4 May. Why did their conscience not kick in till June?
I haven't got an answer unless it was someone fed up with the Woodville plots -
or it was Buckingham who'd manoeuvred himself into an important position in the
interim.
I know I haven't really answered your question but that's why I think the
revelation didn't happen until after Hastings's death. JAH himself says that the
Plumptons didn't mention it in their correspondence on 23 June and one would
have thought they would.
Finally, the Tower was extremely accessible; it was no more a prison then
than any other castle or royal residence. For a start about 100 people lived
there and in its grounds. It held not just the Mint but the Royal Armoury and
the Menagerie - which was open to the public. In Richard's day there was nothing
forbidding coming and going to the Tower; thank the Tudors for that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-05-01 14:59:34
Some interesting articles. Barrie Williams on Brampton and just read one on Richard of Eastwell with some information that I had not read previously.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-01 15:13:22
Sounds feasible to me. Do we know exactly when the story about Hastings being taken out immediately and beheaded surfaces? If I remember correctly there are some letters, the Stonor letters? where it is reported that Hastings is deceased in trouble. That could mean killed in the fighting and then maybe to make Richard look bad MB and her delightful son make up the story of Richard executing him without a trial. I agree about Stanley, he was in a good position with Richard he would not want to throw that away to be ruled by the Woodvilles.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-02 10:12:18
Hi Mary, I have the Stallworth letter in the Stonor papers. It does indeed talk of the Chamberleyn being 'hedded' at 'noon on Fryday last' but it's ambiguous. The reason is it's dated 21 June and Fryday last would have been the 20th - a week after the incident in the Tower. Clements Markham claimed it proved Hastings received a trial but this was refuted by Gairdner. The letter is written in more than one hand because Stallworth was sick, so could have been started a week before.The rest of the 'evidence' comes from Mancini and Croyland including the tale about the log. JAH always gets carried away about Stillington. For example he has him specially coming to London to announce the PreContract to the Council on 9 June. Firstly, it's highly likely that Stillington was in London already since he rarely went to his diocese and was Dean of St Martin's which was right by the Tower and secondly, other than Richard's letter to York on 10 June there is not shred of evidence to say the PreContract was announced then; Richard's request was all about EW's plotting, no mention of anything about young Edward. Indeed why would half the Council still be discussing the coronation on 13 June? It's a shame because otherwise the JAH book is very good. But he does make the point that Hastings could have been beheaded by a soldier as he tried to attack Richard on 13 June. I guess unless some other letter comes to light we will never know. H
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019, 15:13:27 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Sounds feasible to me. Do we know exactly when the story about Hastings being taken out immediately and beheaded surfaces? If I remember correctly there are some letters, the Stonor letters? where it is reported that Hastings is deceased in trouble. That could mean killed in the fighting and then maybe to make Richard look bad MB and her delightful son make up the story of Richard executing him without a trial. I agree about Stanley, he was in a good position with Richard he would not want to throw that away to be ruled by the Woodvilles.Mary
On Wednesday, 1 May 2019, 15:13:27 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Sounds feasible to me. Do we know exactly when the story about Hastings being taken out immediately and beheaded surfaces? If I remember correctly there are some letters, the Stonor letters? where it is reported that Hastings is deceased in trouble. That could mean killed in the fighting and then maybe to make Richard look bad MB and her delightful son make up the story of Richard executing him without a trial. I agree about Stanley, he was in a good position with Richard he would not want to throw that away to be ruled by the Woodvilles.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-05-02 10:19:19
Thank you so very much for all this and the links, Nico. It convinces me I need to revisit Baldwin's book on Richard of Eastwell. He had HT detaining 'Richard' at Colchester and actually visiting him occasionally.I'll look it up and come back to you. Would love to get my hands on that book as well! H
On Sunday, 28 April 2019, 21:06:39 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
I can see
this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he was well confined
was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT may have been willing to
take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was concerned, once justice
was seen to have done, and Perkin officially dead, that may have been
enough. HT was someone who never had much stability in his early life, and the
idea of losing the love and respect of EofY may have been just too much for
him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly emotional man, but he was not
without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and EofY died, and it is
possible that he could have seen something of his younger self in Perkin. If PW
was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an inheritance that HT had
given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also agree with you Hilary that MB would have
disapproved. If he resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine marriage, it may have given him a
sense of being in control. Although Warwick was only a cousin, beheading him
wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the
best option. Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell,
but since he was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far
fetched book called Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the
Ricardian, but was never made available other than at a ridiculous price from
the author's website, which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury
Abbey. I didn't find the other ideas in the book credible (although I would
love to read it), but I wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks Doug
for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have been
possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before
the execution to maintain secrecy. The
Tower plot with Cleymonde and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that
could have also have been staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the
imprisonment and torture, there is a record of HT making payments for very
expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession.
It is unfortunate that they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar'
the herald could have been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if
it was really Jean de Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information
from him. According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's
confession says that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the
official story of PW, although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai
archives that Jean de Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of
rope and ship's accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and
Jean sound like possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to
Noel, but has been misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were
two versions of the confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't
been able to find a copy of the French confession online, but there were significant
differences in the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he
attended and his teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an
organist.' My feeling is that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or
another Plantagenet) and sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques
possibly having some involvement.Nico
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
On Sunday, 28 April 2019, 21:06:39 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
I can see
this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he was well confined
was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT may have been willing to
take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was concerned, once justice
was seen to have done, and Perkin officially dead, that may have been
enough. HT was someone who never had much stability in his early life, and the
idea of losing the love and respect of EofY may have been just too much for
him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly emotional man, but he was not
without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and EofY died, and it is
possible that he could have seen something of his younger self in Perkin. If PW
was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an inheritance that HT had
given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also agree with you Hilary that MB would have
disapproved. If he resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine marriage, it may have given him a
sense of being in control. Although Warwick was only a cousin, beheading him
wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the
best option. Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell,
but since he was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far
fetched book called Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the
Ricardian, but was never made available other than at a ridiculous price from
the author's website, which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury
Abbey. I didn't find the other ideas in the book credible (although I would
love to read it), but I wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks Doug
for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have been
possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before
the execution to maintain secrecy. The
Tower plot with Cleymonde and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that
could have also have been staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the
imprisonment and torture, there is a record of HT making payments for very
expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession.
It is unfortunate that they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar'
the herald could have been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if
it was really Jean de Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information
from him. According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's
confession says that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the
official story of PW, although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai
archives that Jean de Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of
rope and ship's accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and
Jean sound like possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to
Noel, but has been misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were
two versions of the confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't
been able to find a copy of the French confession online, but there were significant
differences in the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he
attended and his teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an
organist.' My feeling is that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or
another Plantagenet) and sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques
possibly having some involvement.Nico
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-02 16:56:02
Hilary,
I
agree with you that things calmed down after Richard and young Edward entered
London in early May. I also agree that it may very well have been Stillington to
whom the Pre-Contract was first revealed; after that, however, we
diverge.
As
you point out, Stillington couldn't just raise his hand at a Council meeting and
toss out what he knew about the Pre-Contract. It's my view that the good bishop
went straight to the top and informed Richard, almost certainly privately, about
the information that had come to him. After all, whether the Council accepted
the Pre-Contract as being valid or judged to be merely another archer story,
Richard was the one who'd have to deal with the consequences. I also think
various members of the Council were then informed, privately again and with much
swearing to secrecy. The possibility that the newly-proclaimed king was
illegitimate did nothing but create problems for everyone.
Whether one believed the charge might be true or not, it was that realization of
the stink that would result from the Pre-Contract becoming public knowledge that
ensured those informed would keep their mouths shut. I also think that, had the
Pre-Contract been brought before the Council by anyone other than Stillington,
or someone else of the same stature, that person would have been tossed into a
cell for lese majesty (at least). If I can go off subject slightly here
we know that Stillington has been named as the person who drew up the Bill,
aka Titulus Regius, but just exactly what does that term encompass?
Many people might think it meant merely that Stillington was the person who
wrote the Bill, but if we look at drew up the Bill as meaning
Stillington was the one who provided the Canonical justification for
the Bill, might that change things, if only a bit?
Anyway,
back to the topic. It's a bit harder to draw up a list of just who would have
been taken aside and given the information. There'd be the king, or in this case
the Protector. Then there'd be the various appointees; such as the Lord
Chancellor and the Lord Treasurer. Hastings, especially as Captain of Calais,
would almost certainly be informed. I'm sure I've missed some people, but of
those occupying appointed posts, the number surely wouldn't have been
over a dozen. It's those people that had a right to attend Council meetings
because of their non-governmental positions that really expands the group. Of
course Morton, as Bishop of Ely, had a right to attend meetings, as did all
bishops. There'd also be members of the nobility, such as Buckingham and
perhaps Stanley, who'd also consider it their right to attend. Just how many
of that latter two groups who'd be informed about the Pre-Contract, I can't say.
I certainly don't think membership in either group was considered as
automatically necessitating their being informed.
At
any rate, we're dealing with a group of somewhere around 15-20, almost certainly
those who were members of either the Tower group or the coronation group, but
not necessarily those who could, if they so wished, drop in at a Council
meeting and not be shown the door. As I wrote, I don't think any member of
either the pro- or anti- group would want to make public anything about the
Pre-Contract until after the Council had met and made a decision on how to
proceed. However, this does not mean that some members weren't
making plans for either eventuality.
Which
is where EW comes into the picture. It's only my opinion, but I don't think she
stopped plotting after the failure at Stony Stratford. What she lacked, though,
was an issue that went further than supporting the Woodvilles because they were
the new king's relatives. Whether or not that new king would remain on the
throne at all gave her that and allowed her to include people in a plot against
Richard; people who otherwise wouldn't be expected to support her and, as we
know, were even known to be anti-Woodville. People such as Lord Hastings. FWIW,
I wouldn't be surprised should we ever discover that EW had been officially
informed about the Pre-Contract shortly after it had been brought to the
attention of Council members. It's not as if she would start spreading the news
that the legitimacy of her son ,was being
investigated...
All
of the above is based on the presumption that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was
spread sub rosa and that the June 13 Council meeting was to be when the
matter would be officially discussed and settled, one way or another. However
the decision went, it was a matter that absolutely needed to be addressed
immediately once it had been officially recognized. Needless to say, if a
final decision was to be made on 13 June, then it was necessary for
those who'd be making the decision then to have been fully briefed on both the
subject and its' supporting evidence prior to that meeting. The whole
time-period for the Pre-Contract, between its' first revelation and Hastings'
execution, likely wasn't more than three weeks and, as I said above, as I can't
see anyone involved having any incentive to make the subject public and, lacking
Facebook and Twitter, the means to do so were both extremely limited and of
doubtful value.
Now,
had the Council met and, say, not been able to come to a final decision on what
to do about it, I don't doubt news about the Pre-Contract would have been all
over London within a day or two. However, adding together Richard's letter to
York, Hastings' execution and the few other bits and pieces of information
available, it appears to me as that those who'd been informed about the
Pre-Contract had recognized, even before the 13 June Council meeting, its'
validity and a majority intended to vote to accept the Pre-Contract as being a
true representation of the facts.
Doug
who
does admit to be trying to pull together a Grand Unified Theory of all
this...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, so sorry to have taken all this time to reply to this, I'm really
behind.
I've had some thoughts which sort of blend in with what you think about the
timing of the revelation of the PreContract and what I thought (i.e. pre or
after the death of Hastings)
I think we all agree that during May 1483 things calmed down quite a lot,
the Council got back to business and the Coronation planning was under way. By
the end of May, very early June the person who had knowledge of the PreContract
was getting itchy. Like you, I don't think it was a woman or someone with direct
access to the Council and therefore Stillington was chosen as the conduit
because of his legal knowledge, his former political clout and his knowledge of
Church Law. Both our possible suspects, Talbot lawyer Newton and Confessor
Ingleby, knew Stillington personally; he was Newton's Bishop and Ingleby's
in-law, so quite a natural choice.
But if you think this through what could Stillington do, rush into the
Council claiming he had a Newsflash and the Coronation would have to be
cancelled? That way would probably lead to an uncomfortable period in the Tower.
So would not his natural choice be to discuss it with his clerical friends? No
good choosing Bourchier, he was old and 'of the Blood'. But his fellow
archbishop, Rotherham, was a Yorkshireman and who better than Stillington's old
chum Morton who he'd known since Oxford in the 1440s and with whom he'd served
Henry VI (and who incidentally also originated from York but that's another
story)? Of course once Morton knew, then King knew and Reggie knew, as did MB
who would make sure EW knew. I doubt Stillington would know what he had set in
motion.
EW's reaction would be once more to panic, so she sends for her former
Treasurer, John Forster and probably Dorset. They agree that the answer once
more is to get rid of Richard before he finds out, but if they're clever they
can also get rid of another arch-enemy, Hastings. During probably a fireside
chat with Morton (or Forster) Hastings is given the story that historians have
believed for five hundred years. Richard and Buckingham are plotting to depose
Edward and put Richard on the throne. Hastings is distraught, won over and
agrees to be part of the plot to do the job. The rest is history, but the
plotters also know that if the plot fails, Hastings must die before he talks.
And this of course makes sense of JAH's allegation that he died not of beheading
but during a skirmish with a Tower guard.
Stillington, seeing both his confidants arrested, has no option to reveal
what he knows to the Council at once. But who was in a position to glean there
was possible trouble for Richard and warn him? Perhaps Stanley?
If you begin to look at it this way it does start to hang together, I
think?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
agree with you that things calmed down after Richard and young Edward entered
London in early May. I also agree that it may very well have been Stillington to
whom the Pre-Contract was first revealed; after that, however, we
diverge.
As
you point out, Stillington couldn't just raise his hand at a Council meeting and
toss out what he knew about the Pre-Contract. It's my view that the good bishop
went straight to the top and informed Richard, almost certainly privately, about
the information that had come to him. After all, whether the Council accepted
the Pre-Contract as being valid or judged to be merely another archer story,
Richard was the one who'd have to deal with the consequences. I also think
various members of the Council were then informed, privately again and with much
swearing to secrecy. The possibility that the newly-proclaimed king was
illegitimate did nothing but create problems for everyone.
Whether one believed the charge might be true or not, it was that realization of
the stink that would result from the Pre-Contract becoming public knowledge that
ensured those informed would keep their mouths shut. I also think that, had the
Pre-Contract been brought before the Council by anyone other than Stillington,
or someone else of the same stature, that person would have been tossed into a
cell for lese majesty (at least). If I can go off subject slightly here
we know that Stillington has been named as the person who drew up the Bill,
aka Titulus Regius, but just exactly what does that term encompass?
Many people might think it meant merely that Stillington was the person who
wrote the Bill, but if we look at drew up the Bill as meaning
Stillington was the one who provided the Canonical justification for
the Bill, might that change things, if only a bit?
Anyway,
back to the topic. It's a bit harder to draw up a list of just who would have
been taken aside and given the information. There'd be the king, or in this case
the Protector. Then there'd be the various appointees; such as the Lord
Chancellor and the Lord Treasurer. Hastings, especially as Captain of Calais,
would almost certainly be informed. I'm sure I've missed some people, but of
those occupying appointed posts, the number surely wouldn't have been
over a dozen. It's those people that had a right to attend Council meetings
because of their non-governmental positions that really expands the group. Of
course Morton, as Bishop of Ely, had a right to attend meetings, as did all
bishops. There'd also be members of the nobility, such as Buckingham and
perhaps Stanley, who'd also consider it their right to attend. Just how many
of that latter two groups who'd be informed about the Pre-Contract, I can't say.
I certainly don't think membership in either group was considered as
automatically necessitating their being informed.
At
any rate, we're dealing with a group of somewhere around 15-20, almost certainly
those who were members of either the Tower group or the coronation group, but
not necessarily those who could, if they so wished, drop in at a Council
meeting and not be shown the door. As I wrote, I don't think any member of
either the pro- or anti- group would want to make public anything about the
Pre-Contract until after the Council had met and made a decision on how to
proceed. However, this does not mean that some members weren't
making plans for either eventuality.
Which
is where EW comes into the picture. It's only my opinion, but I don't think she
stopped plotting after the failure at Stony Stratford. What she lacked, though,
was an issue that went further than supporting the Woodvilles because they were
the new king's relatives. Whether or not that new king would remain on the
throne at all gave her that and allowed her to include people in a plot against
Richard; people who otherwise wouldn't be expected to support her and, as we
know, were even known to be anti-Woodville. People such as Lord Hastings. FWIW,
I wouldn't be surprised should we ever discover that EW had been officially
informed about the Pre-Contract shortly after it had been brought to the
attention of Council members. It's not as if she would start spreading the news
that the legitimacy of her son ,was being
investigated...
All
of the above is based on the presumption that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was
spread sub rosa and that the June 13 Council meeting was to be when the
matter would be officially discussed and settled, one way or another. However
the decision went, it was a matter that absolutely needed to be addressed
immediately once it had been officially recognized. Needless to say, if a
final decision was to be made on 13 June, then it was necessary for
those who'd be making the decision then to have been fully briefed on both the
subject and its' supporting evidence prior to that meeting. The whole
time-period for the Pre-Contract, between its' first revelation and Hastings'
execution, likely wasn't more than three weeks and, as I said above, as I can't
see anyone involved having any incentive to make the subject public and, lacking
Facebook and Twitter, the means to do so were both extremely limited and of
doubtful value.
Now,
had the Council met and, say, not been able to come to a final decision on what
to do about it, I don't doubt news about the Pre-Contract would have been all
over London within a day or two. However, adding together Richard's letter to
York, Hastings' execution and the few other bits and pieces of information
available, it appears to me as that those who'd been informed about the
Pre-Contract had recognized, even before the 13 June Council meeting, its'
validity and a majority intended to vote to accept the Pre-Contract as being a
true representation of the facts.
Doug
who
does admit to be trying to pull together a Grand Unified Theory of all
this...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, so sorry to have taken all this time to reply to this, I'm really
behind.
I've had some thoughts which sort of blend in with what you think about the
timing of the revelation of the PreContract and what I thought (i.e. pre or
after the death of Hastings)
I think we all agree that during May 1483 things calmed down quite a lot,
the Council got back to business and the Coronation planning was under way. By
the end of May, very early June the person who had knowledge of the PreContract
was getting itchy. Like you, I don't think it was a woman or someone with direct
access to the Council and therefore Stillington was chosen as the conduit
because of his legal knowledge, his former political clout and his knowledge of
Church Law. Both our possible suspects, Talbot lawyer Newton and Confessor
Ingleby, knew Stillington personally; he was Newton's Bishop and Ingleby's
in-law, so quite a natural choice.
But if you think this through what could Stillington do, rush into the
Council claiming he had a Newsflash and the Coronation would have to be
cancelled? That way would probably lead to an uncomfortable period in the Tower.
So would not his natural choice be to discuss it with his clerical friends? No
good choosing Bourchier, he was old and 'of the Blood'. But his fellow
archbishop, Rotherham, was a Yorkshireman and who better than Stillington's old
chum Morton who he'd known since Oxford in the 1440s and with whom he'd served
Henry VI (and who incidentally also originated from York but that's another
story)? Of course once Morton knew, then King knew and Reggie knew, as did MB
who would make sure EW knew. I doubt Stillington would know what he had set in
motion.
EW's reaction would be once more to panic, so she sends for her former
Treasurer, John Forster and probably Dorset. They agree that the answer once
more is to get rid of Richard before he finds out, but if they're clever they
can also get rid of another arch-enemy, Hastings. During probably a fireside
chat with Morton (or Forster) Hastings is given the story that historians have
believed for five hundred years. Richard and Buckingham are plotting to depose
Edward and put Richard on the throne. Hastings is distraught, won over and
agrees to be part of the plot to do the job. The rest is history, but the
plotters also know that if the plot fails, Hastings must die before he talks.
And this of course makes sense of JAH's allegation that he died not of beheading
but during a skirmish with a Tower guard.
Stillington, seeing both his confidants arrested, has no option to reveal
what he knows to the Council at once. But who was in a position to glean there
was possible trouble for Richard and warn him? Perhaps Stanley?
If you begin to look at it this way it does start to hang together, I
think?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-03 02:03:29
Hilary
and Mary,
I
hope you'll excuse my butting in, but I have a question about the Stallworth
letter. Who makes the reference to Hastings, the first writer or the second?
Because it crossed my mind that the reference to Hastings may have been by the
first writer, while the date was written by the second writer,
because that was the date the letter was completed and sent? Is that a
possibility or just another dead-end?
You
wondered why the coronation would still be under discussion on 13 June if the
Pre-Contract was already known to the members of the Council? Couldn't the
continued meeting of the coronation committee have simply been because a
decision hadn't yet been made and, should the decision be against accepting the
Pre-Contract as valid, Edward would still need to be crowned? It could also have
served as camouflage as well. Should news of the Pre-Contract get out, or be
released, the continued sitting of that committee could be used to dispute the
accuracy of the news.
As
for there being no mention of the Pre-Contract in Richard's letter to York, why
should there be? Could the men Richard was summoning even get to London by 13
June? If not, then it looks to me as if Richard was summoning them, not for
protection against an immediate Woodville threat, but rather
against the potential of violence after the plot was scuppered.
IMO anyway, while knowledge of the Pre-Contract might have lent the plot against
Richard a certain urgency, in itself it wasn't the reason for the plot. Does
that make sense?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Mary, I have the Stallworth letter in the Stonor papers. It does indeed talk of
the Chamberleyn being 'hedded' at 'noon on Fryday last' but it's
ambiguous. The reason is it's dated 21 June and Fryday last would have been the
20th - a week after the incident in the Tower. Clements Markham claimed it
proved Hastings received a trial but this was refuted by Gairdner. The letter is
written in more than one hand because Stallworth was sick, so could have been
started a week before.
The rest of the 'evidence' comes from Mancini and Croyland including the
tale about the log. JAH always gets carried away about Stillington. For example
he has him specially coming to London to announce the PreContract to the Council
on 9 June. Firstly, it's highly likely that Stillington was in London already
since he rarely went to his diocese and was Dean of St Martin's which was right
by the Tower and secondly, other than Richard's letter to York on 10 June the re
is not shred of evidence to say the PreContract was announced then; Richard's
request was all about EW's plotting, no mention of anything about young Edward.
Indeed why would half the Council still be discussing the coronation on 13 June?
It's a shame because otherwise the JAH book is very good. But he does make the
point that Hastings could have been beheaded by a soldier as he tried to attack
Richard on 13 June. I guess unless some other letter comes to light we will
never know.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
and Mary,
I
hope you'll excuse my butting in, but I have a question about the Stallworth
letter. Who makes the reference to Hastings, the first writer or the second?
Because it crossed my mind that the reference to Hastings may have been by the
first writer, while the date was written by the second writer,
because that was the date the letter was completed and sent? Is that a
possibility or just another dead-end?
You
wondered why the coronation would still be under discussion on 13 June if the
Pre-Contract was already known to the members of the Council? Couldn't the
continued meeting of the coronation committee have simply been because a
decision hadn't yet been made and, should the decision be against accepting the
Pre-Contract as valid, Edward would still need to be crowned? It could also have
served as camouflage as well. Should news of the Pre-Contract get out, or be
released, the continued sitting of that committee could be used to dispute the
accuracy of the news.
As
for there being no mention of the Pre-Contract in Richard's letter to York, why
should there be? Could the men Richard was summoning even get to London by 13
June? If not, then it looks to me as if Richard was summoning them, not for
protection against an immediate Woodville threat, but rather
against the potential of violence after the plot was scuppered.
IMO anyway, while knowledge of the Pre-Contract might have lent the plot against
Richard a certain urgency, in itself it wasn't the reason for the plot. Does
that make sense?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Mary, I have the Stallworth letter in the Stonor papers. It does indeed talk of
the Chamberleyn being 'hedded' at 'noon on Fryday last' but it's
ambiguous. The reason is it's dated 21 June and Fryday last would have been the
20th - a week after the incident in the Tower. Clements Markham claimed it
proved Hastings received a trial but this was refuted by Gairdner. The letter is
written in more than one hand because Stallworth was sick, so could have been
started a week before.
The rest of the 'evidence' comes from Mancini and Croyland including the
tale about the log. JAH always gets carried away about Stillington. For example
he has him specially coming to London to announce the PreContract to the Council
on 9 June. Firstly, it's highly likely that Stillington was in London already
since he rarely went to his diocese and was Dean of St Martin's which was right
by the Tower and secondly, other than Richard's letter to York on 10 June the re
is not shred of evidence to say the PreContract was announced then; Richard's
request was all about EW's plotting, no mention of anything about young Edward.
Indeed why would half the Council still be discussing the coronation on 13 June?
It's a shame because otherwise the JAH book is very good. But he does make the
point that Hastings could have been beheaded by a soldier as he tried to attack
Richard on 13 June. I guess unless some other letter comes to light we will
never know.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-03 09:16:18
Doug, in your second sentence you get to the nub of the argument between Markham and Gairdner. Yes Hastings is mentioned in the first couple of sentences - the letter is dated 21 June at the very end, in another hand. And we know Stallworth was sick, he tells us so, too sick to hold a pen.The problem is I don't understand how a decision could be made on the PreContract with only half the Council there. Bourchier, a Cardinal and a key member of the Council would surely have had to have been there to pronounce on Canon Law, but he would almost certainly have been at the coronation meeting. My guess is John Howard would also have been at that meeting even though he had not yet formally been made Earl Marshal. It was tradition for Dukes of Norfolk to organise the coronation - they still do. Two key people whose input would have been vital to a decision. That said, I don't know what the meeting at the Tower was for, bits of minor business? Or was it to bring the Hastings plot out into the open, as Richard had been forewarned?One interesting thing is the involvement of Oliver King, who was imprisoned and then sacked. Now, as Richard's secretary he would know the business of all these meetings would he not? (And probably pass bits on to the French). And what were Forster and Burton doing in Herts the day before - had they met with Hastings? You are not so far adrift from me as JAH who has Stillington making a declaration to the Council on 9 June and everyone knowing. As always, there are more questions than answers, which I'll raise in my answer to your next post. H
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 02:05:38 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
and Mary,
I
hope you'll excuse my butting in, but I have a question about the Stallworth
letter. Who makes the reference to Hastings, the first writer or the second?
Because it crossed my mind that the reference to Hastings may have been by the
first writer, while the date was written by the second writer,
because that was the date the letter was completed and sent? Is that a
possibility or just another dead-end?
You
wondered why the coronation would still be under discussion on 13 June if the
Pre-Contract was already known to the members of the Council? Couldn't the
continued meeting of the coronation committee have simply been because a
decision hadn't yet been made and, should the decision be against accepting the
Pre-Contract as valid, Edward would still need to be crowned? It could also have
served as camouflage as well. Should news of the Pre-Contract get out, or be
released, the continued sitting of that committee could be used to dispute the
accuracy of the news.
As
for there being no mention of the Pre-Contract in Richard's letter to York, why
should there be? Could the men Richard was summoning even get to London by 13
June? If not, then it looks to me as if Richard was summoning them, not for
protection against an immediate Woodville threat, but rather
against the potential of violence after the plot was scuppered.
IMO anyway, while knowledge of the Pre-Contract might have lent the plot against
Richard a certain urgency, in itself it wasn't the reason for the plot. Does
that make sense?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Mary, I have the Stallworth letter in the Stonor papers. It does indeed talk of
the Chamberleyn being 'hedded' at 'noon on Fryday last' but it's
ambiguous. The reason is it's dated 21 June and Fryday last would have been the
20th - a week after the incident in the Tower. Clements Markham claimed it
proved Hastings received a trial but this was refuted by Gairdner. The letter is
written in more than one hand because Stallworth was sick, so could have been
started a week before.
The rest of the 'evidence' comes from Mancini and Croyland including the
tale about the log. JAH always gets carried away about Stillington. For example
he has him specially coming to London to announce the PreContract to the Council
on 9 June. Firstly, it's highly likely that Stillington was in London already
since he rarely went to his diocese and was Dean of St Martin's which was right
by the Tower and secondly, other than Richard's letter to York on 10 June the re
is not shred of evidence to say the PreContract was announced then; Richard's
request was all about EW's plotting, no mention of anything about young Edward.
Indeed why would half the Council still be discussing the coronation on 13 June?
It's a shame because otherwise the JAH book is very good. But he does make the
point that Hastings could have been beheaded by a soldier as he tried to attack
Richard on 13 June. I guess unless some other letter comes to light we will
never know.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 02:05:38 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
and Mary,
I
hope you'll excuse my butting in, but I have a question about the Stallworth
letter. Who makes the reference to Hastings, the first writer or the second?
Because it crossed my mind that the reference to Hastings may have been by the
first writer, while the date was written by the second writer,
because that was the date the letter was completed and sent? Is that a
possibility or just another dead-end?
You
wondered why the coronation would still be under discussion on 13 June if the
Pre-Contract was already known to the members of the Council? Couldn't the
continued meeting of the coronation committee have simply been because a
decision hadn't yet been made and, should the decision be against accepting the
Pre-Contract as valid, Edward would still need to be crowned? It could also have
served as camouflage as well. Should news of the Pre-Contract get out, or be
released, the continued sitting of that committee could be used to dispute the
accuracy of the news.
As
for there being no mention of the Pre-Contract in Richard's letter to York, why
should there be? Could the men Richard was summoning even get to London by 13
June? If not, then it looks to me as if Richard was summoning them, not for
protection against an immediate Woodville threat, but rather
against the potential of violence after the plot was scuppered.
IMO anyway, while knowledge of the Pre-Contract might have lent the plot against
Richard a certain urgency, in itself it wasn't the reason for the plot. Does
that make sense?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Mary, I have the Stallworth letter in the Stonor papers. It does indeed talk of
the Chamberleyn being 'hedded' at 'noon on Fryday last' but it's
ambiguous. The reason is it's dated 21 June and Fryday last would have been the
20th - a week after the incident in the Tower. Clements Markham claimed it
proved Hastings received a trial but this was refuted by Gairdner. The letter is
written in more than one hand because Stallworth was sick, so could have been
started a week before.
The rest of the 'evidence' comes from Mancini and Croyland including the
tale about the log. JAH always gets carried away about Stillington. For example
he has him specially coming to London to announce the PreContract to the Council
on 9 June. Firstly, it's highly likely that Stillington was in London already
since he rarely went to his diocese and was Dean of St Martin's which was right
by the Tower and secondly, other than Richard's letter to York on 10 June the re
is not shred of evidence to say the PreContract was announced then; Richard's
request was all about EW's plotting, no mention of anything about young Edward.
Indeed why would half the Council still be discussing the coronation on 13 June?
It's a shame because otherwise the JAH book is very good. But he does make the
point that Hastings could have been beheaded by a soldier as he tried to attack
Richard on 13 June. I guess unless some other letter comes to light we will
never know.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-03 09:53:19
Sorry Doug, it was your previous post.I'm glad you agree that it would be highly unlikely for someone, Bishop or not, to stand up in Council and proclaim he knew the king was illegitimate. People's reactions would have to be tested carefully and individually, at least that's how I'd play it. Your suggestion that Stillington (and we'll assume it was him who was the channel) went straight to Richard is interesting. You see Stillington's family were of Richard's affinity in Yorkshire, in fact of course Stillington's family had been Chancellors of the City of York. So there is some reason in that, one Yorkshireman trusting another, particularly after recent happenings. I certainly don't dismiss it as an idea.The crux seems to be how fast it was disseminated amongst the rest. Clearly neither Bourchier or EW knew when she handed ROY over to him on 16 June? To state the obvious that's three days after Hastings's supposed death. So does that mean that the Hastings plot which was almost certainly orchestrated by Forster and her was not about revelation of the PreContract but probably (on Hastings's part) the belief that Richard, influenced by Buckingham, was about to depose her son anyway? Did Buckingham have a loose tongue and hint at this if Richard had shared the Stillington revelation with him? Then there's the issue of the involvement of Rotherham. I need to do more work on him but he's actually quite elusive to track in depth. And what was the relationship between Morton and Stillington? In their careers and origin they had an awful lot in common, yet I still have the latter as a Yorkist, albeit a rather controversial one.All this has always been presented as a straightforward happening but in fact it's far from that. Even JAH has EW trusting Richard on 16 June in one chapter, yet plotting against him on 9th in another. H
On Thursday, 2 May 2019, 16:57:00 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
agree with you that things calmed down after Richard and young Edward entered
London in early May. I also agree that it may very well have been Stillington to
whom the Pre-Contract was first revealed; after that, however, we
diverge.
As
you point out, Stillington couldn't just raise his hand at a Council meeting and
toss out what he knew about the Pre-Contract. It's my view that the good bishop
went straight to the top and informed Richard, almost certainly privately, about
the information that had come to him. After all, whether the Council accepted
the Pre-Contract as being valid or judged to be merely another archer story,
Richard was the one who'd have to deal with the consequences. I also think
various members of the Council were then informed, privately again and with much
swearing to secrecy. The possibility that the newly-proclaimed king was
illegitimate did nothing but create problems for everyone.
Whether one believed the charge might be true or not, it was that realization of
the stink that would result from the Pre-Contract becoming public knowledge that
ensured those informed would keep their mouths shut. I also think that, had the
Pre-Contract been brought before the Council by anyone other than Stillington,
or someone else of the same stature, that person would have been tossed into a
cell for lese majesty (at least). If I can go off subject slightly here
we know that Stillington has been named as the person who drew up the Bill,
aka Titulus Regius, but just exactly what does that term encompass?
Many people might think it meant merely that Stillington was the person who
wrote the Bill, but if we look at drew up the Bill as meaning
Stillington was the one who provided the Canonical justification for
the Bill, might that change things, if only a bit?
Anyway,
back to the topic. It's a bit harder to draw up a list of just who would have
been taken aside and given the information. There'd be the king, or in this case
the Protector. Then there'd be the various appointees; such as the Lord
Chancellor and the Lord Treasurer. Hastings, especially as Captain of Calais,
would almost certainly be informed. I'm sure I've missed some people, but of
those occupying appointed posts, the number surely wouldn't have been
over a dozen. It's those people that had a right to attend Council meetings
because of their non-governmental positions that really expands the group. Of
course Morton, as Bishop of Ely, had a right to attend meetings, as did all
bishops. There'd also be members of the nobility, such as Buckingham and
perhaps Stanley, who'd also consider it their right to attend. Just how many
of that latter two groups who'd be informed about the Pre-Contract, I can't say.
I certainly don't think membership in either group was considered as
automatically necessitating their being informed.
At
any rate, we're dealing with a group of somewhere around 15-20, almost certainly
those who were members of either the Tower group or the coronation group, but
not necessarily those who could, if they so wished, drop in at a Council
meeting and not be shown the door. As I wrote, I don't think any member of
either the pro- or anti- group would want to make public anything about the
Pre-Contract until after the Council had met and made a decision on how to
proceed. However, this does not mean that some members weren't
making plans for either eventuality.
Which
is where EW comes into the picture. It's only my opinion, but I don't think she
stopped plotting after the failure at Stony Stratford. What she lacked, though,
was an issue that went further than supporting the Woodvilles because they were
the new king's relatives. Whether or not that new king would remain on the
throne at all gave her that and allowed her to include people in a plot against
Richard; people who otherwise wouldn't be expected to support her and, as we
know, were even known to be anti-Woodville. People such as Lord Hastings. FWIW,
I wouldn't be surprised should we ever discover that EW had been officially
informed about the Pre-Contract shortly after it had been brought to the
attention of Council members. It's not as if she would start spreading the news
that the legitimacy of her son ,was being
investigated...
All
of the above is based on the presumption that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was
spread sub rosa and that the June 13 Council meeting was to be when the
matter would be officially discussed and settled, one way or another. However
the decision went, it was a matter that absolutely needed to be addressed
immediately once it had been officially recognized. Needless to say, if a
final decision was to be made on 13 June, then it was necessary for
those who'd be making the decision then to have been fully briefed on both the
subject and its' supporting evidence prior to that meeting.. The whole
time-period for the Pre-Contract, between its' first revelation and Hastings'
execution, likely wasn't more than three weeks and, as I said above, as I can't
see anyone involved having any incentive to make the subject public and, lacking
Facebook and Twitter, the means to do so were both extremely limited and of
doubtful value.
Now,
had the Council met and, say, not been able to come to a final decision on what
to do about it, I don't doubt news about the Pre-Contract would have been all
over London within a day or two. However, adding together Richard's letter to
York, Hastings' execution and the few other bits and pieces of information
available, it appears to me as that those who'd been informed about the
Pre-Contract had recognized, even before the 13 June Council meeting, its'
validity and a majority intended to vote to accept the Pre-Contract as being a
true representation of the facts.
Doug
who
does admit to be trying to pull together a Grand Unified Theory of all
this...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, so sorry to have taken all this time to reply to this, I'm really
behind.
I've had some thoughts which sort of blend in with what you think about the
timing of the revelation of the PreContract and what I thought (i.e. pre or
after the death of Hastings)
I think we all agree that during May 1483 things calmed down quite a lot,
the Council got back to business and the Coronation planning was under way. By
the end of May, very early June the person who had knowledge of the PreContract
was getting itchy. Like you, I don't think it was a woman or someone with direct
access to the Council and therefore Stillington was chosen as the conduit
because of his legal knowledge, his former political clout and his knowledge of
Church Law. Both our possible suspects, Talbot lawyer Newton and Confessor
Ingleby, knew Stillington personally; he was Newton's Bishop and Ingleby's
in-law, so quite a natural choice.
But if you think this through what could Stillington do, rush into the
Council claiming he had a Newsflash and the Coronation would have to be
cancelled? That way would probably lead to an uncomfortable period in the Tower.
So would not his natural choice be to discuss it with his clerical friends? No
good choosing Bourchier, he was old and 'of the Blood'. But his fellow
archbishop, Rotherham, was a Yorkshireman and who better than Stillington's old
chum Morton who he'd known since Oxford in the 1440s and with whom he'd served
Henry VI (and who incidentally also originated from York but that's another
story)? Of course once Morton knew, then King knew and Reggie knew, as did MB
who would make sure EW knew. I doubt Stillington would know what he had set in
motion.
EW's reaction would be once more to panic, so she sends for her former
Treasurer, John Forster and probably Dorset. They agree that the answer once
more is to get rid of Richard before he finds out, but if they're clever they
can also get rid of another arch-enemy, Hastings. During probably a fireside
chat with Morton (or Forster) Hastings is given the story that historians have
believed for five hundred years. Richard and Buckingham are plotting to depose
Edward and put Richard on the throne. Hastings is distraught, won over and
agrees to be part of the plot to do the job. The rest is history, but the
plotters also know that if the plot fails, Hastings must die before he talks.
And this of course makes sense of JAH's allegation that he died not of beheading
but during a skirmish with a Tower guard.
Stillington, seeing both his confidants arrested, has no option to reveal
what he knows to the Council at once. But who was in a position to glean there
was possible trouble for Richard and warn him? Perhaps Stanley?
If you begin to look at it this way it does start to hang together, I
think?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 2 May 2019, 16:57:00 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
agree with you that things calmed down after Richard and young Edward entered
London in early May. I also agree that it may very well have been Stillington to
whom the Pre-Contract was first revealed; after that, however, we
diverge.
As
you point out, Stillington couldn't just raise his hand at a Council meeting and
toss out what he knew about the Pre-Contract. It's my view that the good bishop
went straight to the top and informed Richard, almost certainly privately, about
the information that had come to him. After all, whether the Council accepted
the Pre-Contract as being valid or judged to be merely another archer story,
Richard was the one who'd have to deal with the consequences. I also think
various members of the Council were then informed, privately again and with much
swearing to secrecy. The possibility that the newly-proclaimed king was
illegitimate did nothing but create problems for everyone.
Whether one believed the charge might be true or not, it was that realization of
the stink that would result from the Pre-Contract becoming public knowledge that
ensured those informed would keep their mouths shut. I also think that, had the
Pre-Contract been brought before the Council by anyone other than Stillington,
or someone else of the same stature, that person would have been tossed into a
cell for lese majesty (at least). If I can go off subject slightly here
we know that Stillington has been named as the person who drew up the Bill,
aka Titulus Regius, but just exactly what does that term encompass?
Many people might think it meant merely that Stillington was the person who
wrote the Bill, but if we look at drew up the Bill as meaning
Stillington was the one who provided the Canonical justification for
the Bill, might that change things, if only a bit?
Anyway,
back to the topic. It's a bit harder to draw up a list of just who would have
been taken aside and given the information. There'd be the king, or in this case
the Protector. Then there'd be the various appointees; such as the Lord
Chancellor and the Lord Treasurer. Hastings, especially as Captain of Calais,
would almost certainly be informed. I'm sure I've missed some people, but of
those occupying appointed posts, the number surely wouldn't have been
over a dozen. It's those people that had a right to attend Council meetings
because of their non-governmental positions that really expands the group. Of
course Morton, as Bishop of Ely, had a right to attend meetings, as did all
bishops. There'd also be members of the nobility, such as Buckingham and
perhaps Stanley, who'd also consider it their right to attend. Just how many
of that latter two groups who'd be informed about the Pre-Contract, I can't say.
I certainly don't think membership in either group was considered as
automatically necessitating their being informed.
At
any rate, we're dealing with a group of somewhere around 15-20, almost certainly
those who were members of either the Tower group or the coronation group, but
not necessarily those who could, if they so wished, drop in at a Council
meeting and not be shown the door. As I wrote, I don't think any member of
either the pro- or anti- group would want to make public anything about the
Pre-Contract until after the Council had met and made a decision on how to
proceed. However, this does not mean that some members weren't
making plans for either eventuality.
Which
is where EW comes into the picture. It's only my opinion, but I don't think she
stopped plotting after the failure at Stony Stratford. What she lacked, though,
was an issue that went further than supporting the Woodvilles because they were
the new king's relatives. Whether or not that new king would remain on the
throne at all gave her that and allowed her to include people in a plot against
Richard; people who otherwise wouldn't be expected to support her and, as we
know, were even known to be anti-Woodville. People such as Lord Hastings. FWIW,
I wouldn't be surprised should we ever discover that EW had been officially
informed about the Pre-Contract shortly after it had been brought to the
attention of Council members. It's not as if she would start spreading the news
that the legitimacy of her son ,was being
investigated...
All
of the above is based on the presumption that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was
spread sub rosa and that the June 13 Council meeting was to be when the
matter would be officially discussed and settled, one way or another. However
the decision went, it was a matter that absolutely needed to be addressed
immediately once it had been officially recognized. Needless to say, if a
final decision was to be made on 13 June, then it was necessary for
those who'd be making the decision then to have been fully briefed on both the
subject and its' supporting evidence prior to that meeting.. The whole
time-period for the Pre-Contract, between its' first revelation and Hastings'
execution, likely wasn't more than three weeks and, as I said above, as I can't
see anyone involved having any incentive to make the subject public and, lacking
Facebook and Twitter, the means to do so were both extremely limited and of
doubtful value.
Now,
had the Council met and, say, not been able to come to a final decision on what
to do about it, I don't doubt news about the Pre-Contract would have been all
over London within a day or two. However, adding together Richard's letter to
York, Hastings' execution and the few other bits and pieces of information
available, it appears to me as that those who'd been informed about the
Pre-Contract had recognized, even before the 13 June Council meeting, its'
validity and a majority intended to vote to accept the Pre-Contract as being a
true representation of the facts.
Doug
who
does admit to be trying to pull together a Grand Unified Theory of all
this...
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, so sorry to have taken all this time to reply to this, I'm really
behind.
I've had some thoughts which sort of blend in with what you think about the
timing of the revelation of the PreContract and what I thought (i.e. pre or
after the death of Hastings)
I think we all agree that during May 1483 things calmed down quite a lot,
the Council got back to business and the Coronation planning was under way. By
the end of May, very early June the person who had knowledge of the PreContract
was getting itchy. Like you, I don't think it was a woman or someone with direct
access to the Council and therefore Stillington was chosen as the conduit
because of his legal knowledge, his former political clout and his knowledge of
Church Law. Both our possible suspects, Talbot lawyer Newton and Confessor
Ingleby, knew Stillington personally; he was Newton's Bishop and Ingleby's
in-law, so quite a natural choice.
But if you think this through what could Stillington do, rush into the
Council claiming he had a Newsflash and the Coronation would have to be
cancelled? That way would probably lead to an uncomfortable period in the Tower.
So would not his natural choice be to discuss it with his clerical friends? No
good choosing Bourchier, he was old and 'of the Blood'. But his fellow
archbishop, Rotherham, was a Yorkshireman and who better than Stillington's old
chum Morton who he'd known since Oxford in the 1440s and with whom he'd served
Henry VI (and who incidentally also originated from York but that's another
story)? Of course once Morton knew, then King knew and Reggie knew, as did MB
who would make sure EW knew. I doubt Stillington would know what he had set in
motion.
EW's reaction would be once more to panic, so she sends for her former
Treasurer, John Forster and probably Dorset. They agree that the answer once
more is to get rid of Richard before he finds out, but if they're clever they
can also get rid of another arch-enemy, Hastings. During probably a fireside
chat with Morton (or Forster) Hastings is given the story that historians have
believed for five hundred years. Richard and Buckingham are plotting to depose
Edward and put Richard on the throne. Hastings is distraught, won over and
agrees to be part of the plot to do the job. The rest is history, but the
plotters also know that if the plot fails, Hastings must die before he talks.
And this of course makes sense of JAH's allegation that he died not of beheading
but during a skirmish with a Tower guard.
Stillington, seeing both his confidants arrested, has no option to reveal
what he knows to the Council at once. But who was in a position to glean there
was possible trouble for Richard and warn him? Perhaps Stanley?
If you begin to look at it this way it does start to hang together, I
think?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-05-03 10:17:07
So I revisited Baldwin on Richard of Eastwell.To make a very brief precis, Baldwin has Lovell and the Staffords being entrusted with ROY during Bosworth and making a dash for Colchester Abbey, where they and he remain for several months. They emerge eventually leaving him there (with HT's knowledge). He remains there during HT's life and is eventually apprenticed as a bricklayer - a specialised trade in those days and has to leave the Abbey after the dissolution. That is, as I said earlier, a very, very brief precis.The trouble is virtually all of this is hypothesis. In our search for the truth about Brampton we've turned up lots of links between folk in London and elsewhere whose names have been linked to the PW story so we have something to get our teeth into. With Baldwin there is none of this. Abbot Stansted is said to have Yorkist leanings, but there are no examples. The only name quoted is one Eleanor Kechyn, who in the CPR is confined to her parent's house after a case involving a London Grocer. The assumption is that this is so unusual she must have had an affair with ROY.So could PW have survived as Richard of Eastwell? I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility. Certainly HT did visit and keep a careful eye on Colchester. One interesting remark made by Baldwin is that HT probably saw something of his young self in PW and his story and was therefore inclined to be sympathetic towards him.What I have to ask is why in Baldwin's version so much attention is given by Richard to ROY and not to the attainted but legitimate Yorkist heir, Warwick. H
On Thursday, 2 May 2019, 10:19:26 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you so very much for all this and the links, Nico. It convinces me I need to revisit Baldwin's book on Richard of Eastwell. He had HT detaining 'Richard' at Colchester and actually visiting him occasionally..I'll look it up and come back to you. Would love to get my hands on that book as well! H
On Sunday, 28 April 2019, 21:06:39 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
I can see
this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he was well confined
was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT may have been willing to
take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was concerned, once justice
was seen to have done, and Perkin officially dead, that may have been
enough. HT was someone who never had much stability in his early life, and the
idea of losing the love and respect of EofY may have been just too much for
him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly emotional man, but he was not
without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and EofY died, and it is
possible that he could have seen something of his younger self in Perkin. If PW
was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an inheritance that HT had
given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also agree with you Hilary that MB would have
disapproved. If he resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine marriage, it may have given him a
sense of being in control. Although Warwick was only a cousin, beheading him
wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the
best option. Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell,
but since he was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far
fetched book called Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the
Ricardian, but was never made available other than at a ridiculous price from
the author's website, which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury
Abbey. I didn't find the other ideas in the book credible (although I would
love to read it), but I wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks Doug
for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have been
possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before
the execution to maintain secrecy. The
Tower plot with Cleymonde and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that
could have also have been staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the
imprisonment and torture, there is a record of HT making payments for very
expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession.
It is unfortunate that they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar'
the herald could have been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if
it was really Jean de Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information
from him. According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's
confession says that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the
official story of PW, although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai
archives that Jean de Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of
rope and ship's accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and
Jean sound like possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to
Noel, but has been misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were
two versions of the confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't
been able to find a copy of the French confession online, but there were significant
differences in the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he
attended and his teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an
organist.' My feeling is that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or
another Plantagenet) and sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques
possibly having some involvement.Nico
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
On Thursday, 2 May 2019, 10:19:26 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Thank you so very much for all this and the links, Nico. It convinces me I need to revisit Baldwin's book on Richard of Eastwell. He had HT detaining 'Richard' at Colchester and actually visiting him occasionally..I'll look it up and come back to you. Would love to get my hands on that book as well! H
On Sunday, 28 April 2019, 21:06:39 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi,
I can see
this situation from both sides. Sparing Perkin, even if he was well confined
was a massive risk. Nevertheless, if he loved EofY enough, HT may have been willing to
take the risk. After all, as far as Perkin was concerned, once justice
was seen to have done, and Perkin officially dead, that may have been
enough. HT was someone who never had much stability in his early life, and the
idea of losing the love and respect of EofY may have been just too much for
him. HT isn't remembered as a particularly emotional man, but he was not
without feeling. He was devastated when Arthur and EofY died, and it is
possible that he could have seen something of his younger self in Perkin. If PW
was telling the truth, then he was only claiming an inheritance that HT had
given back to him by suppressing Titulus Regius. I also agree with you Hilary that MB would have
disapproved. If he resented Ferdinand's interference,' as much as he wanted the Arthur-Catherine marriage, it may have given him a
sense of being in control. Although Warwick was only a cousin, beheading him
wouldn't endear him to EofY either, so if Perkin was saved, then it would make sense to save him too. They would have to be confined very securely, with a monastery or abbey being the
best option. Warwick could also have been a candidate for Richard of Eastwell,
but since he was Richard Plantagenet,' Perkin is the more likely of the two. A
couple of years ago there was a very far
fetched book called Secrets of the House of York,' which was reviewed in the the
Ricardian, but was never made available other than at a ridiculous price from
the author's website, which claimed that Perkin was detained at Glastonbury
Abbey. I didn't find the other ideas in the book credible (although I would
love to read it), but I wonder where she got the idea about Glastonbury Abbey.
Thanks Doug
for the info on naval tactics. From what you say, I think now it may have been
possible for military and civilian ships to have been more interchangeable.
Brampton must have been a very experienced and able ship's captain; how he got
started could have gone either way. I also have no idea why Brampton was
knighted by Richard not Edward, but removal of the Princes would have been a
significant enough event to justify it, as well as an incentive to ensure his
loyalty and keep them secure.
I also
agree with your comments on how Perkin's torture may have caused him to change
significantly. It is never made clear by Molinet or the Spanish ambassador
whether the change is due to PW looking like a the same person ravaged by the
conditions of his life or a different person entirely. FWIW, my suspicion is
that if HT did substitute PW and/or the substitution was made shortly before
the execution to maintain secrecy. The
Tower plot with Cleymonde and co is murky. Like the Raloh Wilford affair, that
could have also have been staged by HT with PW's acquiescence. Despite the
imprisonment and torture, there is a record of HT making payments for very
expensive clothing for PW.
Here is
links to the text of the Setubal testimonies and Perkin's English confession: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oBZ8TlnkTs8C&pg=PT203&lpg=PT203&dq=setubal+testimonies+ann+wroe&source=bl&ots=KUqlQdWDH1&sig=ACfU3U1Le
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq
I don't
find either Brampton's or de Rui de Sousa's testimony convincing, although
Brampton's has echoes of the confession.
It is unfortunate that they are narratives with no cross examination. Tanjar'
the herald could have been talking to anyone; he wouldn't have any idea of if
it was really Jean de Werbeque/Osbeck or one of HT's spies trying to extract information
from him. According to Brampton, PW's father was Bernal not Jean. PW's
confession says that his father was Jean. Bernal' never features in the
official story of PW, although in the 1800s, it was found in the Tournai
archives that Jean de Werbeque had a brother called Noel, who was a maker of
rope and ship's accessories. Being in the wood trade, Brampton both Noel and
Jean sound like possible acquaintances. Bernal' sounds like a reference to
Noel, but has been misspelled by whoever transcribed the oral testimony.
There were
two versions of the confession; one in English, but another in French. I haven't
been able to find a copy of the French confession online, but there were significant
differences in the text. In the French confession, PW named the school he
attended and his teachers. Brampton says that he was apprenticed to an
organist.' My feeling is that Brampton did have custody of PW (either RoS or
another Plantagenet) and sent him to the school in Tournai, with the Werbeques
possibly having some involvement.Nico
On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
The Ricardian Journals 1974 onwards are now available on the Richard III Society website some interesting articles in the index. Several by Barrie Williams, interesting one on Brampton. Also one by Wendy Moorhen on Lady Katherine Gordon and the possibility that she really believed that "Perkin was R of Y. I have only skimmed through them but there could be lots of information on various subjects.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-03 15:50:15
Hilary,
FWIW,
EoY likely hadn't seen her brother since, at the latest, 1484 and possibly not
since 1483. Which means she'd not seen him since he was ten, possibly even
younger. Richard/Perkin was captured in 1497 so, presuming she ever met him
after his capture, he would have 24. Now, how many of us, relying solely on
memory and without a clearly marked photograph of a sibling at age 10, be able
to say the person they'd not seen in 15 years was standing in front of
them?
You've
mentioned that various foreign rulers believed Richard/Perkin to be who he
claimed he was, but I also remember reading that one of the supposed reason for
the deaths of Warwick and Richard/Perkin was that Isabella and Ferdinand were
pushing Henry and wouldn't agree to let their daughter marry Arthur while there
were any claimants to the English throne other than Henry's children. The thing
is, when Warwick and Richard/Perkin were executed on 28 and 23 November
respectively, Arthur and Catherine had already been married, albeit by proxy,
since 19 May of that year. To the best of my knowledge, a proxy marriage was
just as valid as any other, so why would there be any pressure on Henry once the
proxy marriage had taken place? As a marriage by proxy wasn't consummated, I
presume it would be easier to have one annulled, but still...
It's
only Wikipedia, but in the article on Catherine of Aragon it notes that
the House of Trastamara was then in the same position later occupied by the
Hapsburgs and Bourbons when it came to the ne plus ultra of
respectability and legitimacy. The article also noted that, based on lines of
direct descent, Catherine had a better claim to the English throne than Henry as
she was descended from both John of Gaunt's first and second wives, while Henry
was descended from Gaunt's third wife. Sort of gives Henry
another reason to ensure Arthur married Catherine, doesn't it?
Doug
Who wonders if dragging in Isabella
and Ferdinand wasn't an attempt to place the responsibility for the executions
of Warwick and Richard/Perkin on someone other than Henry? Can't say anything
detrimental about the Tudor founder, now can we?
Hilary
wrote:
Or
.... perhaps HT himself wasn't really sure? He'd never personally seen ROY who
would still have been a boy when he became king. And children can change quite
significantly in their teens; even his sister might not really have been sure.
Was this the truth or just a foreign game to undermine his kingship, as
Arthurson claims? I said in an earlier post that the Spanish and other European
monarchs thought Perkin was credible, and it's more than just he spoke and
behaved like a prince, he had the bearing and ease of someone who had been in
these circles for most of his life. Even the most accomplished actor would
surely come up against something for which his training had not prepared
him?
As
I've said, I was until very recently a real sceptic on this but there was
definitely something going on in Brampton (and London) circles from probably
before 1483. Our trouble is everything is so marred by Tudor propaganda that we
really do need those foreigners to help us.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
FWIW,
EoY likely hadn't seen her brother since, at the latest, 1484 and possibly not
since 1483. Which means she'd not seen him since he was ten, possibly even
younger. Richard/Perkin was captured in 1497 so, presuming she ever met him
after his capture, he would have 24. Now, how many of us, relying solely on
memory and without a clearly marked photograph of a sibling at age 10, be able
to say the person they'd not seen in 15 years was standing in front of
them?
You've
mentioned that various foreign rulers believed Richard/Perkin to be who he
claimed he was, but I also remember reading that one of the supposed reason for
the deaths of Warwick and Richard/Perkin was that Isabella and Ferdinand were
pushing Henry and wouldn't agree to let their daughter marry Arthur while there
were any claimants to the English throne other than Henry's children. The thing
is, when Warwick and Richard/Perkin were executed on 28 and 23 November
respectively, Arthur and Catherine had already been married, albeit by proxy,
since 19 May of that year. To the best of my knowledge, a proxy marriage was
just as valid as any other, so why would there be any pressure on Henry once the
proxy marriage had taken place? As a marriage by proxy wasn't consummated, I
presume it would be easier to have one annulled, but still...
It's
only Wikipedia, but in the article on Catherine of Aragon it notes that
the House of Trastamara was then in the same position later occupied by the
Hapsburgs and Bourbons when it came to the ne plus ultra of
respectability and legitimacy. The article also noted that, based on lines of
direct descent, Catherine had a better claim to the English throne than Henry as
she was descended from both John of Gaunt's first and second wives, while Henry
was descended from Gaunt's third wife. Sort of gives Henry
another reason to ensure Arthur married Catherine, doesn't it?
Doug
Who wonders if dragging in Isabella
and Ferdinand wasn't an attempt to place the responsibility for the executions
of Warwick and Richard/Perkin on someone other than Henry? Can't say anything
detrimental about the Tudor founder, now can we?
Hilary
wrote:
Or
.... perhaps HT himself wasn't really sure? He'd never personally seen ROY who
would still have been a boy when he became king. And children can change quite
significantly in their teens; even his sister might not really have been sure.
Was this the truth or just a foreign game to undermine his kingship, as
Arthurson claims? I said in an earlier post that the Spanish and other European
monarchs thought Perkin was credible, and it's more than just he spoke and
behaved like a prince, he had the bearing and ease of someone who had been in
these circles for most of his life. Even the most accomplished actor would
surely come up against something for which his training had not prepared
him?
As
I've said, I was until very recently a real sceptic on this but there was
definitely something going on in Brampton (and London) circles from probably
before 1483. Our trouble is everything is so marred by Tudor propaganda that we
really do need those foreigners to help us.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-03 17:58:40
Hilary wrote:
Doug, in your second sentence you get to the nub of the argument between Markham and Gairdner. Yes Hastings is mentioned in the first couple of sentences - the letter is dated 21 June at the very end, in another hand. And we know Stallworth was sick, he tells us so, too sick to hold a pen.
Doug here:
So what we have then is a letter dated 21 June, the date of the letter's completion, written in the hand of the person who completed the letter, but we're supposed to believe that the part of the letter written by the person who began the letter must also have been written on that date? My, my!
Hilary continued:
The problem is I don't understand how a decision could be made on the PreContract with only half the Council there. Bourchier, a Cardinal and a key member of the Council would surely have had to have been there to pronounce on Canon Law, but he would almost certainly have been at the coronation meeting. My guess is John Howard would also have been at that meeting even though he had not yet formally been made Earl Marshal. It was tradition for Dukes of Norfolk to organise the coronation - they still do. Two key people whose input would have been vital to a decision. That said, I don't know what the meeting at the Tower was for, bits of minor business? Or was it to bring the Hastings plot out into the open, as Richard had been forewarned?
Doug here:
I understood that Morton and Hastings were also among those assigned to the coronation committee, but both were present in the Tower on 13 June, weren't they? Are we absolutely certain Bourchier wasn't there? For that matter, do we know for certain that there was also a coronation committee meeting on 13 June? Because I've been working on the presumption that the 13 June meeting was a meeting of the entire Council, partly based on Morton and Hastings being there. Is that too much of a leap ?
FWIW, I tend to view the Hastings' Plot as the culmination of plotting that had continued after the attempt on Richard at Stony Stratford failed. Almost certainly EW was involved; depending on how strictly they were confined, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan may also have been involved. It wouldn't have been plotting on the order of setting a date, time and place, but more on the line of brainstorming with various scenarios proposed. Then, at some date shortly before 10 June, word of the Pre-Contract is given out; likely to individual members in one-on-one meetings considering its' potential to produce all sorts of upheavals, political and even possibly military. That, I believe, was when Hastings became involved. I don't know whether or not anything was actually planned for 13 June, but it does seem likely to me that something was planned to take place prior to the final vote on the Pre-Contract by the Council. We know Richard sent his letter off to York on 10 June, the same day Forster and Burton were arrested, so it seems likely that whatever the plot was, it had been more or less finalized by then, including Hastings' participation. Apparently, however, something was still missing; some piece of evidence that conclusively pointed out Hastings as being involved and this is where I believe Morton comes in. I firmly believe Morton was as deeply involved in the plot as Hastings, quite likely more so, and may even have been the person who turned Hastings. At any rate, something Morton possessed, a letter perhaps, provided Richard with final bit of evidence to confirm what he'd already learned from Forster and Burton. Morton, realizing the plot had failed, provided Richard with the evidence against Hastings that the bishop held. When confronted with that evidence, Hastings was unable to deny it and thus was charged and convicted on the spot by Richard acting under his authority as Constable of England.
Now that we've got that solved.
Hilary concluded:
One interesting thing is the involvement of Oliver King, who was imprisoned and then sacked. Now, as Richard's secretary he would know the business of all these meetings would he not? (And probably pass bits on to the French). And what were Forster and Burton doing in Herts the day before - had they met with Hastings? You are not so far adrift from me as JAH who has Stillington making a declaration to the Council on 9 June and everyone knowing. As always, there are more questions than answers, which I'll raise in my answer to your next post.
Doug here:
Where were Rivers, Grey and Vaughan being kept? Would someone who'd been in communications with them and was returning to London pass through Herts? Hastings had been in London since the beginning of May, hadn't he? Perhaps they were on their way to meet him - only they didn't make it...
I'm still going with an earlier date than 13 June for the Pre-Contract to have first been brought before members of the Council. Not all members would have had to been informed, but the list would certainly have included people such as Bourchier and Morton, as well as the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer. Richard would have known and we can almost certainly add Buckingham, Howard and Hastings. As I said, it wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit to have the Pre-Contract allegations revealed prematurely, certainly not until the Council had time to decide on how to proceed. If that decision was to be made on 13 June, likely considering the coronation was still scheduled for 22 June, then something had to have been planned to take place no later than that date and, most importantly, before the Council met for its' afternoon session. However, in order for any sort of plot to be conceived and put into place, more than a day or two would, I think, be required; even if the intention existed earlier, there'd still be co-ordination required to set the date and place.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Doug, in your second sentence you get to the nub of the argument between Markham and Gairdner. Yes Hastings is mentioned in the first couple of sentences - the letter is dated 21 June at the very end, in another hand. And we know Stallworth was sick, he tells us so, too sick to hold a pen.
Doug here:
So what we have then is a letter dated 21 June, the date of the letter's completion, written in the hand of the person who completed the letter, but we're supposed to believe that the part of the letter written by the person who began the letter must also have been written on that date? My, my!
Hilary continued:
The problem is I don't understand how a decision could be made on the PreContract with only half the Council there. Bourchier, a Cardinal and a key member of the Council would surely have had to have been there to pronounce on Canon Law, but he would almost certainly have been at the coronation meeting. My guess is John Howard would also have been at that meeting even though he had not yet formally been made Earl Marshal. It was tradition for Dukes of Norfolk to organise the coronation - they still do. Two key people whose input would have been vital to a decision. That said, I don't know what the meeting at the Tower was for, bits of minor business? Or was it to bring the Hastings plot out into the open, as Richard had been forewarned?
Doug here:
I understood that Morton and Hastings were also among those assigned to the coronation committee, but both were present in the Tower on 13 June, weren't they? Are we absolutely certain Bourchier wasn't there? For that matter, do we know for certain that there was also a coronation committee meeting on 13 June? Because I've been working on the presumption that the 13 June meeting was a meeting of the entire Council, partly based on Morton and Hastings being there. Is that too much of a leap ?
FWIW, I tend to view the Hastings' Plot as the culmination of plotting that had continued after the attempt on Richard at Stony Stratford failed. Almost certainly EW was involved; depending on how strictly they were confined, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan may also have been involved. It wouldn't have been plotting on the order of setting a date, time and place, but more on the line of brainstorming with various scenarios proposed. Then, at some date shortly before 10 June, word of the Pre-Contract is given out; likely to individual members in one-on-one meetings considering its' potential to produce all sorts of upheavals, political and even possibly military. That, I believe, was when Hastings became involved. I don't know whether or not anything was actually planned for 13 June, but it does seem likely to me that something was planned to take place prior to the final vote on the Pre-Contract by the Council. We know Richard sent his letter off to York on 10 June, the same day Forster and Burton were arrested, so it seems likely that whatever the plot was, it had been more or less finalized by then, including Hastings' participation. Apparently, however, something was still missing; some piece of evidence that conclusively pointed out Hastings as being involved and this is where I believe Morton comes in. I firmly believe Morton was as deeply involved in the plot as Hastings, quite likely more so, and may even have been the person who turned Hastings. At any rate, something Morton possessed, a letter perhaps, provided Richard with final bit of evidence to confirm what he'd already learned from Forster and Burton. Morton, realizing the plot had failed, provided Richard with the evidence against Hastings that the bishop held. When confronted with that evidence, Hastings was unable to deny it and thus was charged and convicted on the spot by Richard acting under his authority as Constable of England.
Now that we've got that solved.
Hilary concluded:
One interesting thing is the involvement of Oliver King, who was imprisoned and then sacked. Now, as Richard's secretary he would know the business of all these meetings would he not? (And probably pass bits on to the French). And what were Forster and Burton doing in Herts the day before - had they met with Hastings? You are not so far adrift from me as JAH who has Stillington making a declaration to the Council on 9 June and everyone knowing. As always, there are more questions than answers, which I'll raise in my answer to your next post.
Doug here:
Where were Rivers, Grey and Vaughan being kept? Would someone who'd been in communications with them and was returning to London pass through Herts? Hastings had been in London since the beginning of May, hadn't he? Perhaps they were on their way to meet him - only they didn't make it...
I'm still going with an earlier date than 13 June for the Pre-Contract to have first been brought before members of the Council. Not all members would have had to been informed, but the list would certainly have included people such as Bourchier and Morton, as well as the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer. Richard would have known and we can almost certainly add Buckingham, Howard and Hastings. As I said, it wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit to have the Pre-Contract allegations revealed prematurely, certainly not until the Council had time to decide on how to proceed. If that decision was to be made on 13 June, likely considering the coronation was still scheduled for 22 June, then something had to have been planned to take place no later than that date and, most importantly, before the Council met for its' afternoon session. However, in order for any sort of plot to be conceived and put into place, more than a day or two would, I think, be required; even if the intention existed earlier, there'd still be co-ordination required to set the date and place.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-05-03 18:27:38
I have to say that I am not convinced by Baldwin's scenario. Correct me if I am wrong but he is saying that R of Y never left the Abbey until after H7s death? That would mean that somebody set up a pretender who then married the King of Scotland's relative and who tried to invade the country and ended up on the scaffold. If it was Margaret of Burgundy wouldn't she have known that R of Y was at the Abbey because Lovell escaped and eventually ended up in Burgundy. Maybe the plan was to set up the pretender and then when he had successfully invaded the country bring forth the real R of Y. If that was the case then things obviously didn't go the way they were intended. Oh for a tardis!Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-03 18:28:09
Doug I think Anne Wroe says in her book the E of Y never actually met up with" Perkin". Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu
2019-05-04 14:02:28
Hi,While I enjoyed Baldwin's book, the idea of Margaret of Burgundy pushing Perkin's claim if the real Richard of Shrewsbury was in the abbey doesn't fit for me. I have always felt that if either of the Princes were alive, she would only push the claim of a genuine one, unless she was aware that they were dead. For that reason, if Perkin wasn't who he said he was, I think it was unlikely that the Princes were still alive. Even so, it is well researched, makes some good points and well worth reading - an interesting journey, even if the destination is a bit off.I have never been convinced that EofY never met or saw PW, especially since he was introduced to the Italian ambassadors, Soncino and Trevisano. That surely would be the sort of event that both the King and Queen would attend together. If HT deliberately concealed PW from her, then wouldn't that really arouse her suspicions and more or less convince her that he had something to hide? She probably couldn't do much, but it would probably make her dislike him. The best way of discrediting him would be to have EoY or her sisters denounce him as a fraud, but none of them ever did. Even if she did see him, it still might be difficult to recognize a him after 14 years. Even so, there is often something that could have convinced her that it was him, a mannerism or just something distinctive. The thing about PW is how much he looks like someone from the house of York; he strikes me as a bit like Clarence with Edward's nose (along with EW's eyeshape.) I think the reference that EofY and PW never met comes from Bacon nearly 100 years later.In terms of lineage, Catherine of Aragon did have an arguably better claim than Henry VIII, if you count the line from John of Gaunt. HT and EofY only had Beaufort lines from the House of Lancaster, and this excluded them from claiming the throne. However, HVIII and Arthur did inherit a line from Lionel of Clarence from EofY, so it was imperative that the her own legitimacy should be unsullied. HT was King by conquest, so technically you could count the line as beginning with him, but the fact that HT had no legitimate hereditary claim made it dangerous, as that argument opened the idea of conquest to anyone. Therefore, a solid hereditary claim added a safety net. . Either EofY was legitimate, and so were any of her siblings including possibly PW, or they were illegitimate and the hereditary claim would be lost. Each way, EofY potentially loses out, so it was essential to remove the threat of PW. This is why it makes sense that Ferdinand and Isabella may have had very serious concerns about the security aspect of sending Catherine of Aragon to England to marry a Prince with a flimsy claim to his future throne. As for annulling the proxy marriage, as long as there was a good faith intention to go through with it, I would think it would be considered valid. As Marie pointed out, consummation was less of an issue especially with marriages of younger people. An annulment would require a physical or mental obstacle to consummation, but it may have been possible for F&I to annul the marriage on the grounds that they were misled into thinking that the House of Tudor was stable. In that case, HT had good reason to be concerned.Nico
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 18:29:36 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I have to say that I am not convinced by Baldwin's scenario. Correct me if I am wrong but he is saying that R of Y never left the Abbey until after H7s death? That would mean that somebody set up a pretender who then married the King of Scotland's relative and who tried to invade the country and ended up on the scaffold. If it was Margaret of Burgundy wouldn't she have known that R of Y was at the Abbey because Lovell escaped and eventually ended up in Burgundy. Maybe the plan was to set up the pretender and then when he had successfully invaded the country bring forth the real R of Y. If that was the case then things obviously didn't go the way they were intended. Oh for a tardis!Mary
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 18:29:36 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I have to say that I am not convinced by Baldwin's scenario. Correct me if I am wrong but he is saying that R of Y never left the Abbey until after H7s death? That would mean that somebody set up a pretender who then married the King of Scotland's relative and who tried to invade the country and ended up on the scaffold. If it was Margaret of Burgundy wouldn't she have known that R of Y was at the Abbey because Lovell escaped and eventually ended up in Burgundy. Maybe the plan was to set up the pretender and then when he had successfully invaded the country bring forth the real R of Y. If that was the case then things obviously didn't go the way they were intended. Oh for a tardis!Mary
Re: When was the Pre-Contract Revealed?
2019-05-04 17:14:59
Hilary
wrote:
Sorry
Doug, it was your previous post.
I'm
glad you agree that it would be highly unlikely for someone, Bishop or not, to
stand up in Council and proclaim he knew the king was illegitimate. People's
reactions would have to be tested carefully and individually, at least that's
how I'd play it. Your suggestion that Stillington (and we'll assume it was him
who was the channel) went straight to Richard is interesting. You see
Stillington's family were of Richard's affinity in Yorkshire, in fact of course
Stillington's family had been Chancellors of the City of York. So there is some
reason in that, one Yorkshireman trusting another, particularly after recent
happenings. I certainly don't dismiss it as an idea.
Doug
here:
I
mentioned the Pre-Contract getting to Richard via Stillington as a possible
route because it seems to me, what with the Bishop's background in Canon law,
that he'd be the most likely person for someone who wasn't present at Edward
and Eleanor's marriage to go to for an opinion on the validity of the
proofs held by that person and which were later presented to substantiate the
claim. When it comes to what sort of proofs they were, I'm left with two
possibilities. The first would have been some sort of verbal death-bed
statement by Eleanor. Perhaps something along the lines of her being worried
that her not coming forward about her marriage to Edward would affect what she
could expect in the afterlife? The other possibility is that, sometime before
she died, and knowing she was likely to die, Eleanor dictated and signed a
statement. In either case, placing her immortal soul in jeopardy would have
leant what she said or signed that much greater believability. Or so it seems to
me, anyway.
Stillington's
family being amongst Richard's affinity would certainly lend credence to the
idea that he was the chosen messenger, with the only doubts being just how well
known it was that Stillington's family were numbered among that group. For the
present, however, I think I'll stick with the presumption Stillington was chosen
because, as a Bishop, he could be expected to have immediate access to
the Protector and Council. If, as I think entirely likely, the person who
originally held those proofs wasn't entirely certain how to handle
the hot potato that had been dropped into his/her lap. The first thing on their
mind would have been getting to someone who had both knowledge about Canon law
and access to the Protector/Council. Nor, considering those involved,
could that person just start asking if anyone knew someone with a knowledge
about the legality of a Pre-Contracted marriage. Which means to me that this
person had to spend time first deciding on who they wanted to contact and then
actually getting into contact with that person. And all this had to be done
without revealing the matter to be discussed. If we allow for a week, even two,
to pass after Edward IV's death for this person to come to a decision about what
to do, and then another week to two weeks for that person to actually have a
person-to-person meeting with whomever they'd chosen, that brings us to about a
period no earlier than the end of April up to the week after the events
of Stony Stratford. Then we have to allow time for the person being approached
to satisfy themselves that, yes, the proofs are indeed valid. We're now
approaching the end of May, 1483. Subtract two weeks from 13 June and we get to
30 May (presuming there were regularly-scheduled Friday meetings at the Tower)
for the date for Council members to have been first informed of the
matter.
As
for Richard being the first person to be notified; it seems to me his position
as Protector, and potential king, would almost have demanded it. Not only were
the security and well-being of the realm the Protector's first duty, but because
of the claim he was the most interested party other than the new king in whose
stead he was serving, of course.
Hilary
continued:
The crux seems to be how fast it was disseminated amongst the rest.
Clearly neither Bourchier or EW knew when she handed ROY over to him on 16
June? To state the obvious that's three days after Hastings's supposed
death. So does that mean that the Hastings plot which was almost certainly
orchestrated by Forster and her was not about revelation of the PreContract but
probably (on Hastings's part) the belief that Richard, influenced by Buckingham,
was about to depose her son anyway? Did Buckingham have a loose tongue and hint
at this if Richard had shared the Stillington revelation with him?
Doug here:
To answer the question you posed: Why shouldn't Bourchier and EW known?
Why, presuming it's accurate and not another chronicler's invention, did
Bourchier feel the need to personally guarantee RoY's safety? RoY,
according to traditionalists anyway, was still the heir to the throne. As such
his safety would have been guaranteed simply because he was young Edward's heir.
Are we supposed to believe that EW thought RoY might suffer the same fate as
Hastings? Really?
Now, imagine EW, and Bourchier, knew that Pre-Contract had been brought
before the Council and a decision was to be made or had just been made
on its' acceptance? What if that guarantee was given because, just as later with
her daughters, EW was worried that RoY might suffer because the Council now
recognized her marriage to have been invalid?
If we presume the Council had made its' decision by 16
June, and that the reason Hastings died was because he was involved in a plot to
forestall that decision by killing Richard, that solves the problem/s, doesn't
it? BTW, is it me or are most of the problems we face based on the presumption
that, from before Edward IV died, Richard was aiming to take the throne? IOW,
all we're doing is showing that, regardless of the skill and artistry it
displays, Shakespeare's history of Richard III isn't, to say the least,
accurate as history.
Hilary concluded:
Then there's the issue of the involvement of Rotherham. I need to do more
work on him but he's actually quite elusive to track in depth. And what was the
relationship between Morton and Stillington? In their careers and origin they
had an awful lot in common, yet I still have the latter as a Yorkist, albeit a
rather controversial one.
All this has always been presented as a straightforward happening but in
fact it's far from that. Even JAH has EW trusting Richard on 16 June in one
chapter, yet plotting against him on 9th in another.
Doug here:
All I know about Rotherham is what I've gleaned from Wikipedia,
but I do find it interesting that it's not until Edward IV is on the throne that
his career took off, specifically prebendaries at Lincoln (1462) and Salisbury
(1465) before becoming Bishop of Rochester (1468), Bishop of Lincoln (1472) and
finally Archbishop of York (1480). Apparently, prior to Edward IV's arrival,
Rotherham spent his time lecturing at Cambridge until he was 42 or so and
finally became ordained as a priest. As Rotherham presented the Great Seal to EW
while she was in sanctuary at Westminster, I get the feeling his advancement
during Edward's reign may have been due to some connection with the Woodvilles.
Besides meeting whatever expectations of him Edward may have had, of
course.
As for Morton and Stillington, perhaps they were rivals? Which could mean
that Stillington got ahead mainly because, unlike Morton, he wasn't tainted by
charges of being a Lancastrian? Charges, I might add, supported by Morton's
activities in drawing up RoY's Attainder and fleeing to France when Henry VI was
first dethroned. Stillington, OTOH, apparently considered carrying out his
duties more important than displaying his partisanship. Well, at least until HT
showed up...
I don't know how JAH phrases those two events, but personally I don't see
any necessary conflict. Presuming, of course, that by 16 June EW recognized both
that her participation in the plot against Richard was known and that she had no
fears of Richard for her children. Her own conduct, of course was
another matter and, or so I think, enough reason for her to remain in
sanctuary.
Doug
I changed the title for this post because it really should have been done
earlier!
Also, I sincerely hope my Now that we've got that solved in
another post was recognized for that snark that it was...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Sorry
Doug, it was your previous post.
I'm
glad you agree that it would be highly unlikely for someone, Bishop or not, to
stand up in Council and proclaim he knew the king was illegitimate. People's
reactions would have to be tested carefully and individually, at least that's
how I'd play it. Your suggestion that Stillington (and we'll assume it was him
who was the channel) went straight to Richard is interesting. You see
Stillington's family were of Richard's affinity in Yorkshire, in fact of course
Stillington's family had been Chancellors of the City of York. So there is some
reason in that, one Yorkshireman trusting another, particularly after recent
happenings. I certainly don't dismiss it as an idea.
Doug
here:
I
mentioned the Pre-Contract getting to Richard via Stillington as a possible
route because it seems to me, what with the Bishop's background in Canon law,
that he'd be the most likely person for someone who wasn't present at Edward
and Eleanor's marriage to go to for an opinion on the validity of the
proofs held by that person and which were later presented to substantiate the
claim. When it comes to what sort of proofs they were, I'm left with two
possibilities. The first would have been some sort of verbal death-bed
statement by Eleanor. Perhaps something along the lines of her being worried
that her not coming forward about her marriage to Edward would affect what she
could expect in the afterlife? The other possibility is that, sometime before
she died, and knowing she was likely to die, Eleanor dictated and signed a
statement. In either case, placing her immortal soul in jeopardy would have
leant what she said or signed that much greater believability. Or so it seems to
me, anyway.
Stillington's
family being amongst Richard's affinity would certainly lend credence to the
idea that he was the chosen messenger, with the only doubts being just how well
known it was that Stillington's family were numbered among that group. For the
present, however, I think I'll stick with the presumption Stillington was chosen
because, as a Bishop, he could be expected to have immediate access to
the Protector and Council. If, as I think entirely likely, the person who
originally held those proofs wasn't entirely certain how to handle
the hot potato that had been dropped into his/her lap. The first thing on their
mind would have been getting to someone who had both knowledge about Canon law
and access to the Protector/Council. Nor, considering those involved,
could that person just start asking if anyone knew someone with a knowledge
about the legality of a Pre-Contracted marriage. Which means to me that this
person had to spend time first deciding on who they wanted to contact and then
actually getting into contact with that person. And all this had to be done
without revealing the matter to be discussed. If we allow for a week, even two,
to pass after Edward IV's death for this person to come to a decision about what
to do, and then another week to two weeks for that person to actually have a
person-to-person meeting with whomever they'd chosen, that brings us to about a
period no earlier than the end of April up to the week after the events
of Stony Stratford. Then we have to allow time for the person being approached
to satisfy themselves that, yes, the proofs are indeed valid. We're now
approaching the end of May, 1483. Subtract two weeks from 13 June and we get to
30 May (presuming there were regularly-scheduled Friday meetings at the Tower)
for the date for Council members to have been first informed of the
matter.
As
for Richard being the first person to be notified; it seems to me his position
as Protector, and potential king, would almost have demanded it. Not only were
the security and well-being of the realm the Protector's first duty, but because
of the claim he was the most interested party other than the new king in whose
stead he was serving, of course.
Hilary
continued:
The crux seems to be how fast it was disseminated amongst the rest.
Clearly neither Bourchier or EW knew when she handed ROY over to him on 16
June? To state the obvious that's three days after Hastings's supposed
death. So does that mean that the Hastings plot which was almost certainly
orchestrated by Forster and her was not about revelation of the PreContract but
probably (on Hastings's part) the belief that Richard, influenced by Buckingham,
was about to depose her son anyway? Did Buckingham have a loose tongue and hint
at this if Richard had shared the Stillington revelation with him?
Doug here:
To answer the question you posed: Why shouldn't Bourchier and EW known?
Why, presuming it's accurate and not another chronicler's invention, did
Bourchier feel the need to personally guarantee RoY's safety? RoY,
according to traditionalists anyway, was still the heir to the throne. As such
his safety would have been guaranteed simply because he was young Edward's heir.
Are we supposed to believe that EW thought RoY might suffer the same fate as
Hastings? Really?
Now, imagine EW, and Bourchier, knew that Pre-Contract had been brought
before the Council and a decision was to be made or had just been made
on its' acceptance? What if that guarantee was given because, just as later with
her daughters, EW was worried that RoY might suffer because the Council now
recognized her marriage to have been invalid?
If we presume the Council had made its' decision by 16
June, and that the reason Hastings died was because he was involved in a plot to
forestall that decision by killing Richard, that solves the problem/s, doesn't
it? BTW, is it me or are most of the problems we face based on the presumption
that, from before Edward IV died, Richard was aiming to take the throne? IOW,
all we're doing is showing that, regardless of the skill and artistry it
displays, Shakespeare's history of Richard III isn't, to say the least,
accurate as history.
Hilary concluded:
Then there's the issue of the involvement of Rotherham. I need to do more
work on him but he's actually quite elusive to track in depth. And what was the
relationship between Morton and Stillington? In their careers and origin they
had an awful lot in common, yet I still have the latter as a Yorkist, albeit a
rather controversial one.
All this has always been presented as a straightforward happening but in
fact it's far from that. Even JAH has EW trusting Richard on 16 June in one
chapter, yet plotting against him on 9th in another.
Doug here:
All I know about Rotherham is what I've gleaned from Wikipedia,
but I do find it interesting that it's not until Edward IV is on the throne that
his career took off, specifically prebendaries at Lincoln (1462) and Salisbury
(1465) before becoming Bishop of Rochester (1468), Bishop of Lincoln (1472) and
finally Archbishop of York (1480). Apparently, prior to Edward IV's arrival,
Rotherham spent his time lecturing at Cambridge until he was 42 or so and
finally became ordained as a priest. As Rotherham presented the Great Seal to EW
while she was in sanctuary at Westminster, I get the feeling his advancement
during Edward's reign may have been due to some connection with the Woodvilles.
Besides meeting whatever expectations of him Edward may have had, of
course.
As for Morton and Stillington, perhaps they were rivals? Which could mean
that Stillington got ahead mainly because, unlike Morton, he wasn't tainted by
charges of being a Lancastrian? Charges, I might add, supported by Morton's
activities in drawing up RoY's Attainder and fleeing to France when Henry VI was
first dethroned. Stillington, OTOH, apparently considered carrying out his
duties more important than displaying his partisanship. Well, at least until HT
showed up...
I don't know how JAH phrases those two events, but personally I don't see
any necessary conflict. Presuming, of course, that by 16 June EW recognized both
that her participation in the plot against Richard was known and that she had no
fears of Richard for her children. Her own conduct, of course was
another matter and, or so I think, enough reason for her to remain in
sanctuary.
Doug
I changed the title for this post because it really should have been done
earlier!
Also, I sincerely hope my Now that we've got that solved in
another post was recognized for that snark that it was...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-04 17:19:22
Mary,
Thanks!
I've wondered about any such meeting from the start. Had EoY ever met Perkin,
we'd almost certainly have heard about it.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug
I think Anne Wroe says in her book the E of Y never actually met up with
Perkin'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Thanks!
I've wondered about any such meeting from the start. Had EoY ever met Perkin,
we'd almost certainly have heard about it.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug
I think Anne Wroe says in her book the E of Y never actually met up with
Perkin'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-06 00:18:44
Hilary,
Regarding
HT's interest in Colchester. My trusty road atlas has Colchester located on
the Colne river; do you know if, during the period we're interested in, the
river provided direct access to the open sea? FWIW,
Wikipedia has Colchester as a major center for the manufacturing of
various types of woolen clothes during this time period and it's my
understanding that selling already-woven wool cloth brought in more money than
just selling raw wool. Perhaps HT's interest was based on whether or not the
government, aka Henry Tudor, was getting its' share of revenue from the
sales?
There's
also the possibility that, should the Colne have been navigable to the open sea,
HT viewed it as a possible entry/departure point for Yorkists coming from/going
to the Lowlands? If the latter was the case, we could expect to see some sort of
alarm system in place, designed to provide quick warning should some
undesirable person arrive and, more importantly, records of payments to those
manning the watch.
And
really, short of guards surrounding the abbey 24/7, much as Richard did with EW
at Westminster, what was to stop RoY from escaping? Who would suffer if RoY
decided to make a run for it? Who was HT holding hostage for RoY's good
behavior?
It's
only my opinion, but could Baldwin be more concerned about RoY because we have
a very good idea of where he was and what happened to him? No drama,
donchaknow?
Doug
Who
wonders if Baldwin didn't simply re-write that speculative novel about one of
the boys surviving, becoming an Abbot and finally expiring during the onset of
HVIII's reformation. Can't recall the author, unfortunately...
Hilary
wrote:
So
I revisited Baldwin on Richard of Eastwell.
To make a very brief precis, Baldwin has Lovell and the Staffords being
entrusted with ROY during Bosworth and making a dash for Colchester Abbey, where
they and he remain for several months. They emerge eventually leaving him there
(with HT's knowledge). He remains there during HT's life and is eventually
apprenticed as a bricklayer - a specialised trade in those days and has to leave
the Abbey after the dissolution. That is, as I said earlier, a very, very brief
precis.
The trouble is virtually all of this is hypothesis. In our search for the
truth about Brampton we've turned up lots of links between folk in London and
elsewhere whose names have been linked to the PW story so we have something to
get our teeth into. With Baldwin there is none of this. Abbot Stansted is said
to have Yorkist leanings, but there are no examples. The only name quoted is one
Eleanor Kechyn, who in the CPR is confined to her parent's house after a case
involving a London Grocer. The assumption is that this is so unusual she must
have had an affair with ROY.
So could PW have survived as Richard of Eastwell? I don't think it's beyond
the bounds of possibility. Certainly HT did visit and keep a careful eye on
Colchester.. One interesting remark made by Baldwin is that HT probably saw
something of his young self in PW and his story and was therefore inclined to be
sympathetic towards him.
What I have to ask is why in Baldwin's version so much attention is given
by Richard to ROY and not to the attainted but legitimate Yorkist heir,
Warwick.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Regarding
HT's interest in Colchester. My trusty road atlas has Colchester located on
the Colne river; do you know if, during the period we're interested in, the
river provided direct access to the open sea? FWIW,
Wikipedia has Colchester as a major center for the manufacturing of
various types of woolen clothes during this time period and it's my
understanding that selling already-woven wool cloth brought in more money than
just selling raw wool. Perhaps HT's interest was based on whether or not the
government, aka Henry Tudor, was getting its' share of revenue from the
sales?
There's
also the possibility that, should the Colne have been navigable to the open sea,
HT viewed it as a possible entry/departure point for Yorkists coming from/going
to the Lowlands? If the latter was the case, we could expect to see some sort of
alarm system in place, designed to provide quick warning should some
undesirable person arrive and, more importantly, records of payments to those
manning the watch.
And
really, short of guards surrounding the abbey 24/7, much as Richard did with EW
at Westminster, what was to stop RoY from escaping? Who would suffer if RoY
decided to make a run for it? Who was HT holding hostage for RoY's good
behavior?
It's
only my opinion, but could Baldwin be more concerned about RoY because we have
a very good idea of where he was and what happened to him? No drama,
donchaknow?
Doug
Who
wonders if Baldwin didn't simply re-write that speculative novel about one of
the boys surviving, becoming an Abbot and finally expiring during the onset of
HVIII's reformation. Can't recall the author, unfortunately...
Hilary
wrote:
So
I revisited Baldwin on Richard of Eastwell.
To make a very brief precis, Baldwin has Lovell and the Staffords being
entrusted with ROY during Bosworth and making a dash for Colchester Abbey, where
they and he remain for several months. They emerge eventually leaving him there
(with HT's knowledge). He remains there during HT's life and is eventually
apprenticed as a bricklayer - a specialised trade in those days and has to leave
the Abbey after the dissolution. That is, as I said earlier, a very, very brief
precis.
The trouble is virtually all of this is hypothesis. In our search for the
truth about Brampton we've turned up lots of links between folk in London and
elsewhere whose names have been linked to the PW story so we have something to
get our teeth into. With Baldwin there is none of this. Abbot Stansted is said
to have Yorkist leanings, but there are no examples. The only name quoted is one
Eleanor Kechyn, who in the CPR is confined to her parent's house after a case
involving a London Grocer. The assumption is that this is so unusual she must
have had an affair with ROY.
So could PW have survived as Richard of Eastwell? I don't think it's beyond
the bounds of possibility. Certainly HT did visit and keep a careful eye on
Colchester.. One interesting remark made by Baldwin is that HT probably saw
something of his young self in PW and his story and was therefore inclined to be
sympathetic towards him.
What I have to ask is why in Baldwin's version so much attention is given
by Richard to ROY and not to the attainted but legitimate Yorkist heir,
Warwick.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-07 10:32:40
Hi Doug it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of 75.I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V, the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck. H
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 16:03:01 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
FWIW,
EoY likely hadn't seen her brother since, at the latest, 1484 and possibly not
since 1483. Which means she'd not seen him since he was ten, possibly even
younger. Richard/Perkin was captured in 1497 so, presuming she ever met him
after his capture, he would have 24. Now, how many of us, relying solely on
memory and without a clearly marked photograph of a sibling at age 10, be able
to say the person they'd not seen in 15 years was standing in front of
them?
You've
mentioned that various foreign rulers believed Richard/Perkin to be who he
claimed he was, but I also remember reading that one of the supposed reason for
the deaths of Warwick and Richard/Perkin was that Isabella and Ferdinand were
pushing Henry and wouldn't agree to let their daughter marry Arthur while there
were any claimants to the English throne other than Henry's children. The thing
is, when Warwick and Richard/Perkin were executed on 28 and 23 November
respectively, Arthur and Catherine had already been married, albeit by proxy,
since 19 May of that year. To the best of my knowledge, a proxy marriage was
just as valid as any other, so why would there be any pressure on Henry once the
proxy marriage had taken place? As a marriage by proxy wasn't consummated, I
presume it would be easier to have one annulled, but still...
It's
only Wikipedia, but in the article on Catherine of Aragon it notes that
the House of Trastamara was then in the same position later occupied by the
Hapsburgs and Bourbons when it came to the ne plus ultra of
respectability and legitimacy. The article also noted that, based on lines of
direct descent, Catherine had a better claim to the English throne than Henry as
she was descended from both John of Gaunt's first and second wives, while Henry
was descended from Gaunt's third wife. Sort of gives Henry
another reason to ensure Arthur married Catherine, doesn't it?
Doug
Who wonders if dragging in Isabella
and Ferdinand wasn't an attempt to place the responsibility for the executions
of Warwick and Richard/Perkin on someone other than Henry? Can't say anything
detrimental about the Tudor founder, now can we?
Hilary
wrote:
Or
..... perhaps HT himself wasn't really sure? He'd never personally seen ROY who
would still have been a boy when he became king. And children can change quite
significantly in their teens; even his sister might not really have been sure.
Was this the truth or just a foreign game to undermine his kingship, as
Arthurson claims? I said in an earlier post that the Spanish and other European
monarchs thought Perkin was credible, and it's more than just he spoke and
behaved like a prince, he had the bearing and ease of someone who had been in
these circles for most of his life. Even the most accomplished actor would
surely come up against something for which his training had not prepared
him?
As
I've said, I was until very recently a real sceptic on this but there was
definitely something going on in Brampton (and London) circles from probably
before 1483. Our trouble is everything is so marred by Tudor propaganda that we
really do need those foreigners to help us.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 16:03:01 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
FWIW,
EoY likely hadn't seen her brother since, at the latest, 1484 and possibly not
since 1483. Which means she'd not seen him since he was ten, possibly even
younger. Richard/Perkin was captured in 1497 so, presuming she ever met him
after his capture, he would have 24. Now, how many of us, relying solely on
memory and without a clearly marked photograph of a sibling at age 10, be able
to say the person they'd not seen in 15 years was standing in front of
them?
You've
mentioned that various foreign rulers believed Richard/Perkin to be who he
claimed he was, but I also remember reading that one of the supposed reason for
the deaths of Warwick and Richard/Perkin was that Isabella and Ferdinand were
pushing Henry and wouldn't agree to let their daughter marry Arthur while there
were any claimants to the English throne other than Henry's children. The thing
is, when Warwick and Richard/Perkin were executed on 28 and 23 November
respectively, Arthur and Catherine had already been married, albeit by proxy,
since 19 May of that year. To the best of my knowledge, a proxy marriage was
just as valid as any other, so why would there be any pressure on Henry once the
proxy marriage had taken place? As a marriage by proxy wasn't consummated, I
presume it would be easier to have one annulled, but still...
It's
only Wikipedia, but in the article on Catherine of Aragon it notes that
the House of Trastamara was then in the same position later occupied by the
Hapsburgs and Bourbons when it came to the ne plus ultra of
respectability and legitimacy. The article also noted that, based on lines of
direct descent, Catherine had a better claim to the English throne than Henry as
she was descended from both John of Gaunt's first and second wives, while Henry
was descended from Gaunt's third wife. Sort of gives Henry
another reason to ensure Arthur married Catherine, doesn't it?
Doug
Who wonders if dragging in Isabella
and Ferdinand wasn't an attempt to place the responsibility for the executions
of Warwick and Richard/Perkin on someone other than Henry? Can't say anything
detrimental about the Tudor founder, now can we?
Hilary
wrote:
Or
..... perhaps HT himself wasn't really sure? He'd never personally seen ROY who
would still have been a boy when he became king. And children can change quite
significantly in their teens; even his sister might not really have been sure.
Was this the truth or just a foreign game to undermine his kingship, as
Arthurson claims? I said in an earlier post that the Spanish and other European
monarchs thought Perkin was credible, and it's more than just he spoke and
behaved like a prince, he had the bearing and ease of someone who had been in
these circles for most of his life. Even the most accomplished actor would
surely come up against something for which his training had not prepared
him?
As
I've said, I was until very recently a real sceptic on this but there was
definitely something going on in Brampton (and London) circles from probably
before 1483. Our trouble is everything is so marred by Tudor propaganda that we
really do need those foreigners to help us.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-07 10:49:54
Hi Doug, I think the problem with the letter taking so long is the contents. You see it opens with the events at the Tower, the beheading of Hastings, the imprisonment of bishops. Now this was a letter to William Stonor, a friend and supporter of EW and later an October rebel. With such important contents don't you think the writer would have wanted to get it off at once? And just because it was in two hands, doesn't necessarily mean it was written days' apart. So I also see Markham's argument. It also makes more sense of the release date of ROY (16th) if Hastings were beheaded on 21st; I think the death of Hastings and the imprisonment of Morton and Rotherham would have scared EW. So I can see both sides.I do agree that it's likely that it was Morton who 'turned' Hastings; he almost certainly did Buckingham later. I struggle to figure out where Morton sat in all this. We've said before that he was ambitious and probably an opportunist. I'm not so sure that he was that close to MB and Bray. Was he still in contact with the French, remember he knew Louis from exile? MOA had died in the August of 1482. Had he still been in touch with her (and Louis)? He needs a lot more work.Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were in Yorkshire, I think, without looking, split between Pontefract and Sheriff Hutton - they were executed at Pontefract. So they were in the middle of Richard's loyalist supporters. It would be difficult to get contact with them I would have thought, but then there are always our friends the clergy. So I'm not so sure whether EW would have been able to involve them in her June plot. H
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 18:01:20 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
Doug, in your second sentence you get to the nub of the argument between Markham and Gairdner. Yes Hastings is mentioned in the first couple of sentences - the letter is dated 21 June at the very end, in another hand.. And we know Stallworth was sick, he tells us so, too sick to hold a pen.
Doug here:
So what we have then is a letter dated 21 June, the date of the letter's completion, written in the hand of the person who completed the letter, but we're supposed to believe that the part of the letter written by the person who began the letter must also have been written on that date? My, my!
Hilary continued:
The problem is I don't understand how a decision could be made on the PreContract with only half the Council there. Bourchier, a Cardinal and a key member of the Council would surely have had to have been there to pronounce on Canon Law, but he would almost certainly have been at the coronation meeting. My guess is John Howard would also have been at that meeting even though he had not yet formally been made Earl Marshal. It was tradition for Dukes of Norfolk to organise the coronation - they still do. Two key people whose input would have been vital to a decision. That said, I don't know what the meeting at the Tower was for, bits of minor business? Or was it to bring the Hastings plot out into the open, as Richard had been forewarned?
Doug here:
I understood that Morton and Hastings were also among those assigned to the coronation committee, but both were present in the Tower on 13 June, weren't they? Are we absolutely certain Bourchier wasn't there? For that matter, do we know for certain that there was also a coronation committee meeting on 13 June? Because I've been working on the presumption that the 13 June meeting was a meeting of the entire Council, partly based on Morton and Hastings being there. Is that too much of a leap ?
FWIW, I tend to view the Hastings' Plot as the culmination of plotting that had continued after the attempt on Richard at Stony Stratford failed. Almost certainly EW was involved; depending on how strictly they were confined, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan may also have been involved. It wouldn't have been plotting on the order of setting a date, time and place, but more on the line of brainstorming with various scenarios proposed. Then, at some date shortly before 10 June, word of the Pre-Contract is given out; likely to individual members in one-on-one meetings considering its' potential to produce all sorts of upheavals, political and even possibly military. That, I believe, was when Hastings became involved. I don't know whether or not anything was actually planned for 13 June, but it does seem likely to me that something was planned to take place prior to the final vote on the Pre-Contract by the Council. We know Richard sent his letter off to York on 10 June, the same day Forster and Burton were arrested, so it seems likely that whatever the plot was, it had been more or less finalized by then, including Hastings' participation. Apparently, however, something was still missing; some piece of evidence that conclusively pointed out Hastings as being involved and this is where I believe Morton comes in. I firmly believe Morton was as deeply involved in the plot as Hastings, quite likely more so, and may even have been the person who turned Hastings. At any rate, something Morton possessed, a letter perhaps, provided Richard with final bit of evidence to confirm what he'd already learned from Forster and Burton. Morton, realizing the plot had failed, provided Richard with the evidence against Hastings that the bishop held. When confronted with that evidence, Hastings was unable to deny it and thus was charged and convicted on the spot by Richard acting under his authority as Constable of England.
Now that we've got that solved.
Hilary concluded:
One interesting thing is the involvement of Oliver King, who was imprisoned and then sacked. Now, as Richard's secretary he would know the business of all these meetings would he not? (And probably pass bits on to the French). And what were Forster and Burton doing in Herts the day before - had they met with Hastings? You are not so far adrift from me as JAH who has Stillington making a declaration to the Council on 9 June and everyone knowing. As always, there are more questions than answers, which I'll raise in my answer to your next post.
Doug here:
Where were Rivers, Grey and Vaughan being kept? Would someone who'd been in communications with them and was returning to London pass through Herts? Hastings had been in London since the beginning of May, hadn't he? Perhaps they were on their way to meet him - only they didn't make it...
I'm still going with an earlier date than 13 June for the Pre-Contract to have first been brought before members of the Council. Not all members would have had to been informed, but the list would certainly have included people such as Bourchier and Morton, as well as the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer. Richard would have known and we can almost certainly add Buckingham, Howard and Hastings. As I said, it wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit to have the Pre-Contract allegations revealed prematurely, certainly not until the Council had time to decide on how to proceed. If that decision was to be made on 13 June, likely considering the coronation was still scheduled for 22 June, then something had to have been planned to take place no later than that date and, most importantly, before the Council met for its' afternoon session. However, in order for any sort of plot to be conceived and put into place, more than a day or two would, I think, be required; even if the intention existed earlier, there'd still be co-ordination required to set the date and place.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 3 May 2019, 18:01:20 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary wrote:
Doug, in your second sentence you get to the nub of the argument between Markham and Gairdner. Yes Hastings is mentioned in the first couple of sentences - the letter is dated 21 June at the very end, in another hand.. And we know Stallworth was sick, he tells us so, too sick to hold a pen.
Doug here:
So what we have then is a letter dated 21 June, the date of the letter's completion, written in the hand of the person who completed the letter, but we're supposed to believe that the part of the letter written by the person who began the letter must also have been written on that date? My, my!
Hilary continued:
The problem is I don't understand how a decision could be made on the PreContract with only half the Council there. Bourchier, a Cardinal and a key member of the Council would surely have had to have been there to pronounce on Canon Law, but he would almost certainly have been at the coronation meeting. My guess is John Howard would also have been at that meeting even though he had not yet formally been made Earl Marshal. It was tradition for Dukes of Norfolk to organise the coronation - they still do. Two key people whose input would have been vital to a decision. That said, I don't know what the meeting at the Tower was for, bits of minor business? Or was it to bring the Hastings plot out into the open, as Richard had been forewarned?
Doug here:
I understood that Morton and Hastings were also among those assigned to the coronation committee, but both were present in the Tower on 13 June, weren't they? Are we absolutely certain Bourchier wasn't there? For that matter, do we know for certain that there was also a coronation committee meeting on 13 June? Because I've been working on the presumption that the 13 June meeting was a meeting of the entire Council, partly based on Morton and Hastings being there. Is that too much of a leap ?
FWIW, I tend to view the Hastings' Plot as the culmination of plotting that had continued after the attempt on Richard at Stony Stratford failed. Almost certainly EW was involved; depending on how strictly they were confined, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan may also have been involved. It wouldn't have been plotting on the order of setting a date, time and place, but more on the line of brainstorming with various scenarios proposed. Then, at some date shortly before 10 June, word of the Pre-Contract is given out; likely to individual members in one-on-one meetings considering its' potential to produce all sorts of upheavals, political and even possibly military. That, I believe, was when Hastings became involved. I don't know whether or not anything was actually planned for 13 June, but it does seem likely to me that something was planned to take place prior to the final vote on the Pre-Contract by the Council. We know Richard sent his letter off to York on 10 June, the same day Forster and Burton were arrested, so it seems likely that whatever the plot was, it had been more or less finalized by then, including Hastings' participation. Apparently, however, something was still missing; some piece of evidence that conclusively pointed out Hastings as being involved and this is where I believe Morton comes in. I firmly believe Morton was as deeply involved in the plot as Hastings, quite likely more so, and may even have been the person who turned Hastings. At any rate, something Morton possessed, a letter perhaps, provided Richard with final bit of evidence to confirm what he'd already learned from Forster and Burton. Morton, realizing the plot had failed, provided Richard with the evidence against Hastings that the bishop held. When confronted with that evidence, Hastings was unable to deny it and thus was charged and convicted on the spot by Richard acting under his authority as Constable of England.
Now that we've got that solved.
Hilary concluded:
One interesting thing is the involvement of Oliver King, who was imprisoned and then sacked. Now, as Richard's secretary he would know the business of all these meetings would he not? (And probably pass bits on to the French). And what were Forster and Burton doing in Herts the day before - had they met with Hastings? You are not so far adrift from me as JAH who has Stillington making a declaration to the Council on 9 June and everyone knowing. As always, there are more questions than answers, which I'll raise in my answer to your next post.
Doug here:
Where were Rivers, Grey and Vaughan being kept? Would someone who'd been in communications with them and was returning to London pass through Herts? Hastings had been in London since the beginning of May, hadn't he? Perhaps they were on their way to meet him - only they didn't make it...
I'm still going with an earlier date than 13 June for the Pre-Contract to have first been brought before members of the Council. Not all members would have had to been informed, but the list would certainly have included people such as Bourchier and Morton, as well as the Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer. Richard would have known and we can almost certainly add Buckingham, Howard and Hastings. As I said, it wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit to have the Pre-Contract allegations revealed prematurely, certainly not until the Council had time to decide on how to proceed. If that decision was to be made on 13 June, likely considering the coronation was still scheduled for 22 June, then something had to have been planned to take place no later than that date and, most importantly, before the Council met for its' afternoon session. However, in order for any sort of plot to be conceived and put into place, more than a day or two would, I think, be required; even if the intention existed earlier, there'd still be co-ordination required to set the date and place.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-07 15:03:50
Mary,
The
doubts you've expressed are exactly the ones I have.
Tudor
claimed the throne by right of conquest, but he sealed the deal with many
Yorkists by marrying the person presumed to be Edward IV's eldest surviving
heiress EoY. But what if one of her brothers still lived? Could Henry count on
the continued support of those Yorkists against someone with a legitimate,
superior claim that trumped his right of conquest ?
What happened to Sir William Stanley
can give us an idea of the dilemma Tudor faced in such a matter. Why should we
believe that Tudor wouldn't act just as ruthlessly against his brother-in-law as
he did against the person who'd saved his life at Bosworth? Because that person
was his wife's brother? A brother she'd not seen for a decade or more and who
could be labeled, as he was, as an imposter? Really?
For that matter, do we know what it
was that led Sir William to defect from his known support of the House of York
to that of supporting Tudor? If one goes by what Sir William is supposed to have
said that resulted in his execution, that should Warbeck prove to really be one
of Edward IV's sons, he [Sir William] wouldn't fight against him, one is left
with the conclusion that Sir William had been convinced that young Edward and
his brother were dead. Alright then, who convinced him? What was the
evidence used to support the argument that the boys were dead? Or did Sir
William merely trust the person enough to rely on what he was told? Who would
Sir William have trusted to that extent? His brother? His brother's wife? We can
rule out Morton (darn it!) because he wasn't in the country. If one presumes Sir
William to not have been lying in that attributed statement, then we can safely
also presume that Sir William had no direct knowledge of what
happened to the boys. Yet he still led that charge against Richard at Bosworth
because, as best we can determine, he believed both boys to be dead.
For that matter, we don't even know if Sir William held Richard responsible;
only that, in the absence of Edward IV's sons, Sir William was willing to
support the person who promised to marry Edward's
heir.
I keep
having problems with the idea that a figurehead was required at the head
of the forces invading England in order that the invasion be successful
and result in the overthrow of Tudor. Perhaps because it plays into the
traditionalists' argument? At any rate, if Margaret knew that RoY was living in
that abbey at Colchester, I can't see her providing money, men and arms to
someone masquerading as RoY. Especially not to the extent of supporting
someone she almost certainly would have known was an imposter as that person
married into royalty and hobnobbed around the Continent as her
nephew.
Even if
young Edward and RoY were dead, there were other Yorkists with legitimate
claims; the de la Poles, for example. Even Warwick, for that matter. After all,
it wasn't as if an Attainder couldn't be reversed.
Doug
Who
keeps hoping to see that large, blue Police Box under his Christmas tree and
keeps being disappointed...
Mary
wrote:
I
have to say that I am not convinced by Baldwin's scenario. Correct me if I am
wrong but he is saying that R of Y never left the Abbey until after H7s death?
That would mean that somebody set up a pretender who then married the King of
Scotland's relative and who tried to invade the country and ended up on the
scaffold. If it was Margaret of Burgundy wouldn't she have known that R of Y was
at the Abbey because Lovell escaped and eventually ended up in
Burgundy. Maybe the plan was to set up the pretender and then when
he had successfully invaded the country bring forth the real R of Y. If that was
the case then things obviously didn't go the way they were intended. Oh for a
tardis!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
The
doubts you've expressed are exactly the ones I have.
Tudor
claimed the throne by right of conquest, but he sealed the deal with many
Yorkists by marrying the person presumed to be Edward IV's eldest surviving
heiress EoY. But what if one of her brothers still lived? Could Henry count on
the continued support of those Yorkists against someone with a legitimate,
superior claim that trumped his right of conquest ?
What happened to Sir William Stanley
can give us an idea of the dilemma Tudor faced in such a matter. Why should we
believe that Tudor wouldn't act just as ruthlessly against his brother-in-law as
he did against the person who'd saved his life at Bosworth? Because that person
was his wife's brother? A brother she'd not seen for a decade or more and who
could be labeled, as he was, as an imposter? Really?
For that matter, do we know what it
was that led Sir William to defect from his known support of the House of York
to that of supporting Tudor? If one goes by what Sir William is supposed to have
said that resulted in his execution, that should Warbeck prove to really be one
of Edward IV's sons, he [Sir William] wouldn't fight against him, one is left
with the conclusion that Sir William had been convinced that young Edward and
his brother were dead. Alright then, who convinced him? What was the
evidence used to support the argument that the boys were dead? Or did Sir
William merely trust the person enough to rely on what he was told? Who would
Sir William have trusted to that extent? His brother? His brother's wife? We can
rule out Morton (darn it!) because he wasn't in the country. If one presumes Sir
William to not have been lying in that attributed statement, then we can safely
also presume that Sir William had no direct knowledge of what
happened to the boys. Yet he still led that charge against Richard at Bosworth
because, as best we can determine, he believed both boys to be dead.
For that matter, we don't even know if Sir William held Richard responsible;
only that, in the absence of Edward IV's sons, Sir William was willing to
support the person who promised to marry Edward's
heir.
I keep
having problems with the idea that a figurehead was required at the head
of the forces invading England in order that the invasion be successful
and result in the overthrow of Tudor. Perhaps because it plays into the
traditionalists' argument? At any rate, if Margaret knew that RoY was living in
that abbey at Colchester, I can't see her providing money, men and arms to
someone masquerading as RoY. Especially not to the extent of supporting
someone she almost certainly would have known was an imposter as that person
married into royalty and hobnobbed around the Continent as her
nephew.
Even if
young Edward and RoY were dead, there were other Yorkists with legitimate
claims; the de la Poles, for example. Even Warwick, for that matter. After all,
it wasn't as if an Attainder couldn't be reversed.
Doug
Who
keeps hoping to see that large, blue Police Box under his Christmas tree and
keeps being disappointed...
Mary
wrote:
I
have to say that I am not convinced by Baldwin's scenario. Correct me if I am
wrong but he is saying that R of Y never left the Abbey until after H7s death?
That would mean that somebody set up a pretender who then married the King of
Scotland's relative and who tried to invade the country and ended up on the
scaffold. If it was Margaret of Burgundy wouldn't she have known that R of Y was
at the Abbey because Lovell escaped and eventually ended up in
Burgundy. Maybe the plan was to set up the pretender and then when
he had successfully invaded the country bring forth the real R of Y. If that was
the case then things obviously didn't go the way they were intended. Oh for a
tardis!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-07 17:08:05
I agree Doug. Also, with regard to the Battle of Stoke, why would John Earl of Lincoln fight a battle and put his life in danger to promote an imposter when he had a claim to the throne? It just does not make sense. Why would Lovell fight for someone who was an imposter.I think that Tudor was just petrified that the Princes or at least one of them was alive and he had to make sure that the country didn't discover the truth. He was lucky that there weren't any journalists and social media around in those days. I expect that his record of judicial murder had something to do with it too. Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-08 10:05:13
You make some very good points Doug and Mary. Like Nico, I enjoyed Baldwin's book but he says himself it's a hypothesis, and the actions of people such as Margaret and Lincoln don't stack up.There is, I suppose, the possibility that Richard of Eastwell was who he said he was - an illegitimate child of either Richard or Edward? I think there were one or two out there.Slightly off point, I recall it's said that Clarence tried to send his son to Ireland? Now when I was looking again at Alice (Montagu) Neville, the child's great grandmother, it struck me that she died in Ireland in 1462 after her attainder in 1460. Perhaps we should look more closely at Ireland and the Neville contacts there? H
On Tuesday, 7 May 2019, 17:08:08 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I agree Doug. Also, with regard to the Battle of Stoke, why would John Earl of Lincoln fight a battle and put his life in danger to promote an imposter when he had a claim to the throne? It just does not make sense. Why would Lovell fight for someone who was an imposter.I think that Tudor was just petrified that the Princes or at least one of them was alive and he had to make sure that the country didn't discover the truth. He was lucky that there weren't any journalists and social media around in those days. I expect that his record of judicial murder had something to do with it too. Mary
On Tuesday, 7 May 2019, 17:08:08 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
I agree Doug. Also, with regard to the Battle of Stoke, why would John Earl of Lincoln fight a battle and put his life in danger to promote an imposter when he had a claim to the throne? It just does not make sense. Why would Lovell fight for someone who was an imposter.I think that Tudor was just petrified that the Princes or at least one of them was alive and he had to make sure that the country didn't discover the truth. He was lucky that there weren't any journalists and social media around in those days. I expect that his record of judicial murder had something to do with it too. Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-08 10:40:21
Hilary I think there is some truth in the story about George sending his son to Ireland. If it were true H7 wouldn't want it to be common knowledge. The Dublin King story has probably got some elements of truth in it. When Richard came to the throne he supposedly took the young Earl of Warwick into his household, but what if the child was an imposter? I doubt whether either Anne or Richard had ever seen him before so wouldn't have been able to say whether he was an imposter or not and Clarence could have sent the real Earl to Ireland and used another child in his place. If I remember rightly after Clarence's execution Edward placed the Earl of Warwick in the care of Dorset.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-08 16:42:41
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English.
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English.
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-08 17:40:40
Also Doug, Tudor was not the Lancastrian heir. The only people that could claim that were Bolingbroke and his children and siblings. They were descended from John of Gaunt's first wife Blanche of Lancaster. Tudor was descended from Gaunt's affair with Katherine Swynford and while he retained the title Duke of Lancaster and she was known as the Duchess when he eventually married her the children were Beauforts. I would imagine that Gaunt's family by Constance of Castile had more right to the throne than Tudor, not that they had more right than the Mortimers though. Tudor was informed in no uncertain terms that he had to claim the throne by conquest so maybe that's when he prevaricated as to whether he would marry E of Y.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-09 10:39:28
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was.So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-09 10:48:14
Sorry, I should have added that this also says to me that in 1483 the Council probably preferred Richard as king. And that's not surprising given the chaos under previous minorities and the recent action of the Woodvilles. Edward IV had indeed nominated his son as king. In theory there would have been nothing to have stopped them keeping the revealed matter quiet whilst Bourchier approached the Pope for legitimisation. He was usually quite willing to do what every European monarch wanted. That is, as long as it kept them away from Rome. H
On Thursday, 9 May 2019, 10:39:23 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was.So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 9 May 2019, 10:39:23 BST, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was.So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-09 15:26:44
It has crossed my mind Hilary, that if the Woodvilles had been decent Stillington might never have told about the pre-contract. Richard could have looked after the country while E5 was young and then handed over when he came of age. Then he could have been Edward's chief adviser making sure he ran the country properly.Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-09 15:41:49
That's interesting Mary. You see only last night I was thinking that Stillington could well have been a Neville (that's an Alice, Countess of Salisbury) protegee. For a start it would explain his first placement in the West Country, his lack of fear opposing Archbishop Kempe even to the extent of writing to the Pope, and his entry into the world of Henry VI, just like her other protegee, Thomas Vaughan!It would also explain the marriage of his daughter to John Hampton, according to the Visitations (though I'm not convinced) the son of 'Egelina' Neville (there were a lot of Avelinas), her niece. Not only that it would explain the continued advancement of Stillington under Edward (sorry JAH) because that patronage could have been taken over by her son, Warwick. And he was succeeded by George Neville.And then there's the imprisonment in the Tower after Clarence's arrest. Could that not have been to do with the PreContract, but to do with George's attempt to send his son to Ireland, where Alice died? I reckon Stillington remained loyal to the Nevilles, which is why he appears again regarding Lambert Simnel. Not because he was helping EW, but he was helping Cis, Alice's sister-in-law.Will take a lot of proving but it's more provable than the Richard of Eastwell connection with PW. H
On Thursday, 9 May 2019, 15:26:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
It has crossed my mind Hilary, that if the Woodvilles had been decent Stillington might never have told about the pre-contract. Richard could have looked after the country while E5 was young and then handed over when he came of age. Then he could have been Edward's chief adviser making sure he ran the country properly.Mary
On Thursday, 9 May 2019, 15:26:51 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
It has crossed my mind Hilary, that if the Woodvilles had been decent Stillington might never have told about the pre-contract. Richard could have looked after the country while E5 was young and then handed over when he came of age. Then he could have been Edward's chief adviser making sure he ran the country properly.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-09 18:11:36
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think the problem with the letter taking so long is the contents. You
see it opens with the events at the Tower, the beheading of Hastings, the
imprisonment of bishops. Now this was a letter to William Stonor, a friend and
supporter of EW and later an October rebel. With such important contents don't
you think the writer would have wanted to get it off at once? And just because
it was in two hands, doesn't necessarily mean it was written days' apart. So I
also see Markham's argument. It also makes more sense of the release date of ROY
(16th) if Hastings were beheaded on 21st; I think the death of Hastings and the
imprisonment of Morton and Rotherham would have scared EW. So I can see both
sides.
Doug
here:
While
I can see that the writer/s might want the information to go as soon as
possible, there's also the possibility the second writer was waiting to see how
valid the information included in the letter really was. As you say, though (and
unfortunately), it doesn't prove anything one way or t'other.
If,
as I think, the death of Hastings was due to his involvement in a plot to kill
Richard and EW was also involved in that plot, then I certainly agree
that, whenever Hastings died, EW had a reason to be frightened. What I don't
agree with is that she had any reason to fear for her son's safety if
knowledge of the Pre-Contract hadn't already become known to her as (well
as members of the Council). While knowledge of the Pre-Contract may have given
the plot against Richard greater urgency, it wasn't, in and of itself, the
original reason for that plot. The original reason for the plot was, or
so I think, simply to remove the Protector and allow the Woodville faction to
gain supremacy on the Council. I've thought and thought, trying to be as devious
and unscrupulous as I can, and the only reason I can come up
with for Hastings to unite with the Woodville faction, after all that had passed
between them, is the possibility of young Edward losing the throne because of
illegitimacy and Richard becoming king.
Regardless
of the evidence provided, the Woodvilles would almost certainly view the
Pre-Contract as a fake. Whether or not that was Hastings' view, I can't say, but
I do think he realized what would happen to him should young Edward be
replaced by Richard as king; someone else would take over Calais and the Mint,
he'd also likely lose the revenues from properties assigned to him by Edward IV.
Almost certainly during his time as Edward's BFF, Hastings had made enemies, how
was he to counter them if he was reduced to nothing more than just another
member of the gentry? So, as long as Richard was only Protector, he'd need
Hastings' support on the Council to help counter the Woodvilles, but should
young Edward be replaced by Richard...
I
think the same reasoning applies to whether or not EW had been informed of the
Pre-Contract before she allowed RoY to join his brother. If
Bourchier's promise to EW that no harm would come to RoY accurately represents
what he said, then the question becomes why would such a promise be necessary
for the heir to the throne? Unless one buys into Tudor propaganda that
Richard was aiming at the throne from the moment he was conceived, RoY was
perfectly safe. OTOH, if knowledge of the Pre-Contract had been provided to EW,
it did concern her children, then any fears she may have had for her son's
well-being make much more sense. If the Council decided to accept the claims of
a Pre-Contract between Edward and Eleanor Butler as being valid, then RoY went
from being heir apparent to just another illegitimate royal offspring and, while
I don't think EW thought for a minute that a change in her children's status
would directly endanger their lives, a royal bastard had no guarantee of how
he/she would be treated. Look what Richard had to agree to concerning her
daughters in 1484.
Hilary continued:
I do agree that it's likely that it was Morton who 'turned' Hastings; he
almost certainly did Buckingham later. I struggle to figure out where Morton sat
in all this. We've said before that he was ambitious and probably an
opportunist. I'm not so sure that he was that close to MB and Bray. Was he still
in contact with the French, remember he knew Louis from exile? MOA had died in
the August of 1482. Had he still been in touch with her (and Louis)? He needs a
lot more work.
Doug here:
FWIW, I definitely have Morton down as an ambitious opportunist and I do
wonder why, with all his abilities, Edward IV didn't make more use of him?
Perhaps Edward caught Morton out in some back-room maneuverings designed to
benefit Morton that also had the side-effects of being disadvantageous to
Edward? IOW, Morton puts his own interests above Edward's in some matter, Edward
finds out and, while not dismissing him completely from his service, limits
Morton's employment? Which would leave Morton in the position of trying to find,
or develop, a situation where both his talents could be employed and, by
displaying those talents, those employing him or with whom he was working,
wouldn't worry about why he was doing so?
Barring any further information coming to light, I tend to think that any
French involvement was probably limited to gathering information and possibly
providing under-the-table payments to those supporting English policies that
benefited French policies. Limiting English support to Burgundy or Brittany, for
example.
Hilary wrote:
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were in Yorkshire, I think, without looking,
split between Pontrefact and Sheriff Hutton they were executed at Pontrefact.
So they were in the middle of Richard's loyalist supporters. It would be
difficult to get contact with them I would have thought, but then there are
always our friends the clergy. So I'm not sure whether EW would have been able
to involve them in her June plot.
Doug here:
While it's almost certain they were executed for their participation in
what was planned for Stony Stratford, I was just wondering what was the
possibility that they were also involved in the June plot. Oh well...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think the problem with the letter taking so long is the contents. You
see it opens with the events at the Tower, the beheading of Hastings, the
imprisonment of bishops. Now this was a letter to William Stonor, a friend and
supporter of EW and later an October rebel. With such important contents don't
you think the writer would have wanted to get it off at once? And just because
it was in two hands, doesn't necessarily mean it was written days' apart. So I
also see Markham's argument. It also makes more sense of the release date of ROY
(16th) if Hastings were beheaded on 21st; I think the death of Hastings and the
imprisonment of Morton and Rotherham would have scared EW. So I can see both
sides.
Doug
here:
While
I can see that the writer/s might want the information to go as soon as
possible, there's also the possibility the second writer was waiting to see how
valid the information included in the letter really was. As you say, though (and
unfortunately), it doesn't prove anything one way or t'other.
If,
as I think, the death of Hastings was due to his involvement in a plot to kill
Richard and EW was also involved in that plot, then I certainly agree
that, whenever Hastings died, EW had a reason to be frightened. What I don't
agree with is that she had any reason to fear for her son's safety if
knowledge of the Pre-Contract hadn't already become known to her as (well
as members of the Council). While knowledge of the Pre-Contract may have given
the plot against Richard greater urgency, it wasn't, in and of itself, the
original reason for that plot. The original reason for the plot was, or
so I think, simply to remove the Protector and allow the Woodville faction to
gain supremacy on the Council. I've thought and thought, trying to be as devious
and unscrupulous as I can, and the only reason I can come up
with for Hastings to unite with the Woodville faction, after all that had passed
between them, is the possibility of young Edward losing the throne because of
illegitimacy and Richard becoming king.
Regardless
of the evidence provided, the Woodvilles would almost certainly view the
Pre-Contract as a fake. Whether or not that was Hastings' view, I can't say, but
I do think he realized what would happen to him should young Edward be
replaced by Richard as king; someone else would take over Calais and the Mint,
he'd also likely lose the revenues from properties assigned to him by Edward IV.
Almost certainly during his time as Edward's BFF, Hastings had made enemies, how
was he to counter them if he was reduced to nothing more than just another
member of the gentry? So, as long as Richard was only Protector, he'd need
Hastings' support on the Council to help counter the Woodvilles, but should
young Edward be replaced by Richard...
I
think the same reasoning applies to whether or not EW had been informed of the
Pre-Contract before she allowed RoY to join his brother. If
Bourchier's promise to EW that no harm would come to RoY accurately represents
what he said, then the question becomes why would such a promise be necessary
for the heir to the throne? Unless one buys into Tudor propaganda that
Richard was aiming at the throne from the moment he was conceived, RoY was
perfectly safe. OTOH, if knowledge of the Pre-Contract had been provided to EW,
it did concern her children, then any fears she may have had for her son's
well-being make much more sense. If the Council decided to accept the claims of
a Pre-Contract between Edward and Eleanor Butler as being valid, then RoY went
from being heir apparent to just another illegitimate royal offspring and, while
I don't think EW thought for a minute that a change in her children's status
would directly endanger their lives, a royal bastard had no guarantee of how
he/she would be treated. Look what Richard had to agree to concerning her
daughters in 1484.
Hilary continued:
I do agree that it's likely that it was Morton who 'turned' Hastings; he
almost certainly did Buckingham later. I struggle to figure out where Morton sat
in all this. We've said before that he was ambitious and probably an
opportunist. I'm not so sure that he was that close to MB and Bray. Was he still
in contact with the French, remember he knew Louis from exile? MOA had died in
the August of 1482. Had he still been in touch with her (and Louis)? He needs a
lot more work.
Doug here:
FWIW, I definitely have Morton down as an ambitious opportunist and I do
wonder why, with all his abilities, Edward IV didn't make more use of him?
Perhaps Edward caught Morton out in some back-room maneuverings designed to
benefit Morton that also had the side-effects of being disadvantageous to
Edward? IOW, Morton puts his own interests above Edward's in some matter, Edward
finds out and, while not dismissing him completely from his service, limits
Morton's employment? Which would leave Morton in the position of trying to find,
or develop, a situation where both his talents could be employed and, by
displaying those talents, those employing him or with whom he was working,
wouldn't worry about why he was doing so?
Barring any further information coming to light, I tend to think that any
French involvement was probably limited to gathering information and possibly
providing under-the-table payments to those supporting English policies that
benefited French policies. Limiting English support to Burgundy or Brittany, for
example.
Hilary wrote:
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were in Yorkshire, I think, without looking,
split between Pontrefact and Sheriff Hutton they were executed at Pontrefact.
So they were in the middle of Richard's loyalist supporters. It would be
difficult to get contact with them I would have thought, but then there are
always our friends the clergy. So I'm not sure whether EW would have been able
to involve them in her June plot.
Doug here:
While it's almost certain they were executed for their participation in
what was planned for Stony Stratford, I was just wondering what was the
possibility that they were also involved in the June plot. Oh well...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-09 23:46:21
Mary,
Perhaps
it's me, but I've never understood the reasoning behind the idea that a
figurehead was required in order for a rebellion to succeed! What did it
matter whether RoY or Warwick was in the Tower? Wasn't the whole idea to free
the true king and see him placed on his throne? How would having a figurehead
increase those chances? And what would happen to the rebellion should the real
RoY or Warwick die, from any cause, while they were in the
Tower? How would that be explained to those who'd rebelled? And, as you say, why
would Lincoln fight for someone he knew wasn't RoY when his own claim to the
throne was clearer than Tudor's?
I
agree that Tudor's actions certainly look like those of someone who had no idea
of what had happened to young Edward and RoY. The lack of a paper-trail doesn't
help, does it? Of course, good quality paper for records/diaries would have been
very expensive and the cost of parchment all but
prohibitive.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
agree Doug. Also, with regard to the Battle of Stoke, why would John Earl of
Lincoln fight a battle and put his life in danger to promote an imposter when he
had a claim to the throne? It just does not make sense. Why would Lovell fight
for someone who was an imposter.
I think that Tudor was just petrified that the Princes or at least one of
them was alive and he had to make sure that the country didn't discover the
truth. He was lucky that there weren't any journalists and social media around
in those days. I expect that his record of judicial murder had something to do
with it too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Perhaps
it's me, but I've never understood the reasoning behind the idea that a
figurehead was required in order for a rebellion to succeed! What did it
matter whether RoY or Warwick was in the Tower? Wasn't the whole idea to free
the true king and see him placed on his throne? How would having a figurehead
increase those chances? And what would happen to the rebellion should the real
RoY or Warwick die, from any cause, while they were in the
Tower? How would that be explained to those who'd rebelled? And, as you say, why
would Lincoln fight for someone he knew wasn't RoY when his own claim to the
throne was clearer than Tudor's?
I
agree that Tudor's actions certainly look like those of someone who had no idea
of what had happened to young Edward and RoY. The lack of a paper-trail doesn't
help, does it? Of course, good quality paper for records/diaries would have been
very expensive and the cost of parchment all but
prohibitive.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
agree Doug. Also, with regard to the Battle of Stoke, why would John Earl of
Lincoln fight a battle and put his life in danger to promote an imposter when he
had a claim to the throne? It just does not make sense. Why would Lovell fight
for someone who was an imposter.
I think that Tudor was just petrified that the Princes or at least one of
them was alive and he had to make sure that the country didn't discover the
truth. He was lucky that there weren't any journalists and social media around
in those days. I expect that his record of judicial murder had something to do
with it too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-10 06:31:19
Its has also been put into doubt that there ever was a deal between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort and HT to marry Elizabeth of York, hence the delay in the marriage.And that might have been reluctance on the York side. I can imagine Elizabeth objecting to having to marry this upstart who killed dead uncle Richard and stole his crown! :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 9 mai 2019 à 11:39, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English...
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English...
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-10 11:31:11
Hi,
Paul makes
a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is somewhat understandable especially if he
had preferred his queen to be part of a foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic
EofY has never been given serious consideration outside of historical fiction
nonsense like the White Princess, which is all about her having an affair with
Richard. I don't believe that for one minute; just that she thought highly of
him and kept a book that he gave her with an inscription for the rest of her
life, an indication that she saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or
murderer of her brothers. Possibly both of them needed a push from parliament
and the Yorkists What MB and EW actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a
public pledge to marry EoY at Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that
had been the result of the MB and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a
spoil of his conquest isn't clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean
towards thinking that his desire to be King was entirely of his own volition
with some encouragement from Jasper Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading
from MB.
The
discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has
been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his
or EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and
treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In
reality that worked only up to a point,
because within a few years there were significant people supporting PW as
'Richard of England' in the hope of restoring the House of York. Clearly God's
chosen one plus a Yorkist princess wasn't enough for some, but it remains a
question whether HT would have lasted as long without EofY, who by all accounts
was a very popular queen whose lineage was enough of a connection to the House
of York, Plantagenets and ultimately William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on
bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something that HT's conquest and previously
William's couldn't render entirely irrelevant.
Nico
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 06:32:30 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
Its has also been put into doubt that there ever was a deal between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort and HT to marry Elizabeth of York, hence the delay in the marriage.And that might have been reluctance on the York side. I can imagine Elizabeth objecting to having to marry this upstart who killed dead uncle Richard and stole his crown! :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 9 mai 2019 à 11:39, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was...So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English....
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Paul makes
a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is somewhat understandable especially if he
had preferred his queen to be part of a foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic
EofY has never been given serious consideration outside of historical fiction
nonsense like the White Princess, which is all about her having an affair with
Richard. I don't believe that for one minute; just that she thought highly of
him and kept a book that he gave her with an inscription for the rest of her
life, an indication that she saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or
murderer of her brothers. Possibly both of them needed a push from parliament
and the Yorkists What MB and EW actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a
public pledge to marry EoY at Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that
had been the result of the MB and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a
spoil of his conquest isn't clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean
towards thinking that his desire to be King was entirely of his own volition
with some encouragement from Jasper Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading
from MB.
The
discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has
been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his
or EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and
treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In
reality that worked only up to a point,
because within a few years there were significant people supporting PW as
'Richard of England' in the hope of restoring the House of York. Clearly God's
chosen one plus a Yorkist princess wasn't enough for some, but it remains a
question whether HT would have lasted as long without EofY, who by all accounts
was a very popular queen whose lineage was enough of a connection to the House
of York, Plantagenets and ultimately William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on
bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something that HT's conquest and previously
William's couldn't render entirely irrelevant.
Nico
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 06:32:30 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
Its has also been put into doubt that there ever was a deal between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort and HT to marry Elizabeth of York, hence the delay in the marriage.And that might have been reluctance on the York side. I can imagine Elizabeth objecting to having to marry this upstart who killed dead uncle Richard and stole his crown! :-)PaulEnvoyé de mon iPadLe 9 mai 2019 à 11:39, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was...So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than
eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got
interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely
it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their
daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I
don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red
herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful,
legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his
Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is,
just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest
didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him
has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in
England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor,
for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the
treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord
Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not
really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got
the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and
make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and
those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers
were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over
marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry
claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate
things.
The
problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more
than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke
was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his
legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted
was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior.
From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior
claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March.
However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that
overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was,
though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to
Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long
as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V,
there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V
with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by
Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let
alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English....
That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior
line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English
politics.
In
one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to
justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort
of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other
(and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that
those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that
connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle
for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have
been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I
think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair.
The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the
law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the
inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property
somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of
England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are
quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the
other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness
to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI
demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically,
what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was
important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular
person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who
apologizes for the length - and that's after
pruning !)
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella
weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references
to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues
of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and
that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so
intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious
madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead
husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of
75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like
Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed
they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror
of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V,
the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the
throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any
more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was
that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland atBosw
2019-05-10 11:46:41
Yes, the idea of Henry's promise being backed agreement by his mother and Elizabeth's lacks evidence, particularly as he promised to marry her *or one of her sisters if she had married already!*
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 10 May 2019 11:34
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Northumberland atBosworth
Hi,
Paul makes a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is somewhat understandable especially if he had preferred his queen to be part of a foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic EofY has never been given serious consideration outside of historical fiction nonsense like the White Princess, which is all about her having an affair with Richard. I don't believe that for one minute; just that she thought highly of him and kept a book that he gave her with an inscription for the rest of her life, an indication that she saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or murderer of her brothers. Possibly both of them needed a push from parliament and the Yorkists What MB and EW actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a public pledge to marry EoY at Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that had been the result of the MB and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a spoil of his conquest isn't clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean towards thinking that his desire to be King was entirely of his own volition with some encouragement from Jasper Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading from MB.
The discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his or EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In reality that worked only up to a point, because within a few years there were significant people supporting PW as 'Richard of England' in the hope of restoring the House of York. Clearly God's chosen one plus a Yorkist princess wasn't enough for some, but it remains a question whether HT would have lasted as long without EofY, who by all accounts was a very popular queen whose lineage was enough of a connection to the House of York, Plantagenets and ultimately William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something that HT's conquest and previously William's couldn't render entirely irrelevant.
Nico
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 06:32:30 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
Its has also been put into doubt that there ever was a deal between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort and HT to marry Elizabeth of York, hence the delay in the marriage.
And that might have been reluctance on the York side. I can imagine Elizabeth objecting to having to marry this upstart who killed dead uncle Richard and stole his crown! :-)
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 9 mai 2019 à 11:39, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was...
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful, legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is, just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor, for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate things.
The problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior. From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March. However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was, though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V, there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..... That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English politics.
In one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other (and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair. The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically, what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who apologizes for the length - and that's after pruning !)
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of 75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V, the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 10 May 2019 11:34
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Northumberland atBosworth
Hi,
Paul makes a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is somewhat understandable especially if he had preferred his queen to be part of a foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic EofY has never been given serious consideration outside of historical fiction nonsense like the White Princess, which is all about her having an affair with Richard. I don't believe that for one minute; just that she thought highly of him and kept a book that he gave her with an inscription for the rest of her life, an indication that she saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or murderer of her brothers. Possibly both of them needed a push from parliament and the Yorkists What MB and EW actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a public pledge to marry EoY at Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that had been the result of the MB and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a spoil of his conquest isn't clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean towards thinking that his desire to be King was entirely of his own volition with some encouragement from Jasper Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading from MB.
The discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his or EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In reality that worked only up to a point, because within a few years there were significant people supporting PW as 'Richard of England' in the hope of restoring the House of York. Clearly God's chosen one plus a Yorkist princess wasn't enough for some, but it remains a question whether HT would have lasted as long without EofY, who by all accounts was a very popular queen whose lineage was enough of a connection to the House of York, Plantagenets and ultimately William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something that HT's conquest and previously William's couldn't render entirely irrelevant.
Nico
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 06:32:30 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
Its has also been put into doubt that there ever was a deal between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort and HT to marry Elizabeth of York, hence the delay in the marriage.
And that might have been reluctance on the York side. I can imagine Elizabeth objecting to having to marry this upstart who killed dead uncle Richard and stole his crown! :-)
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 9 mai 2019 à 11:39, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was...
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful, legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is, just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor, for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate things.
The problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior. From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March. However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was, though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V, there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..... That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English politics.
In one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other (and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair. The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically, what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who apologizes for the length - and that's after pruning !)
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of 75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V, the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland atBosw
2019-05-10 12:00:49
Agree with all this and the potential position of MB. I could see Uncle Jasper, a queen's son who had grown up with Henry VI, being that catalyst.HT's problem was that he had zero record and zero personality. Because again of Shakespeare we think of Bolingbroke as 'uneasy lies the head' but in 1399 he had an impressive military track record, a strong personality and an impeccable pedigree, as did Edward later. I agree Nico that if HT hadn't had EOY by his side he'd have had an even tougher time. People of course say that about Richard and Anne - that she helped to soften Warwick's folk because of the respect they held for her family. But Richard was able to build on this, HT never learned. H
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 11:46:46 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:
Yes, the idea of Henry's promise being backed agreement by his mother and Elizabeth's lacks evidence, particularly as he promised to marry her *or one of her sisters if she had married already!*
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 10 May 2019 11:34
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Northumberland atBosworth
Hi,
Paul makes a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is somewhat understandable especially if he had preferred his queen to be part of a foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic EofY has never been given serious consideration outside of historical fiction nonsense like the White Princess, which is all about her having an affair with Richard. I don't believe that for one minute; just that she thought highly of him and kept a book that he gave her with an inscription for the rest of her life, an indication that she saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or murderer of her brothers. Possibly both of them needed a push from parliament and the Yorkists What MB and EW actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a public pledge to marry EoY at Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that had been the result of the MB and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a spoil of his conquest isn't clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean towards thinking that his desire to be King was entirely of his own volition with some encouragement from Jasper Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading from MB.
The discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his or EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In reality that worked only up to a point, because within a few years there were significant people supporting PW as 'Richard of England' in the hope of restoring the House of York. Clearly God's chosen one plus a Yorkist princess wasn't enough for some, but it remains a question whether HT would have lasted as long without EofY, who by all accounts was a very popular queen whose lineage was enough of a connection to the House of York, Plantagenets and ultimately William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something that HT's conquest and previously William's couldn't render entirely irrelevant.
Nico
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 06:32:30 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
Its has also been put into doubt that there ever was a deal between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort and HT to marry Elizabeth of York, hence the delay in the marriage.
And that might have been reluctance on the York side. I can imagine Elizabeth objecting to having to marry this upstart who killed dead uncle Richard and stole his crown! :-)
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 9 mai 2019 à 11:39, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was...
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful, legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is, just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor, for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate things.
The problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior. From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March. However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was, though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V, there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..... That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English politics.
In one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other (and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair. The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically, what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who apologizes for the length - and that's after pruning !)
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of 75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V, the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 11:46:46 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:
Yes, the idea of Henry's promise being backed agreement by his mother and Elizabeth's lacks evidence, particularly as he promised to marry her *or one of her sisters if she had married already!*
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 10 May 2019 11:34
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Northumberland atBosworth
Hi,
Paul makes a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is somewhat understandable especially if he had preferred his queen to be part of a foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic EofY has never been given serious consideration outside of historical fiction nonsense like the White Princess, which is all about her having an affair with Richard. I don't believe that for one minute; just that she thought highly of him and kept a book that he gave her with an inscription for the rest of her life, an indication that she saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or murderer of her brothers. Possibly both of them needed a push from parliament and the Yorkists What MB and EW actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a public pledge to marry EoY at Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that had been the result of the MB and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a spoil of his conquest isn't clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean towards thinking that his desire to be King was entirely of his own volition with some encouragement from Jasper Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading from MB.
The discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his or EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In reality that worked only up to a point, because within a few years there were significant people supporting PW as 'Richard of England' in the hope of restoring the House of York. Clearly God's chosen one plus a Yorkist princess wasn't enough for some, but it remains a question whether HT would have lasted as long without EofY, who by all accounts was a very popular queen whose lineage was enough of a connection to the House of York, Plantagenets and ultimately William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something that HT's conquest and previously William's couldn't render entirely irrelevant.
Nico
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 06:32:30 BST, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
Its has also been put into doubt that there ever was a deal between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort and HT to marry Elizabeth of York, hence the delay in the marriage.
And that might have been reluctance on the York side. I can imagine Elizabeth objecting to having to marry this upstart who killed dead uncle Richard and stole his crown! :-)
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 9 mai 2019 à 11:39, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
Hi Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne. You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention. Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor. Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex. This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was...
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country, regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett on the Normans - he is very good)
On Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 16:42:47 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I remembered reading something about Isabella's and Ferdinand's less than eager attitudes towards a marriage between Catherine and Arthur when I first got interested in the mystery of what happened to Richard's nephews, most likely it was in WIlliamson, and the reason given was that they didn't want their daughter to marry someone who might lose his throne.
I don't know about calling TR and the legitimacy of Edward IV's children a red herring. My understanding of Edward IV's claim was that it was his by rightful, legitimate descent; Tudor's, OTOH, and while he briefly included his Lancastrian descent as support, was, as you said by conquest. The trouble is, just as William the Conqueror learned the hard way, taking a throne by conquest didn't necessarily mean keeping it (FWIW, the Wikipedia article on him has William spending an awful lot of time putting down rebellions, both in England and Normandy/Maine from 1067 until his death).
Nor, for that matter, did Henry get the throne by conquest; he got it by the treasonous actions of the Stanleys. Without Sir William's intervention, and Lord Thomas' inaction, it would have been Tudor's body draped over that horse (Not really, most likely he'd have been immediately buried nearby). IOW, Henry got the throne only because he'd made a promise he had keep marry EoY and make her his Queen because she represented the legitimate line of descent and those who'd turned traitor believed, or pretended to believe, that her brothers were dead. There are, I believe, records of Henry's hemming and hawing over marrying Elizabeth before he finally did so in mid-January 1486. What Henry claimed and the reality of his position are, I firmly believe, two separate things.
The problem is that in order to claim legitimacy as a right to the throne, more than simply being legitimate was required. There is no doubt that Bolingbroke was the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, that Henry V was his legitimate son and Henry VI was the legitimate son of Henry V. What was doubted was disputed was Bolingbroke's right to the throne as it wasn't the most senior. From the moment Richard II was deposed, the person with the most direct senior claim to the throne was Edmund Mortimer, the seven year-old Earl of March. However, he was passed over in favor of Bolingbroke who'd led the rebellion that overthrew Richard; most likely because of Mortimer's age. The problem was, though, that senior claim to the throne never lapsed and was passed down to Richard, Duke of York and his children, Edward, George and Richard. Now, as long as the occupant of the throne was someone on the order of Henry IV or Henry V, there were few problems, even though there was a conspiracy to replace Henry V with Edmund Mortimer (the Southampton Plot ). But Henry V was succeeded by Henry VI who, it turned out, was completely unfitted for his role as king, let alone as king when the fighting in France started going against the English..... That was when legitimacy in the sense of who held the most direct, senior line of descent from Edward III moved into a prominent position in English politics.
In one of your previous posts you mentioned how gentry and nobles wishing to justify their marriages with daughters of rich merchants would unearth some sort of evidence that those daughters were related to some noble family or other (and they did it without gum erasers, too!). What I think is over-looked is that those members of the gentry and nobles, would have been overjoyed had that connection really existed. IOW, while their egos were willing to settle for a ginned-up connection to some noble family, an undisputed link would have been preferred and would have been greeted ecstatically. To a certain degree, I think that is the best way to view this whole York vs Lancastrian WotR affair. The Yorks, being of direct descent from a senior child of Edward III, had the law on their side; while the Lancastrians, OTOH, actually had possession of the inheritance. In this case, however, the inheritance wasn't some property somewhere that could be fought over in the law courts; it was the throne of England. The English, or so it appears to me from my readings in history, are quite willing to accept second best when it comes to a situation where the other option is both unknown and risky (BTW, I don't consider that willingness to necessarily be a bad thing) and that's what they did until Henry VI demonstrated he just wasn't up to the job.
Basically, what I'm saying is I really do think legitimacy, or its' lack, was important and could be a deciding factor in whether any particular person supported York or Lancaster.
Doug
(Who apologizes for the length - and that's after pruning !)
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, it says in the intro to the State Papers that Ferdinand and Isabella weren't over keen on the Catherine/Arthur marriage; there are several references to the fact that Arthur is small and puny. But I agree that HT would want issues of Pretenders out of the way during negotiations. As for their own house, and that of most European houses including the Italian states, they were so intermarried to preserve their legitimacy that they produced some serious madness. Catherine's sister Joanna (the mother of Charles V) carried her dead husband's body round with her for years before finally dying at the age of 75.
I do think this whole thing of TR and legitimacy is a red herring. HT, like Edward IV before him, had taken the throne by conquest; both may have claimed they were legitimate heirs but it truly didn't matter. The most famous Conqueror of all was a bastard! And of course Henry VI, the legitimate heir of Henry V, the son of the 'conqueror' Bolingbroke was still alive when Edward took the throne. HT didn't need EOY's legitimacy or otherwise to prop up his claim, any more than Edward needed that of EW. He'd won the battle, he was King, that was that. The Pretenders were just a pain in the neck.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-10 12:23:24
Hi,Lincoln's role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a 'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went afterwards.- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the scene to Portugal.Nico-
On Thursday, 9 May 2019, 23:46:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Perhaps
it's me, but I've never understood the reasoning behind the idea that a
figurehead was required in order for a rebellion to succeed! What did it
matter whether RoY or Warwick was in the Tower? Wasn't the whole idea to free
the true king and see him placed on his throne? How would having a figurehead
increase those chances? And what would happen to the rebellion should the real
RoY or Warwick die, from any cause, while they were in the
Tower? How would that be explained to those who'd rebelled? And, as you say, why
would Lincoln fight for someone he knew wasn't RoY when his own claim to the
throne was clearer than Tudor's?
I
agree that Tudor's actions certainly look like those of someone who had no idea
of what had happened to young Edward and RoY. The lack of a paper-trail doesn't
help, does it? Of course, good quality paper for records/diaries would have been
very expensive and the cost of parchment all but
prohibitive.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
agree Doug. Also, with regard to the Battle of Stoke, why would John Earl of
Lincoln fight a battle and put his life in danger to promote an imposter when he
had a claim to the throne? It just does not make sense. Why would Lovell fight
for someone who was an imposter.
I think that Tudor was just petrified that the Princes or at least one of
them was alive and he had to make sure that the country didn't discover the
truth. He was lucky that there weren't any journalists and social media around
in those days. I expect that his record of judicial murder had something to do
with it too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Thursday, 9 May 2019, 23:46:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary,
Perhaps
it's me, but I've never understood the reasoning behind the idea that a
figurehead was required in order for a rebellion to succeed! What did it
matter whether RoY or Warwick was in the Tower? Wasn't the whole idea to free
the true king and see him placed on his throne? How would having a figurehead
increase those chances? And what would happen to the rebellion should the real
RoY or Warwick die, from any cause, while they were in the
Tower? How would that be explained to those who'd rebelled? And, as you say, why
would Lincoln fight for someone he knew wasn't RoY when his own claim to the
throne was clearer than Tudor's?
I
agree that Tudor's actions certainly look like those of someone who had no idea
of what had happened to young Edward and RoY. The lack of a paper-trail doesn't
help, does it? Of course, good quality paper for records/diaries would have been
very expensive and the cost of parchment all but
prohibitive.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
I
agree Doug. Also, with regard to the Battle of Stoke, why would John Earl of
Lincoln fight a battle and put his life in danger to promote an imposter when he
had a claim to the throne? It just does not make sense. Why would Lovell fight
for someone who was an imposter.
I think that Tudor was just petrified that the Princes or at least one of
them was alive and he had to make sure that the country didn't discover the
truth. He was lucky that there weren't any journalists and social media around
in those days. I expect that his record of judicial murder had something to do
with it too.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-10 14:10:29
Mary,
My
understanding is that the nearest direct heirs would have been the children of
Gaunt's eldest daughter(Philippa?), but what with their not being English, I
seriously doubt their claim would have been championed by English
Lancastrians.
It's
only my opinion, but I think Tudor's documented reluctance to marry EoY was due
to his discovering that no one knew what had happened to her brothers. If, as I
believe, Richard moved them from the Tower in April 1484 with only himself,
those who escorted the boys and those with whom the boys were placed knowing
their location/s. Brampton, I think, may have been the one in charge of seeing
to RoY's safety should anything happen to Richard. I don't know who was given
the job of seeing to young Edward's safety, but I don't think it was Tyrrell,
who wasn't even in England at that time.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Also
Doug, Tudor was not the Lancastrian heir. The only people that could claim that
were Bolingbroke and his children and siblings. They were descended from John of
Gaunt's first wife Blanche of Lancaster. Tudor was descended from Gaunt's affair
with Katherine Swynford and while he retained the title Duke of Lancaster and
she was known as the Duchess when he eventually married her the children were
Beauforts. I would imagine that Gaunt's family by Constance of Castile had more
right to the throne than Tudor, not that they had more right than the Mortimers
though.
Tudor was informed in no uncertain terms that he had to claim the throne by
conquest so maybe that's when he prevaricated as to whether he would marry E of
Y.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
My
understanding is that the nearest direct heirs would have been the children of
Gaunt's eldest daughter(Philippa?), but what with their not being English, I
seriously doubt their claim would have been championed by English
Lancastrians.
It's
only my opinion, but I think Tudor's documented reluctance to marry EoY was due
to his discovering that no one knew what had happened to her brothers. If, as I
believe, Richard moved them from the Tower in April 1484 with only himself,
those who escorted the boys and those with whom the boys were placed knowing
their location/s. Brampton, I think, may have been the one in charge of seeing
to RoY's safety should anything happen to Richard. I don't know who was given
the job of seeing to young Edward's safety, but I don't think it was Tyrrell,
who wasn't even in England at that time.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Also
Doug, Tudor was not the Lancastrian heir. The only people that could claim that
were Bolingbroke and his children and siblings. They were descended from John of
Gaunt's first wife Blanche of Lancaster. Tudor was descended from Gaunt's affair
with Katherine Swynford and while he retained the title Duke of Lancaster and
she was known as the Duchess when he eventually married her the children were
Beauforts. I would imagine that Gaunt's family by Constance of Castile had more
right to the throne than Tudor, not that they had more right than the Mortimers
though.
Tudor was informed in no uncertain terms that he had to claim the throne by
conquest so maybe that's when he prevaricated as to whether he would marry E of
Y.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-10 15:30:02
Ah yes Mary, another of history's what ifs!Envoyé de mon iPadLe 9 mai 2019 à 16:26, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :
It has crossed my mind Hilary, that if the Woodvilles had been decent Stillington might never have told about the pre-contract. Richard could have looked after the country while E5 was young and then handed over when he came of age. Then he could have been Edward's chief adviser making sure he ran the country properly.Mary
It has crossed my mind Hilary, that if the Woodvilles had been decent Stillington might never have told about the pre-contract. Richard could have looked after the country while E5 was young and then handed over when he came of age. Then he could have been Edward's chief adviser making sure he ran the country properly.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-10 15:40:52
Hilary,
I
think my view of the WotR is close to yours, but with a significant
difference. In my view what we have is at least two groups of people, often
related, fighting over who's to sit on the throne of England. Unfortunately,
because the monarchy wasn't looked on as being elective,
justifications had to be found when, should any particular monarch prove less
than satisfactory, replacing him appeared the only option. The only occurrence
of the eldest son of an English king not inheriting the English throne
was, I believe, when William the Conqueror left Normandy to his oldest son
Robert and England to the next oldest, William. When William II died, the crown
was claimed by his younger brother Henry, who defeated Robert and ruled as Henry
I. Henry I intended for his eldest son to inherit, but he died in a shipwreck,
so Henry tried to have his daughter Mathilda inherit in her own right. That
claim was disputed by her cousin Stephen and civil war broke out. However, even
then, after the fighting ended it wasn't Stephen's children that inherited the
throne, but rather Mathilda's son, the grandson of Henry I and the eldest male
in the direct line who then ruled as Henry II. Although Henry II had his eldest
son, young Henry, crowned King of England while he, Henry II, was still alive,
young Henry died before his father and never succeeded. After Henry II died,
Richard I, the next in line, inherited the crown, followed by John when Richard
died childless. Henry III succeeded his father John, Edward I succeeded
his father Henry and, even though later deposed, Edward II succeeded
Edward and was succeeded in turn by his eldest son, Edward III. Edward III
out-lived his eldest son, but was succeeded by that son's only child, Richard
II, who was deposed in 1399.
As
best I can tell, and until the death of Queen Anne in 1714,
this was the only time the occupant of the
English throne could be termed as having been elected. Edmund Mortimer had the
prior, more direct claim, but was only a child. Therefore, Bolingbroke, who
admittedly had the second-best claim and had led the successful
rebellion against Richard, assumed the throne. Which he then passed on to
his eldest son, who passed it on to his eldest son, Henry VI. What I do
find interesting, though, were the attempts by Bolingbroke's supporters, if not
by Bolingbroke himself, to try to justify Bolingbroke's taking the crown
because, supposedly, Edward I had changed the order of succession, placing a
younger son ahead of Edmund Crouchback when, in actuality, what Edward had
done was substitute eldest child for eldest son. Even when Gaunt reversed
that, it still didn't make the Lancastrian kings any more senior in their
descent. It's things such as that which cause me to believe that, while not the
end-all and be-all of succession, being able to prove a direct legitimate
descent was considered important; important enough to spread
made-up stories.
FWIW,
I also firmly believe, had Henry VI displayed any talents suitable for
a medieval monarch, Richard of York would never have made a try for the throne,
nor would Edward IV have later succeeded in getting the throne; even though,
based on his descent, his father, he and his brothers had a more senior,
legitimate claim to it than Henry. It was Henry's incompetence, and the lack of
any way to legally remove Henry from the throne that, I think, led to
what is termed The War of the Roses. One could liken it to a family
squabble over an inheritance, but with the difference being that the only
court available for adjudication was the nearest open field where the two
sides could battle it out.
Doug
Who
doesn't worry about the length of any post as long as it's
interesting!
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor
fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose
were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even
went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College
Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you
probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth
century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest
member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was
started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his
descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the
fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard
II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary
says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne.
You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the
throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and
until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession
to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting
that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to
have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the
earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention.
Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor.
Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course
the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the
nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under
duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both
had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the
succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex.
This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until
that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund
Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and
of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess
Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir
apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not
enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it
would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition
yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the
throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to
do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's
very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and
certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have
gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal
connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later
as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win
because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is
until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and
mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's
ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he
wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English
are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country,
regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there
were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing
to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his
marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the
PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett
on the Normans - he is very good)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
think my view of the WotR is close to yours, but with a significant
difference. In my view what we have is at least two groups of people, often
related, fighting over who's to sit on the throne of England. Unfortunately,
because the monarchy wasn't looked on as being elective,
justifications had to be found when, should any particular monarch prove less
than satisfactory, replacing him appeared the only option. The only occurrence
of the eldest son of an English king not inheriting the English throne
was, I believe, when William the Conqueror left Normandy to his oldest son
Robert and England to the next oldest, William. When William II died, the crown
was claimed by his younger brother Henry, who defeated Robert and ruled as Henry
I. Henry I intended for his eldest son to inherit, but he died in a shipwreck,
so Henry tried to have his daughter Mathilda inherit in her own right. That
claim was disputed by her cousin Stephen and civil war broke out. However, even
then, after the fighting ended it wasn't Stephen's children that inherited the
throne, but rather Mathilda's son, the grandson of Henry I and the eldest male
in the direct line who then ruled as Henry II. Although Henry II had his eldest
son, young Henry, crowned King of England while he, Henry II, was still alive,
young Henry died before his father and never succeeded. After Henry II died,
Richard I, the next in line, inherited the crown, followed by John when Richard
died childless. Henry III succeeded his father John, Edward I succeeded
his father Henry and, even though later deposed, Edward II succeeded
Edward and was succeeded in turn by his eldest son, Edward III. Edward III
out-lived his eldest son, but was succeeded by that son's only child, Richard
II, who was deposed in 1399.
As
best I can tell, and until the death of Queen Anne in 1714,
this was the only time the occupant of the
English throne could be termed as having been elected. Edmund Mortimer had the
prior, more direct claim, but was only a child. Therefore, Bolingbroke, who
admittedly had the second-best claim and had led the successful
rebellion against Richard, assumed the throne. Which he then passed on to
his eldest son, who passed it on to his eldest son, Henry VI. What I do
find interesting, though, were the attempts by Bolingbroke's supporters, if not
by Bolingbroke himself, to try to justify Bolingbroke's taking the crown
because, supposedly, Edward I had changed the order of succession, placing a
younger son ahead of Edmund Crouchback when, in actuality, what Edward had
done was substitute eldest child for eldest son. Even when Gaunt reversed
that, it still didn't make the Lancastrian kings any more senior in their
descent. It's things such as that which cause me to believe that, while not the
end-all and be-all of succession, being able to prove a direct legitimate
descent was considered important; important enough to spread
made-up stories.
FWIW,
I also firmly believe, had Henry VI displayed any talents suitable for
a medieval monarch, Richard of York would never have made a try for the throne,
nor would Edward IV have later succeeded in getting the throne; even though,
based on his descent, his father, he and his brothers had a more senior,
legitimate claim to it than Henry. It was Henry's incompetence, and the lack of
any way to legally remove Henry from the throne that, I think, led to
what is termed The War of the Roses. One could liken it to a family
squabble over an inheritance, but with the difference being that the only
court available for adjudication was the nearest open field where the two
sides could battle it out.
Doug
Who
doesn't worry about the length of any post as long as it's
interesting!
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor
fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose
were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even
went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College
Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you
probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth
century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest
member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was
started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his
descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the
fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard
II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary
says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne.
You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the
throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and
until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession
to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting
that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to
have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the
earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention.
Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor.
Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course
the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the
nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under
duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both
had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the
succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex.
This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until
that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund
Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and
of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess
Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir
apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not
enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it
would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition
yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the
throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to
do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's
very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and
certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have
gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal
connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later
as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win
because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is
until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and
mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's
ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he
wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English
are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country,
regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there
were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing
to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his
marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the
PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett
on the Normans - he is very good)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-10 16:33:41
Doug, as often, we say virtually the same thing - but in a different way! I agree exactly about Edward and indeed Bolingbroke. They both saw dangerous faults in the kings they put aside. They would have said it was for the good of the realm. Which is probably why tinkering was permissible at times - though not I believe in the case of Edward II. I do feel for Henry VI though because he actually reaped the results of his father's wrongly conceived expedition. Yet Henry V is still the great hero. It wasn't just Henry's bouts of mental illness, it was as though the whole fault of failure in the French wars was blamed on him. Most unjust.The difference with HT of course was that there was no need whatsoever to interfere in the governance of England, albeit Edward V or Richard. He had nothing to offer and wasn't one of the inner royal family. I hate to say it but PG's term 'The Cousins' War' is pretty accurate - for once! H BTW I think you could say William of Orange was 'elected', or 'invited' as they like to say. And they did offer Oliver Cromwell the Crown which he wisely refused but otherwise of course it's easier to go for the eldest or fittest son. There's a good programme on Matilda by Helen Castor in her 'She Wolves' series, which incidentally also includes MOA
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 15:43:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
think my view of the WotR is close to yours, but with a significant
difference. In my view what we have is at least two groups of people, often
related, fighting over who's to sit on the throne of England. Unfortunately,
because the monarchy wasn't looked on as being elective,
justifications had to be found when, should any particular monarch prove less
than satisfactory, replacing him appeared the only option. The only occurrence
of the eldest son of an English king not inheriting the English throne
was, I believe, when William the Conqueror left Normandy to his oldest son
Robert and England to the next oldest, William. When William II died, the crown
was claimed by his younger brother Henry, who defeated Robert and ruled as Henry
I. Henry I intended for his eldest son to inherit, but he died in a shipwreck,
so Henry tried to have his daughter Mathilda inherit in her own right. That
claim was disputed by her cousin Stephen and civil war broke out. However, even
then, after the fighting ended it wasn't Stephen's children that inherited the
throne, but rather Mathilda's son, the grandson of Henry I and the eldest male
in the direct line who then ruled as Henry II. Although Henry II had his eldest
son, young Henry, crowned King of England while he, Henry II, was still alive,
young Henry died before his father and never succeeded. After Henry II died,
Richard I, the next in line, inherited the crown, followed by John when Richard
died childless. Henry III succeeded his father John, Edward I succeeded
his father Henry and, even though later deposed, Edward II succeeded
Edward and was succeeded in turn by his eldest son, Edward III. Edward III
out-lived his eldest son, but was succeeded by that son's only child, Richard
II, who was deposed in 1399.
As
best I can tell, and until the death of Queen Anne in 1714,
this was the only time the occupant of the
English throne could be termed as having been elected. Edmund Mortimer had the
prior, more direct claim, but was only a child. Therefore, Bolingbroke, who
admittedly had the second-best claim and had led the successful
rebellion against Richard, assumed the throne. Which he then passed on to
his eldest son, who passed it on to his eldest son, Henry VI. What I do
find interesting, though, were the attempts by Bolingbroke's supporters, if not
by Bolingbroke himself, to try to justify Bolingbroke's taking the crown
because, supposedly, Edward I had changed the order of succession, placing a
younger son ahead of Edmund Crouchback when, in actuality, what Edward had
done was substitute eldest child for eldest son. Even when Gaunt reversed
that, it still didn't make the Lancastrian kings any more senior in their
descent. It's things such as that which cause me to believe that, while not the
end-all and be-all of succession, being able to prove a direct legitimate
descent was considered important; important enough to spread
made-up stories.
FWIW,
I also firmly believe, had Henry VI displayed any talents suitable for
a medieval monarch, Richard of York would never have made a try for the throne,
nor would Edward IV have later succeeded in getting the throne; even though,
based on his descent, his father, he and his brothers had a more senior,
legitimate claim to it than Henry. It was Henry's incompetence, and the lack of
any way to legally remove Henry from the throne that, I think, led to
what is termed The War of the Roses. One could liken it to a family
squabble over an inheritance, but with the difference being that the only
court available for adjudication was the nearest open field where the two
sides could battle it out.
Doug
Who
doesn't worry about the length of any post as long as it's
interesting!
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor
fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose
were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even
went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College
Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you
probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth
century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest
member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was
started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his
descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the
fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard
II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary
says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne.
You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the
throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and
until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession
to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting
that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to
have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the
earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention.
Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor.
Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course
the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the
nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under
duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both
had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the
succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex..
This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until
that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund
Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and
of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess
Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir
apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not
enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it
would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition
yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the
throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to
do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's
very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and
certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have
gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal
connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later
as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win
because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is
until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and
mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's
ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he
wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English
are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country,
regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there
were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing
to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his
marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the
PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett
on the Normans - he is very good)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 15:43:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I
think my view of the WotR is close to yours, but with a significant
difference. In my view what we have is at least two groups of people, often
related, fighting over who's to sit on the throne of England. Unfortunately,
because the monarchy wasn't looked on as being elective,
justifications had to be found when, should any particular monarch prove less
than satisfactory, replacing him appeared the only option. The only occurrence
of the eldest son of an English king not inheriting the English throne
was, I believe, when William the Conqueror left Normandy to his oldest son
Robert and England to the next oldest, William. When William II died, the crown
was claimed by his younger brother Henry, who defeated Robert and ruled as Henry
I. Henry I intended for his eldest son to inherit, but he died in a shipwreck,
so Henry tried to have his daughter Mathilda inherit in her own right. That
claim was disputed by her cousin Stephen and civil war broke out. However, even
then, after the fighting ended it wasn't Stephen's children that inherited the
throne, but rather Mathilda's son, the grandson of Henry I and the eldest male
in the direct line who then ruled as Henry II. Although Henry II had his eldest
son, young Henry, crowned King of England while he, Henry II, was still alive,
young Henry died before his father and never succeeded. After Henry II died,
Richard I, the next in line, inherited the crown, followed by John when Richard
died childless. Henry III succeeded his father John, Edward I succeeded
his father Henry and, even though later deposed, Edward II succeeded
Edward and was succeeded in turn by his eldest son, Edward III. Edward III
out-lived his eldest son, but was succeeded by that son's only child, Richard
II, who was deposed in 1399.
As
best I can tell, and until the death of Queen Anne in 1714,
this was the only time the occupant of the
English throne could be termed as having been elected. Edmund Mortimer had the
prior, more direct claim, but was only a child. Therefore, Bolingbroke, who
admittedly had the second-best claim and had led the successful
rebellion against Richard, assumed the throne. Which he then passed on to
his eldest son, who passed it on to his eldest son, Henry VI. What I do
find interesting, though, were the attempts by Bolingbroke's supporters, if not
by Bolingbroke himself, to try to justify Bolingbroke's taking the crown
because, supposedly, Edward I had changed the order of succession, placing a
younger son ahead of Edmund Crouchback when, in actuality, what Edward had
done was substitute eldest child for eldest son. Even when Gaunt reversed
that, it still didn't make the Lancastrian kings any more senior in their
descent. It's things such as that which cause me to believe that, while not the
end-all and be-all of succession, being able to prove a direct legitimate
descent was considered important; important enough to spread
made-up stories.
FWIW,
I also firmly believe, had Henry VI displayed any talents suitable for
a medieval monarch, Richard of York would never have made a try for the throne,
nor would Edward IV have later succeeded in getting the throne; even though,
based on his descent, his father, he and his brothers had a more senior,
legitimate claim to it than Henry. It was Henry's incompetence, and the lack of
any way to legally remove Henry from the throne that, I think, led to
what is termed The War of the Roses. One could liken it to a family
squabble over an inheritance, but with the difference being that the only
court available for adjudication was the nearest open field where the two
sides could battle it out.
Doug
Who
doesn't worry about the length of any post as long as it's
interesting!
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, I think you've been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor
fib'. There was no white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose
were invented by HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even
went back and 'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College
Chapel, which is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you
probably know, a term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth
century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest
member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was
started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his
descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the
fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard
II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary
says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne.
You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the
throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and
until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession
to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting
that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to
have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the
earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention.
Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor.
Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course
the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the
nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under
duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both
had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the
succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex..
This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until
that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund
Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and
of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess
Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir
apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not
enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it
would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition
yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the
throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to
do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's
very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and
certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have
gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal
connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later
as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win
because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is
until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and
mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's
ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he
wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English
are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country,
regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there
were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing
to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his
marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the
PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett
on the Normans - he is very good)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-11 05:14:08
Hilary,
Barring further information, I think I'll stick with a majority of
the Council preferring young Edward, as long as his mother's relatives were
kept away from him. That would mean Richard in charge for at least for or
five years while Edward could not only mature but, hopefully, learn what being a
king required of him. The problem being, of course, that we really don't know
what sort of boy young Edward was. He may very well have been, as you described
him once, stroppy, an earlier version of Edward VI, or someone more like his
father; capable and intelligent, but not bogged down in the minutiae of
ruling.
I
have doubts about the Pre-Contract remaining unrevealed should legitimization be
sought, however. I do believe that until a decision was made one way or the
other, it wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to have knowledge of the
allegation become public. Should the Council have decided to seek a
dispensation, however, they'd be faced with the Beaufort problem: While the
Pope might provide a dispensation that legitimized Edward's children in the
eyes of the Church, wouldn't it still require an Act of Parliament to
enable them to inherit anything, let alone the crown? Or am I
mistaken?
According to the link below, it was Richard II's issuance of
Letters Patent, later read out in Parliament, that made it possible for the
Beaufort children to inherit lands or titles, although I presume lands
or money could have been left to them as bequests regardless of their legal
status.
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/back-to-basics-for-newcomers/the-beaufort-legitimation/
At any rate, if it required
the issuance of Letters Patent by the King, how could that possibly be kept
secret?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Sorry,
I should have added that this also says to me that in 1483 the Council probably
preferred Richard as king. And that's not surprising given the chaos under
previous minorities and the recent action of the Woodvilles. Edward IV had
indeed nominated his son as king. In theory there would have been nothing
to have stopped them keeping the revealed matter quiet whilst Bourchier
approached the Pope for legitimisation. He was usually quite willing to do what
every European monarch wanted. That is, as long as it kept them away from
Rome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Barring further information, I think I'll stick with a majority of
the Council preferring young Edward, as long as his mother's relatives were
kept away from him. That would mean Richard in charge for at least for or
five years while Edward could not only mature but, hopefully, learn what being a
king required of him. The problem being, of course, that we really don't know
what sort of boy young Edward was. He may very well have been, as you described
him once, stroppy, an earlier version of Edward VI, or someone more like his
father; capable and intelligent, but not bogged down in the minutiae of
ruling.
I
have doubts about the Pre-Contract remaining unrevealed should legitimization be
sought, however. I do believe that until a decision was made one way or the
other, it wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to have knowledge of the
allegation become public. Should the Council have decided to seek a
dispensation, however, they'd be faced with the Beaufort problem: While the
Pope might provide a dispensation that legitimized Edward's children in the
eyes of the Church, wouldn't it still require an Act of Parliament to
enable them to inherit anything, let alone the crown? Or am I
mistaken?
According to the link below, it was Richard II's issuance of
Letters Patent, later read out in Parliament, that made it possible for the
Beaufort children to inherit lands or titles, although I presume lands
or money could have been left to them as bequests regardless of their legal
status.
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/back-to-basics-for-newcomers/the-beaufort-legitimation/
At any rate, if it required
the issuance of Letters Patent by the King, how could that possibly be kept
secret?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Sorry,
I should have added that this also says to me that in 1483 the Council probably
preferred Richard as king. And that's not surprising given the chaos under
previous minorities and the recent action of the Woodvilles. Edward IV had
indeed nominated his son as king. In theory there would have been nothing
to have stopped them keeping the revealed matter quiet whilst Bourchier
approached the Pope for legitimisation. He was usually quite willing to do what
every European monarch wanted. That is, as long as it kept them away from
Rome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-11 09:41:26
I think it's difficult to say Doug simply because we were relying on custom and practice and there had never been a situation quite like this. Richard II undoubtedly did this to make sure it was enshrined in Law that the Beauforts, although legitimised, could never inherit. I recall he was no particular lover of his Uncle Gaunt and Richard had no heir.Edward IV, on the other hand, had clearly nominated his son, knowing in his heart that his whole family were illegitimate. And the Confessor had nominated Harold who wasn't even a blood relative. Legitimisation by the Pope would just make the whole thing better, should the PreContract ever come to the surface in the future. A bit like the rumours over Edward IV's parentage.So much of what we think of as the powers of the Pope are tainted by Henry VIII's divorce experience. But that was influenced by COA's power through her nephew, not because the Pope had strong feelings about such matters; he allowed a divorce for Louis XII. Find an excuse and the Pope usually obliged, unless someone else had a dagger at his throat. I would have thought it not impossible to find an excuse to delay the Coronation for say another month whilst it was sorted out. Had there of course been the will to do so? After all, if unsuccessful the Council could then make a decision. It would also have given longer to find out how the Protectorship would work out. H
On Saturday, 11 May 2019, 05:14:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Barring further information, I think I'll stick with a majority of
the Council preferring young Edward, as long as his mother's relatives were
kept away from him. That would mean Richard in charge for at least for or
five years while Edward could not only mature but, hopefully, learn what being a
king required of him. The problem being, of course, that we really don't know
what sort of boy young Edward was. He may very well have been, as you described
him once, stroppy, an earlier version of Edward VI, or someone more like his
father; capable and intelligent, but not bogged down in the minutiae of
ruling.
I
have doubts about the Pre-Contract remaining unrevealed should legitimization be
sought, however. I do believe that until a decision was made one way or the
other, it wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to have knowledge of the
allegation become public. Should the Council have decided to seek a
dispensation, however, they'd be faced with the Beaufort problem: While the
Pope might provide a dispensation that legitimized Edward's children in the
eyes of the Church, wouldn't it still require an Act of Parliament to
enable them to inherit anything, let alone the crown? Or am I
mistaken?
According to the link below, it was Richard II's issuance of
Letters Patent, later read out in Parliament, that made it possible for the
Beaufort children to inherit lands or titles, although I presume lands
or money could have been left to them as bequests regardless of their legal
status.
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/back-to-basics-for-newcomers/the-beaufort-legitimation/
At any rate, if it required
the issuance of Letters Patent by the King, how could that possibly be kept
secret?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Sorry,
I should have added that this also says to me that in 1483 the Council probably
preferred Richard as king. And that's not surprising given the chaos under
previous minorities and the recent action of the Woodvilles. Edward IV had
indeed nominated his son as king. In theory there would have been nothing
to have stopped them keeping the revealed matter quiet whilst Bourchier
approached the Pope for legitimisation. He was usually quite willing to do what
every European monarch wanted. That is, as long as it kept them away from
Rome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 11 May 2019, 05:14:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Barring further information, I think I'll stick with a majority of
the Council preferring young Edward, as long as his mother's relatives were
kept away from him. That would mean Richard in charge for at least for or
five years while Edward could not only mature but, hopefully, learn what being a
king required of him. The problem being, of course, that we really don't know
what sort of boy young Edward was. He may very well have been, as you described
him once, stroppy, an earlier version of Edward VI, or someone more like his
father; capable and intelligent, but not bogged down in the minutiae of
ruling.
I
have doubts about the Pre-Contract remaining unrevealed should legitimization be
sought, however. I do believe that until a decision was made one way or the
other, it wouldn't have been in anyone's interest to have knowledge of the
allegation become public. Should the Council have decided to seek a
dispensation, however, they'd be faced with the Beaufort problem: While the
Pope might provide a dispensation that legitimized Edward's children in the
eyes of the Church, wouldn't it still require an Act of Parliament to
enable them to inherit anything, let alone the crown? Or am I
mistaken?
According to the link below, it was Richard II's issuance of
Letters Patent, later read out in Parliament, that made it possible for the
Beaufort children to inherit lands or titles, although I presume lands
or money could have been left to them as bequests regardless of their legal
status.
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/back-to-basics-for-newcomers/the-beaufort-legitimation/
At any rate, if it required
the issuance of Letters Patent by the King, how could that possibly be kept
secret?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Sorry,
I should have added that this also says to me that in 1483 the Council probably
preferred Richard as king. And that's not surprising given the chaos under
previous minorities and the recent action of the Woodvilles. Edward IV had
indeed nominated his son as king. In theory there would have been nothing
to have stopped them keeping the revealed matter quiet whilst Bourchier
approached the Pope for legitimisation. He was usually quite willing to do what
every European monarch wanted. That is, as long as it kept them away from
Rome.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-11 17:05:55
Hilary
wrote:
That's
interesting Mary. You see only last night I was thinking that Stillington could
well have been a Neville (that's an Alice, Countess of Salisbury) protegee. For
a start it would explain his first placement in the West Country, his lack of
fear opposing Archbishop Kempe even to the extent of writing to the Pope, and
his entry into the world of Henry VI, just like her other protegee, Thomas
Vaughan!
Doug
here:
I
don't know how accurate it is, but the Wikipedia article on the
Archdeacons of Taunton gave me the impression that between around 1370 to the
1530s, that particular Archdeanery seems to have been the launching pad for
advancement into the upper levels of the Church. Is that usual for the occupant
of any Archdeanery? Of course, that still doesn't answer what it was
that prompted Stillington's appointment originally family influence,
recognition of his talents, a combination of both? The article has him occupying
that position from 1450 until he resigned in 1465 to become Bishop of Bath and
Wells; I don't know if that means anything as all the other holders of the
position did the same when they were advanced (including two who later
became Popes).
Hilary
continued:
It
would also explain the marriage of his daughter to John Hampton, according to
the Visitations (though I'm not convinced) the son of 'Egelina' Neville (there
were a lot of Avelinas), her niece. Not only that it would explain the continued
advancement of Stillington under Edward (sorry JAH) because that patronage could
have been taken over by her son, Warwick. And he was succeeded by George
Neville.
Doug
here:
I'm
confused. I thought Stillington was considered to be a member originally of
Richard, Duke of York's affinity, then that of Edward IVs? Would being a member
of York's affinity necessarily preclude his also being attached to the
Nevilles?
Hilary
concluded:
And
then there's the imprisonment in the Tower after Clarence's arrest. Could that
not have been to do with the PreContract, but to do with George's attempt to
send his son to Ireland, where Alice died? I reckon Stillington remained loyal
to the Nevilles, which is why he appears again regarding Lambert Simnel. Not
because he was helping EW, but he was helping Cis, Alice's sister-in-law.
Will take a lot of proving but it's more provable than the Richard of
Eastwell connection with PW.
Doug here:
I've tried to put together a timeline for George's activities during 1477,
but I've come across a few gaps. Right now I've got the following:
22 Dec 1476 Isabel dies.
01 Jan 1477 the newborn dies.
?? Apr 1477 Ankarette Twynho executed.
?? during 1477 George is at Court attempting to get permission to marry
Mary Of Burgundy, fails.
?? during 1477 Dr. John Stacey, astronomer/astrologer is arrested,
tortured and implicates Thomas Burdette and Thomas Blake in a plot to kill
Edward using sorcery more likely poison?).
?? during 1477 George has a Dr. John Goddard read Stacey and Burdette's
declarations of innocence in Parliament, is summoned to Windsor where Edward has
him arrested for treason and placed in the Tower.
?? during 1477 Parliament passes a Bill of Attainder, stripping George,
and his heirs of all properties, titles and rights George held in his own
right.
18 Feb 1478 George executed in an undetermined manner in the Tower.
?? during 1478 Stillington in the Tower.
I bring this up because, unless he'd been planning on sending young Warwick
off to Ireland for some time, George likely made that decision sometime
after he was unable to get Edward's permission for a marriage between
himself and Mary of Burgundy and, naturally, before he was arrested and
placed in the Tower. So, my question is: What was the time frame for George to
have made these plans, presuming he did, and where was Stillington while those
plans were being made?
While I was hunting I came across this:
https://erenow.net/biographies/richard-iii-and-the-murder-in-the-tower/7.php
but while I found it very interesting and informative, it didn't answer the
question of Stillington's whereabouts during the summer/autumn of 1477. The
author does seem to be of the opinion that Stillington was viewed as being
George's friend, though. Perhaps that was also Edward's view and his actions
against Stillington in early 1478 were due to fears on Edward's part that the
bishop had placed his friendship with George above his duty to Edward?
Presuming Stillington considered himself to be as much a Neville-ist as a
Yorkist would certainly explain his support of Simnel.
Well, that and the fact he'd been a major participant in the events that
had recognized Edward IV's children as being illegitimate...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
wrote:
That's
interesting Mary. You see only last night I was thinking that Stillington could
well have been a Neville (that's an Alice, Countess of Salisbury) protegee. For
a start it would explain his first placement in the West Country, his lack of
fear opposing Archbishop Kempe even to the extent of writing to the Pope, and
his entry into the world of Henry VI, just like her other protegee, Thomas
Vaughan!
Doug
here:
I
don't know how accurate it is, but the Wikipedia article on the
Archdeacons of Taunton gave me the impression that between around 1370 to the
1530s, that particular Archdeanery seems to have been the launching pad for
advancement into the upper levels of the Church. Is that usual for the occupant
of any Archdeanery? Of course, that still doesn't answer what it was
that prompted Stillington's appointment originally family influence,
recognition of his talents, a combination of both? The article has him occupying
that position from 1450 until he resigned in 1465 to become Bishop of Bath and
Wells; I don't know if that means anything as all the other holders of the
position did the same when they were advanced (including two who later
became Popes).
Hilary
continued:
It
would also explain the marriage of his daughter to John Hampton, according to
the Visitations (though I'm not convinced) the son of 'Egelina' Neville (there
were a lot of Avelinas), her niece. Not only that it would explain the continued
advancement of Stillington under Edward (sorry JAH) because that patronage could
have been taken over by her son, Warwick. And he was succeeded by George
Neville.
Doug
here:
I'm
confused. I thought Stillington was considered to be a member originally of
Richard, Duke of York's affinity, then that of Edward IVs? Would being a member
of York's affinity necessarily preclude his also being attached to the
Nevilles?
Hilary
concluded:
And
then there's the imprisonment in the Tower after Clarence's arrest. Could that
not have been to do with the PreContract, but to do with George's attempt to
send his son to Ireland, where Alice died? I reckon Stillington remained loyal
to the Nevilles, which is why he appears again regarding Lambert Simnel. Not
because he was helping EW, but he was helping Cis, Alice's sister-in-law.
Will take a lot of proving but it's more provable than the Richard of
Eastwell connection with PW.
Doug here:
I've tried to put together a timeline for George's activities during 1477,
but I've come across a few gaps. Right now I've got the following:
22 Dec 1476 Isabel dies.
01 Jan 1477 the newborn dies.
?? Apr 1477 Ankarette Twynho executed.
?? during 1477 George is at Court attempting to get permission to marry
Mary Of Burgundy, fails.
?? during 1477 Dr. John Stacey, astronomer/astrologer is arrested,
tortured and implicates Thomas Burdette and Thomas Blake in a plot to kill
Edward using sorcery more likely poison?).
?? during 1477 George has a Dr. John Goddard read Stacey and Burdette's
declarations of innocence in Parliament, is summoned to Windsor where Edward has
him arrested for treason and placed in the Tower.
?? during 1477 Parliament passes a Bill of Attainder, stripping George,
and his heirs of all properties, titles and rights George held in his own
right.
18 Feb 1478 George executed in an undetermined manner in the Tower.
?? during 1478 Stillington in the Tower.
I bring this up because, unless he'd been planning on sending young Warwick
off to Ireland for some time, George likely made that decision sometime
after he was unable to get Edward's permission for a marriage between
himself and Mary of Burgundy and, naturally, before he was arrested and
placed in the Tower. So, my question is: What was the time frame for George to
have made these plans, presuming he did, and where was Stillington while those
plans were being made?
While I was hunting I came across this:
https://erenow.net/biographies/richard-iii-and-the-murder-in-the-tower/7.php
but while I found it very interesting and informative, it didn't answer the
question of Stillington's whereabouts during the summer/autumn of 1477. The
author does seem to be of the opinion that Stillington was viewed as being
George's friend, though. Perhaps that was also Edward's view and his actions
against Stillington in early 1478 were due to fears on Edward's part that the
bishop had placed his friendship with George above his duty to Edward?
Presuming Stillington considered himself to be as much a Neville-ist as a
Yorkist would certainly explain his support of Simnel.
Well, that and the fact he'd been a major participant in the events that
had recognized Edward IV's children as being illegitimate...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-11 17:24:44
Hi Doug, Stillington's first placement was to East Harptree in Somerset from which he was fairly swiftly swapped to new Llandaff. Now, by looking at IPMs I've discovered that East Harptree was 'owned' by the Hamptons, into whose family his daughter married and the Berkeleys. On the other hand Wraxall, just down the road, which became the home of his other 'friends' the Craddock-Newtons, was indeed owned by Alice Neville's father at the time of his death (his IPM) and therefore the Nevilles. Montagu owned vast swathes of the West Country as his title as Earl of Salisbury suggests.I don't think being a protegee of the Nevilles precludes Stillington being of Richard's or ROY's affinity, quite the contrary. And it's likely that that loyalty would filter down to Alice's descendants, including Isabel and her George. Today I've been reading an Irish article from their Society of Antiquities on the relationship of ROY with Ireland. It's very illuminating, firstly because it puts him at complete odds with the Talbot family and secondly because of the esteem in which George was held in Ireland as Lord of Cork because he'd been born there at the time when ROY was held in great favour. I reckon Ireland needs a lot more work. H
On Saturday, 11 May 2019, 17:06:00 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
That's
interesting Mary. You see only last night I was thinking that Stillington could
well have been a Neville (that's an Alice, Countess of Salisbury) protegee. For
a start it would explain his first placement in the West Country, his lack of
fear opposing Archbishop Kempe even to the extent of writing to the Pope, and
his entry into the world of Henry VI, just like her other protegee, Thomas
Vaughan!
Doug
here:
I
don't know how accurate it is, but the Wikipedia article on the
Archdeacons of Taunton gave me the impression that between around 1370 to the
1530s, that particular Archdeanery seems to have been the launching pad for
advancement into the upper levels of the Church. Is that usual for the occupant
of any Archdeanery? Of course, that still doesn't answer what it was
that prompted Stillington's appointment originally family influence,
recognition of his talents, a combination of both? The article has him occupying
that position from 1450 until he resigned in 1465 to become Bishop of Bath and
Wells; I don't know if that means anything as all the other holders of the
position did the same when they were advanced (including two who later
became Popes).
Hilary
continued:
It
would also explain the marriage of his daughter to John Hampton, according to
the Visitations (though I'm not convinced) the son of 'Egelina' Neville (there
were a lot of Avelinas), her niece. Not only that it would explain the continued
advancement of Stillington under Edward (sorry JAH) because that patronage could
have been taken over by her son, Warwick. And he was succeeded by George
Neville.
Doug
here:
I'm
confused. I thought Stillington was considered to be a member originally of
Richard, Duke of York's affinity, then that of Edward IVs? Would being a member
of York's affinity necessarily preclude his also being attached to the
Nevilles?
Hilary
concluded:
And
then there's the imprisonment in the Tower after Clarence's arrest. Could that
not have been to do with the PreContract, but to do with George's attempt to
send his son to Ireland, where Alice died? I reckon Stillington remained loyal
to the Nevilles, which is why he appears again regarding Lambert Simnel. Not
because he was helping EW, but he was helping Cis, Alice's sister-in-law.
Will take a lot of proving but it's more provable than the Richard of
Eastwell connection with PW.
Doug here:
I've tried to put together a timeline for George's activities during 1477,
but I've come across a few gaps. Right now I've got the following:
22 Dec 1476 Isabel dies.
01 Jan 1477 the newborn dies.
?? Apr 1477 Ankarette Twynho executed.
?? during 1477 George is at Court attempting to get permission to marry
Mary Of Burgundy, fails.
?? during 1477 Dr. John Stacey, astronomer/astrologer is arrested,
tortured and implicates Thomas Burdette and Thomas Blake in a plot to kill
Edward using sorcery more likely poison?).
?? during 1477 George has a Dr. John Goddard read Stacey and Burdette's
declarations of innocence in Parliament, is summoned to Windsor where Edward has
him arrested for treason and placed in the Tower.
?? during 1477 Parliament passes a Bill of Attainder, stripping George,
and his heirs of all properties, titles and rights George held in his own
right.
18 Feb 1478 George executed in an undetermined manner in the Tower.
?? during 1478 Stillington in the Tower.
I bring this up because, unless he'd been planning on sending young Warwick
off to Ireland for some time, George likely made that decision sometime
after he was unable to get Edward's permission for a marriage between
himself and Mary of Burgundy and, naturally, before he was arrested and
placed in the Tower. So, my question is: What was the time frame for George to
have made these plans, presuming he did, and where was Stillington while those
plans were being made?
While I was hunting I came across this:
https://erenow.net/biographies/richard-iii-and-the-murder-in-the-tower/7.php
but while I found it very interesting and informative, it didn't answer the
question of Stillington's whereabouts during the summer/autumn of 1477. The
author does seem to be of the opinion that Stillington was viewed as being
George's friend, though. Perhaps that was also Edward's view and his actions
against Stillington in early 1478 were due to fears on Edward's part that the
bishop had placed his friendship with George above his duty to Edward?
Presuming Stillington considered himself to be as much a Neville-ist as a
Yorkist would certainly explain his support of Simnel.
Well, that and the fact he'd been a major participant in the events that
had recognized Edward IV's children as being illegitimate...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Saturday, 11 May 2019, 17:06:00 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary
wrote:
That's
interesting Mary. You see only last night I was thinking that Stillington could
well have been a Neville (that's an Alice, Countess of Salisbury) protegee. For
a start it would explain his first placement in the West Country, his lack of
fear opposing Archbishop Kempe even to the extent of writing to the Pope, and
his entry into the world of Henry VI, just like her other protegee, Thomas
Vaughan!
Doug
here:
I
don't know how accurate it is, but the Wikipedia article on the
Archdeacons of Taunton gave me the impression that between around 1370 to the
1530s, that particular Archdeanery seems to have been the launching pad for
advancement into the upper levels of the Church. Is that usual for the occupant
of any Archdeanery? Of course, that still doesn't answer what it was
that prompted Stillington's appointment originally family influence,
recognition of his talents, a combination of both? The article has him occupying
that position from 1450 until he resigned in 1465 to become Bishop of Bath and
Wells; I don't know if that means anything as all the other holders of the
position did the same when they were advanced (including two who later
became Popes).
Hilary
continued:
It
would also explain the marriage of his daughter to John Hampton, according to
the Visitations (though I'm not convinced) the son of 'Egelina' Neville (there
were a lot of Avelinas), her niece. Not only that it would explain the continued
advancement of Stillington under Edward (sorry JAH) because that patronage could
have been taken over by her son, Warwick. And he was succeeded by George
Neville.
Doug
here:
I'm
confused. I thought Stillington was considered to be a member originally of
Richard, Duke of York's affinity, then that of Edward IVs? Would being a member
of York's affinity necessarily preclude his also being attached to the
Nevilles?
Hilary
concluded:
And
then there's the imprisonment in the Tower after Clarence's arrest. Could that
not have been to do with the PreContract, but to do with George's attempt to
send his son to Ireland, where Alice died? I reckon Stillington remained loyal
to the Nevilles, which is why he appears again regarding Lambert Simnel. Not
because he was helping EW, but he was helping Cis, Alice's sister-in-law.
Will take a lot of proving but it's more provable than the Richard of
Eastwell connection with PW.
Doug here:
I've tried to put together a timeline for George's activities during 1477,
but I've come across a few gaps. Right now I've got the following:
22 Dec 1476 Isabel dies.
01 Jan 1477 the newborn dies.
?? Apr 1477 Ankarette Twynho executed.
?? during 1477 George is at Court attempting to get permission to marry
Mary Of Burgundy, fails.
?? during 1477 Dr. John Stacey, astronomer/astrologer is arrested,
tortured and implicates Thomas Burdette and Thomas Blake in a plot to kill
Edward using sorcery more likely poison?).
?? during 1477 George has a Dr. John Goddard read Stacey and Burdette's
declarations of innocence in Parliament, is summoned to Windsor where Edward has
him arrested for treason and placed in the Tower.
?? during 1477 Parliament passes a Bill of Attainder, stripping George,
and his heirs of all properties, titles and rights George held in his own
right.
18 Feb 1478 George executed in an undetermined manner in the Tower.
?? during 1478 Stillington in the Tower.
I bring this up because, unless he'd been planning on sending young Warwick
off to Ireland for some time, George likely made that decision sometime
after he was unable to get Edward's permission for a marriage between
himself and Mary of Burgundy and, naturally, before he was arrested and
placed in the Tower. So, my question is: What was the time frame for George to
have made these plans, presuming he did, and where was Stillington while those
plans were being made?
While I was hunting I came across this:
https://erenow.net/biographies/richard-iii-and-the-murder-in-the-tower/7.php
but while I found it very interesting and informative, it didn't answer the
question of Stillington's whereabouts during the summer/autumn of 1477. The
author does seem to be of the opinion that Stillington was viewed as being
George's friend, though. Perhaps that was also Edward's view and his actions
against Stillington in early 1478 were due to fears on Edward's part that the
bishop had placed his friendship with George above his duty to Edward?
Presuming Stillington considered himself to be as much a Neville-ist as a
Yorkist would certainly explain his support of Simnel.
Well, that and the fact he'd been a major participant in the events that
had recognized Edward IV's children as being illegitimate...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-12 03:06:32
Nico,
FWIW, I've always
leaned towards the idea that Tudor made that pledge because he'd heard the
rumors that EoY's brothers were dead, leaving her as Edward IV's heir. After
all, if Tudor was still only angling to marry the sister of young
Edward, why didn't he mention he'd be fighting to restore the person who'd be
his brother-in-law?
It does seem to me that
the link to Edward IV made when his daughter married Tudor was much more
important than often presumed. Not in the sense of Tudor uniting York and
Lancaster, but because it linked Tudor with the last undisputed king; well,
undisputed since 1471 anyway. To the best of my knowledge, Tudor himself never
claimed to represent any dispossessed royal Lancastrian line; at least not until
well after he'd taken the throne.
It also looks to me as
his hesitation in marrying EoY after Bosworth was because he'd launched
his enterprise on the assumption the boys were dead, suborned treason, and
risked his life, only to discover it wasn't known what happened to the boys and,
as far as anyone knew, they were still alive! Poor Henry, caught between the
proverbial rock and a hard place ! Repealing TR meant all of
Edward's children would again be officially recognized as legitimate, including
young Edward and RoY; not repealing TR meant the almost certain loss of
those Yorkist supporters. People such as Sir William, for example.
My heart bleeds for
him...not!
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
Paul
makes a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is
somewhat understandable especially if he had preferred his queen to be part of a
foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic EofY has never been given
serious consideration outside of historical fiction nonsense like the White
Princess, which is all about her having an affair with Richard. I don't believe
that for one minute; just that she thought highly of him and kept a book that he
gave her with an inscription for the rest of her life, an indication that she
saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or murderer of her brothers. Possibly
both of them needed a push from parliament and the Yorkists What MB and EW
actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a public pledge to marry EoY at
Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that had been the result of the MB
and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a spoil of his conquest isn't
clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean towards thinking that his desire
to be King was entirely of his own volition with some encouragement from Jasper
Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading from MB.
The
discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has
been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his or
EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and
treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In reality
that worked only up to a point, because within a few years there were
significant people supporting PW as 'Richard of England' in the hope of
restoring the House of York. Clearly God's chosen one plus a Yorkist princess
wasn't enough for some, but it remains a question whether HT would have lasted
as long without EofY, who by all accounts was a very popular queen whose lineage
was enough of a connection to the House of York, Plantagenets and ultimately
William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on
bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something
that HT's conquest and previously William's couldn't render entirely
irrelevant.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
FWIW, I've always
leaned towards the idea that Tudor made that pledge because he'd heard the
rumors that EoY's brothers were dead, leaving her as Edward IV's heir. After
all, if Tudor was still only angling to marry the sister of young
Edward, why didn't he mention he'd be fighting to restore the person who'd be
his brother-in-law?
It does seem to me that
the link to Edward IV made when his daughter married Tudor was much more
important than often presumed. Not in the sense of Tudor uniting York and
Lancaster, but because it linked Tudor with the last undisputed king; well,
undisputed since 1471 anyway. To the best of my knowledge, Tudor himself never
claimed to represent any dispossessed royal Lancastrian line; at least not until
well after he'd taken the throne.
It also looks to me as
his hesitation in marrying EoY after Bosworth was because he'd launched
his enterprise on the assumption the boys were dead, suborned treason, and
risked his life, only to discover it wasn't known what happened to the boys and,
as far as anyone knew, they were still alive! Poor Henry, caught between the
proverbial rock and a hard place ! Repealing TR meant all of
Edward's children would again be officially recognized as legitimate, including
young Edward and RoY; not repealing TR meant the almost certain loss of
those Yorkist supporters. People such as Sir William, for example.
My heart bleeds for
him...not!
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Hi,
Paul
makes a good point. Henry's reluctance to go through with the EofY marriage is
somewhat understandable especially if he had preferred his queen to be part of a
foreign alliance, but the idea of an unenthusiastic EofY has never been given
serious consideration outside of historical fiction nonsense like the White
Princess, which is all about her having an affair with Richard. I don't believe
that for one minute; just that she thought highly of him and kept a book that he
gave her with an inscription for the rest of her life, an indication that she
saw him as a kindly uncle, not a usurper or murderer of her brothers. Possibly
both of them needed a push from parliament and the Yorkists What MB and EW
actually agreed to is debateable, but HT made a public pledge to marry EoY at
Christmas 1483 in Vannes Cathedral. Whether that had been the result of the MB
and EW's or HT's personal decision to make her a spoil of his conquest isn't
clear. The more I look at HT, the more I lean towards thinking that his desire
to be King was entirely of his own volition with some encouragement from Jasper
Tudor, and he didn't need any persuading from MB.
The
discussion about legitimacy and the need for a link to the royal dynasty has
been interesting. Technically, HT shouldn't have needed to rely on either his or
EofY's Plantagenet descent, because he had won the crown by victory (and
treachery), so he could play on the idea that it he was God's choice. In reality
that worked only up to a point, because within a few years there were
significant people supporting PW as 'Richard of England' in the hope of
restoring the House of York. Clearly God's chosen one plus a Yorkist princess
wasn't enough for some, but it remains a question whether HT would have lasted
as long without EofY, who by all accounts was a very popular queen whose lineage
was enough of a connection to the House of York, Plantagenets and ultimately
William the Conquerer. The whole notion of royalty sells itself on
bloodlines and the idea of superiority running through them - something
that HT's conquest and previously William's couldn't render entirely
irrelevant.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-12 04:26:09
Nico,
It's
those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to
believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he
got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were
rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So,
in answer to your questions:
1.
During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was
actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need
a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly
did.
2.
Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I
don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to
Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick.
What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his
son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only
Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father
were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to
to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3.
I can't come up with any reason for not
declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was.
The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone
through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V.
(Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's
possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion,
but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put
into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could
never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various
possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I
count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping
sub-groups:
1.
Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were
dead,
1b.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still
been alive,
1b(1)
Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead
whether they were or not.
2.
Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate
divides into:
2a.
Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick,
or
2b.
Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy
goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir
William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also
include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne
for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst
those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just
tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then
moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now,
how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of
moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind?
Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Lincoln's
role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real
story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter
when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a
'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why
did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A
coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown
anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do
with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly
status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically
follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the
coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone
waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon
after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to
Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the
Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland
succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy
care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few
discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young
Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went
afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of
Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was
definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was
of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real
Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal
around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or
maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial
evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a
surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the
scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
It's
those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to
believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he
got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were
rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So,
in answer to your questions:
1.
During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was
actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need
a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly
did.
2.
Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I
don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to
Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick.
What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his
son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only
Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father
were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to
to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3.
I can't come up with any reason for not
declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was.
The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone
through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V.
(Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's
possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion,
but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put
into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could
never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various
possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I
count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping
sub-groups:
1.
Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were
dead,
1b.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still
been alive,
1b(1)
Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead
whether they were or not.
2.
Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate
divides into:
2a.
Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick,
or
2b.
Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy
goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir
William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also
include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne
for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst
those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just
tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then
moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now,
how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of
moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind?
Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Lincoln's
role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real
story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter
when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a
'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why
did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A
coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown
anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do
with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly
status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically
follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the
coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone
waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon
after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to
Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the
Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland
succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy
care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few
discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young
Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went
afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of
Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was
definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was
of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real
Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal
around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or
maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial
evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a
surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the
scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-12 05:47:15
Hilary,
I
think the problem is that word elective. As you noted, the king could, to a
certain extent, pick and choose his successor especially under circumstances
such as those faced by William the Conqueror (what to do with Normandy and
England), Henry II (what with controlling England, Ireland, and more than half
of France) or even Oliver Cromwell, who tried to split the difference between
his being Lord Protector and having that position become hereditary with his
son Richard (should've picked one of the generals, really). William of Orange is
sort of betwixt and between; yes, he was invited, but that invitation was due
to his marriage to the ousted/abdicated/absent king's eldest daughter. The
proprieties must be maintained!
My
sympathy for Henry Vi is mostly because he was simply so incapable, but had no
way of not being king. Abdication would have meant first
determining who to nominate as his heir and, while Richard Duke of York was the
best candidate, it would have meant calling into question the validity of Henry
IV's actions in 1399, basically disavowing the entire Lancastrian raison
d'etre. I can't see that happening. Then there would have been the problem
of Margaret of Anjou; I just can't see her quietly resigning herself to the
status of dowager Queen, let alone ex-Queen!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as often, we say virtually the same thing - but in a different way! I agree
exactly about Edward and indeed Bolingbroke. They both saw dangerous faults in
the kings they put aside. They would have said it was for the good of the realm.
Which is probably why tinkering was permissible at times - though not I believe
in the case of Edward II. I do feel for Henry VI though because he actually
reaped the results of his father's wrongly conceived expedition. Yet Henry V is
still the great hero. It wasn't just Henry's bouts of mental illness, it was as
though the whole fault of failure in the French wars was blamed on him. Most
unjust.
The difference with HT of course was that there was no need whatsoever to
interfere in the governance of England, albeit Edward V or Richard. He had
nothing to offer and wasn't one of the inner royal family. I hate to say
it but PG's term 'The Cousins' War' is pretty accurate - for once! H
BTW I think you could say William of Orange was 'elected', or 'invited' as
they like to say. And they did offer Oliver Cromwell the Crown which he wisely
refused but otherwise of course it's easier to go for the eldest or fittest son.
There's a good programme on Matilda by Helen Castor in her 'She Wolves' series,
which incidentally also includes MOA.
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 15:43:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@...
[] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I think my view of the
WotR is close to yours, but with a significant difference. In my view what we
have is at least two groups of people, often related, fighting over who's to sit
on the throne of England. Unfortunately, because the monarchy
wasn't looked on as being elective, justifications had to be
found when, should any particular monarch prove less than satisfactory,
replacing him appeared the only option. The only occurrence of the eldest son of
an English king not inheriting the English throne was, I believe, when
William the Conqueror left Normandy to his oldest son Robert and England to the
next oldest, William. When William II died, the crown was claimed by his younger
brother Henry, who defeated Robert and ruled as Henry I. Henry I intended for
his eldest son to inherit, but he died in a shipwreck, so Henry tried to have
his daughter Mathilda inherit in her own right. That claim was disputed by her
cousin Stephen and civil war broke out. However, even then, after the fighting
ended it wasn't Stephen's children that inherited the throne, but rather
Mathilda's son, the grandson of Henry I and the eldest male in the direct line
who then ruled as Henry II. Although Henry II had his eldest son, young Henry,
crowned King of England while he, Henry II, was still alive, young Henry died
before his father and never succeeded. After Henry II died, Richard I, the next
in line, inherited the crown, followed by John when Richard died childless.
Henry III succeeded his father John, Edward I succeeded his father
Henry and, even though later deposed, Edward II succeeded Edward and was
succeeded in turn by his eldest son, Edward III. Edward III out-lived his eldest
son, but was succeeded by that son's only child, Richard II, who was deposed in
1399.
As best I can tell, and
until the death of Queen Anne in 1714, this was the
only time the occupant of the English throne could be termed as
having been elected. Edmund Mortimer had the prior, more direct claim, but was
only a child. Therefore, Bolingbroke, who admittedly had the
second-best claim and had led the successful rebellion against Richard,
assumed the throne. Which he then passed on to his eldest son, who
passed it on to his eldest son, Henry VI. What I do find interesting, though,
were the attempts by Bolingbroke's supporters, if not by Bolingbroke himself, to
try to justify Bolingbroke's taking the crown because, supposedly, Edward I had
changed the order of succession, placing a younger son ahead of Edmund
Crouchback when, in actuality, what Edward had done was substitute eldest
child for eldest son. Even when Gaunt reversed that, it still didn't make the
Lancastrian kings any more senior in their descent. It's things such as that
which cause me to believe that, while not the end-all and be-all of succession,
being able to prove a direct legitimate descent was considered
important; important enough to spread made-up stories.
FWIW, I also firmly
believe, had Henry VI displayed any talents suitable for a medieval
monarch, Richard of York would never have made a try for the throne, nor would
Edward IV have later succeeded in getting the throne; even though, based on his
descent, his father, he and his brothers had a more senior, legitimate claim to
it than Henry. It was Henry's incompetence, and the lack of any way to
legally remove Henry from the throne that, I think, led to what is
termed The War of the Roses. One could liken it to a family squabble
over an inheritance, but with the difference being that the only court
available for adjudication was the nearest open field where the two sides could
battle it out.
Doug
Who doesn't worry about the
length of any post as long as it's interesting!
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I think you've
been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no
white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by
HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and
'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which
is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a
term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest
member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was
started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his
descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the
fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard
II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary
says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne.
You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the
throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and
until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession
to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting
that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to
have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the
earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention.
Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor.
Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course
the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the
nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under
duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both
had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the
succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex...
This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until
that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund
Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and
of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess
Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir
apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not
enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it
would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition
yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the
throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to
do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's
very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and
certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have
gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal
connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later
as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win
because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is
until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and
mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's
ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he
wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English
are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country,
regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there
were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing
to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his
marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the
PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett
on the Normans - he is very good)
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
think the problem is that word elective. As you noted, the king could, to a
certain extent, pick and choose his successor especially under circumstances
such as those faced by William the Conqueror (what to do with Normandy and
England), Henry II (what with controlling England, Ireland, and more than half
of France) or even Oliver Cromwell, who tried to split the difference between
his being Lord Protector and having that position become hereditary with his
son Richard (should've picked one of the generals, really). William of Orange is
sort of betwixt and between; yes, he was invited, but that invitation was due
to his marriage to the ousted/abdicated/absent king's eldest daughter. The
proprieties must be maintained!
My
sympathy for Henry Vi is mostly because he was simply so incapable, but had no
way of not being king. Abdication would have meant first
determining who to nominate as his heir and, while Richard Duke of York was the
best candidate, it would have meant calling into question the validity of Henry
IV's actions in 1399, basically disavowing the entire Lancastrian raison
d'etre. I can't see that happening. Then there would have been the problem
of Margaret of Anjou; I just can't see her quietly resigning herself to the
status of dowager Queen, let alone ex-Queen!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug,
as often, we say virtually the same thing - but in a different way! I agree
exactly about Edward and indeed Bolingbroke. They both saw dangerous faults in
the kings they put aside. They would have said it was for the good of the realm.
Which is probably why tinkering was permissible at times - though not I believe
in the case of Edward II. I do feel for Henry VI though because he actually
reaped the results of his father's wrongly conceived expedition. Yet Henry V is
still the great hero. It wasn't just Henry's bouts of mental illness, it was as
though the whole fault of failure in the French wars was blamed on him. Most
unjust.
The difference with HT of course was that there was no need whatsoever to
interfere in the governance of England, albeit Edward V or Richard. He had
nothing to offer and wasn't one of the inner royal family. I hate to say
it but PG's term 'The Cousins' War' is pretty accurate - for once! H
BTW I think you could say William of Orange was 'elected', or 'invited' as
they like to say. And they did offer Oliver Cromwell the Crown which he wisely
refused but otherwise of course it's easier to go for the eldest or fittest son.
There's a good programme on Matilda by Helen Castor in her 'She Wolves' series,
which incidentally also includes MOA.
On Friday, 10 May 2019, 15:43:43 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@...
[] <> wrote:
Hilary,
I think my view of the
WotR is close to yours, but with a significant difference. In my view what we
have is at least two groups of people, often related, fighting over who's to sit
on the throne of England. Unfortunately, because the monarchy
wasn't looked on as being elective, justifications had to be
found when, should any particular monarch prove less than satisfactory,
replacing him appeared the only option. The only occurrence of the eldest son of
an English king not inheriting the English throne was, I believe, when
William the Conqueror left Normandy to his oldest son Robert and England to the
next oldest, William. When William II died, the crown was claimed by his younger
brother Henry, who defeated Robert and ruled as Henry I. Henry I intended for
his eldest son to inherit, but he died in a shipwreck, so Henry tried to have
his daughter Mathilda inherit in her own right. That claim was disputed by her
cousin Stephen and civil war broke out. However, even then, after the fighting
ended it wasn't Stephen's children that inherited the throne, but rather
Mathilda's son, the grandson of Henry I and the eldest male in the direct line
who then ruled as Henry II. Although Henry II had his eldest son, young Henry,
crowned King of England while he, Henry II, was still alive, young Henry died
before his father and never succeeded. After Henry II died, Richard I, the next
in line, inherited the crown, followed by John when Richard died childless.
Henry III succeeded his father John, Edward I succeeded his father
Henry and, even though later deposed, Edward II succeeded Edward and was
succeeded in turn by his eldest son, Edward III. Edward III out-lived his eldest
son, but was succeeded by that son's only child, Richard II, who was deposed in
1399.
As best I can tell, and
until the death of Queen Anne in 1714, this was the
only time the occupant of the English throne could be termed as
having been elected. Edmund Mortimer had the prior, more direct claim, but was
only a child. Therefore, Bolingbroke, who admittedly had the
second-best claim and had led the successful rebellion against Richard,
assumed the throne. Which he then passed on to his eldest son, who
passed it on to his eldest son, Henry VI. What I do find interesting, though,
were the attempts by Bolingbroke's supporters, if not by Bolingbroke himself, to
try to justify Bolingbroke's taking the crown because, supposedly, Edward I had
changed the order of succession, placing a younger son ahead of Edmund
Crouchback when, in actuality, what Edward had done was substitute eldest
child for eldest son. Even when Gaunt reversed that, it still didn't make the
Lancastrian kings any more senior in their descent. It's things such as that
which cause me to believe that, while not the end-all and be-all of succession,
being able to prove a direct legitimate descent was considered
important; important enough to spread made-up stories.
FWIW, I also firmly
believe, had Henry VI displayed any talents suitable for a medieval
monarch, Richard of York would never have made a try for the throne, nor would
Edward IV have later succeeded in getting the throne; even though, based on his
descent, his father, he and his brothers had a more senior, legitimate claim to
it than Henry. It was Henry's incompetence, and the lack of any way to
legally remove Henry from the throne that, I think, led to what is
termed The War of the Roses. One could liken it to a family squabble
over an inheritance, but with the difference being that the only court
available for adjudication was the nearest open field where the two sides could
battle it out.
Doug
Who doesn't worry about the
length of any post as long as it's interesting!
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I think you've
been taken in by what Lucy Worsley calls the great 'Tudor fib'. There was no
white and red rose conflict - the red rose and the Tudor rose were invented by
HT to invoke the mythology that he was rightful king. He even went back and
'gave' Henry VI the red rose as a makeover in his King's College Chapel, which
is now festooned with Tudor roses. The WOTR was in fact, as you probably know, a
term coined by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century.
What went on between 1455 and 1485 was a tussle to produce the strongest
member of the English royal family who could become king. And arguably it was
started by Richard Duke of York, who found it convenient to claim that his
descent from Edward III was superior to that of poor week Henry VI, ignoring the
fact that legitimacy was ignored when Henry IV took the throne from Richard
II. Now I exclude HT from being a member of that family because, as Mary
says,he came from an illegitimate line legally barred from the throne.
You said yourself battles were like a game of chess; so was accession to the
throne.
And the problem is this; the English had/have no written Constitution and
until after the English Civil War there were no Laws which enshrined accession
to the throne. I suppose the nearest thing was the Pope and it's interesting
that William I sought his endorsement before invading England. The Pope seems to
have played no part in the events of 1483/5 which is strange considering the
earlier relationships between Edward and Warwick get a lot of attention.
Certainly his correspondence with Richard is quite amicable.
So, going right back to 1066 it was up to a king to nominate his successor.
Now that was usually his eldest son but not always. In William's case of course
the whole Hastings thing was because both he and Harold claimed to be the
nominee of childless Edward the Confessor - Harold having given an oath under
duress that he would cede the throne to William. Henry II and Eleanor of
Aquitaine had lots of spats over the inheritance of their sons because they both
had different favourites. And Edward I changed the unwritten rules of the
succession/nomination by saying that precedence should be regardless of sex...
This meant that his eldest son (Edward II) inherited, but the next in line until
that Edward had children would be Edward I's daughter, not Edmund
Crouchback. That practice remained in place until revoked by John of Gaunt, and
of course has only just been restored. For the first time since then Princess
Charlotte will take precedence over Prince Louis; a woman at last can be an heir
apparent, not heir presumptive, which our present Queen was..
So monarchs could tinker at will with the succession because it was not
enshrined in Law and their will could not be tested by the Law as it
would be today. And the way to tinker, if you were not king and had ambition
yourself, was to be stronger than the monarch. Bolingbroke didn't take the
throne because he was the legitimate heir, but because he was strong enough to
do so and had the backing to do so, and, fair to say, of the Blood Royal. It's
very dubious that HT had the credentials and backing to do any of this and
certainly no legitimate Blood Royal so his promise to marry EOY might have
gained him some support from the Woodville faction and a pretence to a royal
connection. Joining the red and the supposedly legitimate white rose came later
as part of the propaganda machine
But it was still the chess game and on the day the best man didn't win
because of a patch of mud. Henry was king for as long as he had support; that is
until someone stronger stepped forward, but the creation of the Tudor myth and
mystic (probably by MB) was an attempt to keep the stronger men away. What's
ironic is that if HT had been more charming, more accessible, less miserly he
wouldn't have had to look over his shoulder for Pretenders because the English
are quick to accept those they like, those who are good for the country,
regardless of 'legitimacy'. Edward IV proved that. Incidentally, because there
were no written and legalised laws of succession there would have been nothing
to stop Edward nominating his son as king even if he was unable to have his
marriage legitimised post hoc - another reason for believing that the
PreContract wasn't common knowledge before 1483.
Sorry this is so long! H (Do watch Prof Robert Bartlett
on the Normans - he is very good)
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-13 05:28:37
Hilary,
I
have to admit I find the whole Gaunt/Swynford marriage thing confusing! If I
understand it correctly (???), the dispensation only concerned the standing of
Gaunt, his third wife and their offspring as they were affected by various
Church rulings. For example, because Gaunt and Swynford had been involved in an
adulterous relationship while married to other partners, without the
dispensation the Church wouldn't recognize their relationship as a marriage
even should they manage to get some priest to perform a ceremony. It's also my
understanding the Church set the rules for marriages which were then used as a
basis for civil laws regarding inheritance. Is that correct? So, even if the
Pope issued a dispensation that allowed Gaunt to regularize his relationship
with his mistress by marriage, it was still left to the civil authorities to
rule on the rights of any children of that marriage; especially children born
before a marriage was permitted by the Church. I think...
I
found this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent
concerning
Letters patent and found it to be very interesting. Apparently the
issuance of Letters Patent is (was?) solely a Royal Prerogative, and not reliant
in any way on any Parliamentary involvement. I've seen several comments in
articles that claimed Henry IV's interposing that excepta dignitate
regali wasn't legal because Parliament wasn't involved, but Parliament, as
best I can determine, isn't involved in the issuance of Letters
Patent in the first place, they're solely the gift of the sovereign. So I
suppose the question really should be: If one sovereign issues Letters Patent,
can a succeeding sovereign alter those Letters Patent?
It
seems to me that there were two ways Edward may have viewed his marriage to
Eleanor Butler. The first is that, regardless of what we know about the
legality of pro verba marriages, Edward thought them to not be
legal. And, to be fair, just how much time would a medieval teenager spend
studying the intricacies of Church law regarding marriages? There are (were?)
many today who, because everyone knows only priests can marry people, are
searching for the priest who performed the marriage ceremony for Edward and
Eleanor; just as there are those claiming Edward and Eleanor weren't
married because no priest was present. Can we be certain Edward wasn't among
these misinformed people?
The
second possible view would be that Edward knew a priest wasn't required for a
valid marriage, but viewed his pledge to Eleanor as simply a ploy to be used to
get her into his bed; he'd worry later (if at all) about any ill-effects that
might result for him in the after-life.
FWIW,
I tend to lean towards the first view, if only because of the circumstances of
his marriage to EW. No banns were issued, but otherwise it had all the legal
trappings of a priest and witnesses.
So
then the question would become: Was Edward ever made aware that the ceremony
he'd gone through with Eleanor was indeed a legal marriage? Could, IOW, it have
been Edward himself who, by his inquiries, tipped someone off that Edward's
marriage to EW wasn't legal? As you say, Popes could be gotten to issue all
sorts of dispensations, but would Edward want that knowledge to become public?
Wasn't it best, especially once Eleanor died, to let sleeping dogs
lie?
It
seems to me, though, that should the Council even inquire about a dispensation,
that would immediately take on the appearance of the Council accepting the
validity of the Pre-Contract. Otherwise, why need a dispensation? And once the
Council was believed to have taken a definite position, then those who disagreed
might feel the necessity of making everything public if only to prevent a
bastard from inheriting the throne. Worse yet, the Beauforts had been barred
from the throne because of their illegitimacy, what made Edward's children
different?
Yep,
definitely a mess!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
I
think it's difficult to say Doug simply because we were relying on custom and
practice and there had never been a situation quite like this. Richard II
undoubtedly did this to make sure it was enshrined in Law that the Beauforts,
although legitimised, could never inherit. I recall he was no particular lover
of his Uncle Gaunt and Richard had no heir.
Edward IV, on the other hand, had clearly nominated his son, knowing in his
heart that his whole family were illegitimate. And the Confessor had nominated
Harold who wasn't even a blood relative. Legitimisation by the Pope would just
make the whole thing better, should the PreContract ever come to the surface in
the future. A bit like the rumours over Edward IV's parentage.
So much of what we think of as the powers of the Pope are tainted by Henry
VIII's divorce experience. But that was influenced by COA's power through her
nephew, not because the Pope had strong feelings about such matters; he allowed
a divorce for Louis XII. Find an excuse and the Pope usually obliged, unless
someone else had a dagger at his throat. I would have thought it not impossible
to find an excuse to delay the Coronation for say another month whilst it was
sorted out. Had there of course been the will to do so? After all, if
unsuccessful the Council could then make a decision. It would also have given
longer to find out how the Protectorship would work out.
On Saturday, 11 May 2019, 05:14:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@...
[] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Barring further
information, I think I'll stick with a majority of the Council preferring young
Edward, as long as his mother's relatives were kept away from him. That
would mean Richard in charge for at least for or five years while Edward could
not only mature but, hopefully, learn what being a king required of him. The
problem being, of course, that we really don't know what sort of boy young
Edward was. He may very well have been, as you described him once, stroppy, an
earlier version of Edward VI, or someone more like his father; capable and
intelligent, but not bogged down in the minutiae of
ruling.
I have doubts about
the Pre-Contract remaining unrevealed should legitimization be sought, however.
I do believe that until a decision was made one way or the other, it wouldn't
have been in anyone's interest to have knowledge of the allegation become
public. Should the Council have decided to seek a dispensation, however, they'd
be faced with the Beaufort problem: While the Pope might provide a
dispensation that legitimized Edward's children in the eyes of the
Church, wouldn't it still require an Act of Parliament to enable them to
inherit anything, let alone the crown? Or am I
mistaken?
According to the link
below, it was Richard II's issuance of Letters Patent, later read out in
Parliament, that made it possible for the Beaufort children to inherit
lands or titles, although I presume lands or money could have been left to them
as bequests regardless of their legal status.
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/back-to-basics-for-newcomers/the-beaufort-legitimation/
At any rate, if it required the issuance of
Letters Patent by the King, how could that possibly be kept secret?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Sorry, I should have added
that this also says to me that in 1483 the Council probably preferred Richard as
king. And that's not surprising given the chaos under previous minorities and
the recent action of the Woodvilles. Edward IV had indeed nominated his son as
king. In theory there would have been nothing to have stopped them keeping
the revealed matter quiet whilst Bourchier approached the Pope for
legitimisation. He was usually quite willing to do what every European monarch
wanted. That is, as long as it kept them away from Rome.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
have to admit I find the whole Gaunt/Swynford marriage thing confusing! If I
understand it correctly (???), the dispensation only concerned the standing of
Gaunt, his third wife and their offspring as they were affected by various
Church rulings. For example, because Gaunt and Swynford had been involved in an
adulterous relationship while married to other partners, without the
dispensation the Church wouldn't recognize their relationship as a marriage
even should they manage to get some priest to perform a ceremony. It's also my
understanding the Church set the rules for marriages which were then used as a
basis for civil laws regarding inheritance. Is that correct? So, even if the
Pope issued a dispensation that allowed Gaunt to regularize his relationship
with his mistress by marriage, it was still left to the civil authorities to
rule on the rights of any children of that marriage; especially children born
before a marriage was permitted by the Church. I think...
I
found this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_patent
concerning
Letters patent and found it to be very interesting. Apparently the
issuance of Letters Patent is (was?) solely a Royal Prerogative, and not reliant
in any way on any Parliamentary involvement. I've seen several comments in
articles that claimed Henry IV's interposing that excepta dignitate
regali wasn't legal because Parliament wasn't involved, but Parliament, as
best I can determine, isn't involved in the issuance of Letters
Patent in the first place, they're solely the gift of the sovereign. So I
suppose the question really should be: If one sovereign issues Letters Patent,
can a succeeding sovereign alter those Letters Patent?
It
seems to me that there were two ways Edward may have viewed his marriage to
Eleanor Butler. The first is that, regardless of what we know about the
legality of pro verba marriages, Edward thought them to not be
legal. And, to be fair, just how much time would a medieval teenager spend
studying the intricacies of Church law regarding marriages? There are (were?)
many today who, because everyone knows only priests can marry people, are
searching for the priest who performed the marriage ceremony for Edward and
Eleanor; just as there are those claiming Edward and Eleanor weren't
married because no priest was present. Can we be certain Edward wasn't among
these misinformed people?
The
second possible view would be that Edward knew a priest wasn't required for a
valid marriage, but viewed his pledge to Eleanor as simply a ploy to be used to
get her into his bed; he'd worry later (if at all) about any ill-effects that
might result for him in the after-life.
FWIW,
I tend to lean towards the first view, if only because of the circumstances of
his marriage to EW. No banns were issued, but otherwise it had all the legal
trappings of a priest and witnesses.
So
then the question would become: Was Edward ever made aware that the ceremony
he'd gone through with Eleanor was indeed a legal marriage? Could, IOW, it have
been Edward himself who, by his inquiries, tipped someone off that Edward's
marriage to EW wasn't legal? As you say, Popes could be gotten to issue all
sorts of dispensations, but would Edward want that knowledge to become public?
Wasn't it best, especially once Eleanor died, to let sleeping dogs
lie?
It
seems to me, though, that should the Council even inquire about a dispensation,
that would immediately take on the appearance of the Council accepting the
validity of the Pre-Contract. Otherwise, why need a dispensation? And once the
Council was believed to have taken a definite position, then those who disagreed
might feel the necessity of making everything public if only to prevent a
bastard from inheriting the throne. Worse yet, the Beauforts had been barred
from the throne because of their illegitimacy, what made Edward's children
different?
Yep,
definitely a mess!
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
I
think it's difficult to say Doug simply because we were relying on custom and
practice and there had never been a situation quite like this. Richard II
undoubtedly did this to make sure it was enshrined in Law that the Beauforts,
although legitimised, could never inherit. I recall he was no particular lover
of his Uncle Gaunt and Richard had no heir.
Edward IV, on the other hand, had clearly nominated his son, knowing in his
heart that his whole family were illegitimate. And the Confessor had nominated
Harold who wasn't even a blood relative. Legitimisation by the Pope would just
make the whole thing better, should the PreContract ever come to the surface in
the future. A bit like the rumours over Edward IV's parentage.
So much of what we think of as the powers of the Pope are tainted by Henry
VIII's divorce experience. But that was influenced by COA's power through her
nephew, not because the Pope had strong feelings about such matters; he allowed
a divorce for Louis XII. Find an excuse and the Pope usually obliged, unless
someone else had a dagger at his throat. I would have thought it not impossible
to find an excuse to delay the Coronation for say another month whilst it was
sorted out. Had there of course been the will to do so? After all, if
unsuccessful the Council could then make a decision. It would also have given
longer to find out how the Protectorship would work out.
On Saturday, 11 May 2019, 05:14:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@...
[] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Barring further
information, I think I'll stick with a majority of the Council preferring young
Edward, as long as his mother's relatives were kept away from him. That
would mean Richard in charge for at least for or five years while Edward could
not only mature but, hopefully, learn what being a king required of him. The
problem being, of course, that we really don't know what sort of boy young
Edward was. He may very well have been, as you described him once, stroppy, an
earlier version of Edward VI, or someone more like his father; capable and
intelligent, but not bogged down in the minutiae of
ruling.
I have doubts about
the Pre-Contract remaining unrevealed should legitimization be sought, however.
I do believe that until a decision was made one way or the other, it wouldn't
have been in anyone's interest to have knowledge of the allegation become
public. Should the Council have decided to seek a dispensation, however, they'd
be faced with the Beaufort problem: While the Pope might provide a
dispensation that legitimized Edward's children in the eyes of the
Church, wouldn't it still require an Act of Parliament to enable them to
inherit anything, let alone the crown? Or am I
mistaken?
According to the link
below, it was Richard II's issuance of Letters Patent, later read out in
Parliament, that made it possible for the Beaufort children to inherit
lands or titles, although I presume lands or money could have been left to them
as bequests regardless of their legal status.
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/back-to-basics-for-newcomers/the-beaufort-legitimation/
At any rate, if it required the issuance of
Letters Patent by the King, how could that possibly be kept secret?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Sorry, I should have added
that this also says to me that in 1483 the Council probably preferred Richard as
king. And that's not surprising given the chaos under previous minorities and
the recent action of the Woodvilles. Edward IV had indeed nominated his son as
king. In theory there would have been nothing to have stopped them keeping
the revealed matter quiet whilst Bourchier approached the Pope for
legitimisation. He was usually quite willing to do what every European monarch
wanted. That is, as long as it kept them away from Rome.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-14 09:45:37
Hi Doug,
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not
the real Warwick, then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed
to get actual custody of the real one. I don't entirely
rule out the possibility that
Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the idea that
Lincoln
assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in with how the
road
to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to Warwick.
As you
say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT certainly
needed to
be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had escaped the
Tower he
would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of the stories
about
Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low intelligence would be
much
more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a substitute was
used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real Warwick was
employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think an
impossible solution for a desperate King.
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the
Dublin King Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that
it could have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V,
Edward VI would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the
accounts that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore, putting together what we know
about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the most likely sequence of
events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and escaped with him to Burgundy
then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT had to find his own impostor
to discredit the rebels.
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether
people believed that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as
the best candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder
which could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of
undisputed legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles
only emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the
question of legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to
question Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have
sought to benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for
his benefit, and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the
Yorkists may have pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record of them questioning Titulus Regius
itself.)
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but
Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred
him out of the way to focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts
became known, he could have emerged as a rival and split supporters of the
rebellion in two camps.Nico
On Sunday, 12 May 2019, 04:26:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
It's
those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to
believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he
got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were
rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So,
in answer to your questions:
1.
During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was
actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need
a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly
did.
2.
Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I
don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to
Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick.
What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his
son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only
Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father
were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to
to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3.
I can't come up with any reason for not
declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was.
The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone
through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V.
(Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's
possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion,
but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put
into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could
never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various
possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I
count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping
sub-groups:
1.
Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were
dead,
1b.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still
been alive,
1b(1)
Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead
whether they were or not.
2.
Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate
divides into:
2a.
Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick,
or
2b.
Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy
goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir
William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also
include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne
for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst
those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just
tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then
moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now,
how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of
moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind?
Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Lincoln's
role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real
story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter
when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a
'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why
did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A
coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown
anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do
with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly
status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically
follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the
coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone
waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon
after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to
Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the
Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland
succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy
care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few
discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young
Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went
afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of
Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was
definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was
of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real
Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal
around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or
maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial
evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a
surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the
scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not
the real Warwick, then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed
to get actual custody of the real one. I don't entirely
rule out the possibility that
Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the idea that
Lincoln
assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in with how the
road
to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to Warwick.
As you
say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT certainly
needed to
be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had escaped the
Tower he
would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of the stories
about
Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low intelligence would be
much
more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a substitute was
used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real Warwick was
employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think an
impossible solution for a desperate King.
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the
Dublin King Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that
it could have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V,
Edward VI would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the
accounts that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore, putting together what we know
about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the most likely sequence of
events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and escaped with him to Burgundy
then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT had to find his own impostor
to discredit the rebels.
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether
people believed that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as
the best candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder
which could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of
undisputed legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles
only emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the
question of legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to
question Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have
sought to benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for
his benefit, and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the
Yorkists may have pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record of them questioning Titulus Regius
itself.)
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but
Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred
him out of the way to focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts
became known, he could have emerged as a rival and split supporters of the
rebellion in two camps.Nico
On Sunday, 12 May 2019, 04:26:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
It's
those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to
believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he
got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were
rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So,
in answer to your questions:
1.
During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was
actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need
a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly
did.
2.
Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I
don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to
Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick.
What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his
son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only
Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father
were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to
to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3.
I can't come up with any reason for not
declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was.
The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone
through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V.
(Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's
possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion,
but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put
into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could
never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various
possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I
count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping
sub-groups:
1.
Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were
dead,
1b.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still
been alive,
1b(1)
Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead
whether they were or not.
2.
Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate
divides into:
2a.
Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick,
or
2b.
Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy
goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir
William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also
include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne
for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst
those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just
tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then
moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now,
how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of
moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind?
Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Lincoln's
role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real
story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter
when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a
'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why
did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A
coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown
anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do
with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly
status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically
follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the
coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone
waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon
after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to
Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the
Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland
succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy
care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few
discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young
Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went
afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of
Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was
definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was
of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real
Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal
around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or
maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial
evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a
surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the
scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos
2019-05-14 10:31:38
Doug wrote:
FWIW, I've always leaned towards the idea that
Tudor made that pledge because he'd heard the rumors that EoY's brothers were
dead, leaving her as Edward IV's heir. After all, if Tudor was still only
angling to marry the sister of young Edward, why didn't he mention he'd
be fighting to restore the person who'd be his brother-in-law?It does seem to me that the link to Edward IV made
when his daughter married Tudor was much more important than often presumed.
Not in the sense of Tudor uniting York and Lancaster, but because it linked
Tudor with the last undisputed king; well, undisputed since 1471 anyway. To
the best of my knowledge, Tudor himself never claimed to represent any
dispossessed royal Lancastrian line; at least not until well after he'd taken
the throne.It also looks to me as his hesitation in marrying
EoY after Bosworth was because he'd launched his enterprise on the
assumption the boys were dead, suborned treason, and risked his life, only to
discover it wasn't known what happened to the boys and, as far as anyone knew,
they were still alive! Poor Henry, caught between the proverbial rock and a
hard place ! Repealing TR meant all of Edward's children would again be
officially recognized as legitimate, including young Edward and RoY; not
repealing TR meant the almost certain loss of those Yorkist supporters. People
such as Sir William, for example.My heart bleeds for him...not!
That is
another reason why I think that HT had already set his heart on claiming the
throne for himself without the help of MB or EW. Jasper may have encouraged
him, but my feeling is that is the ambition came from HT himself who was
probably boiling over with frustration from the limbo of all those years of
exile. I would have thought that if EW had anything to do with the marriage
arrangements, she would have pushed for the restoration of her sons' right to
the throne. Either she had no intention of EofY marrying HT or she had hoped
that MB's affinity would assist Edward V's restoration. HT on the other hand
was in France and probably relying on unsubstantiated rumours that the Princes
were dead, and had made his decision to make a bid for the throne and thought
the EofY would appease the Yorkists. As you say, he eventually realized that
there was no certainty that one or both of them were no longer alive and got
cold feet.
It would
be interesting if HT had attempted to get around the situation by resisting the
Yorkists who pressurized him to continue with the marriage. Would he have lost
their support? Maybe not if he had offered sufficient rewards. The ironic thing
is that keeping Titulus Regius and a foreign alliance marriage would have given
him some security as King, but he would need the personality to maintain it and
endear himself to the country to maintain it.Doug also wrote: Was Edward ever made
aware that the ceremony he'd gone through with Eleanor was indeed a legal
marriage? Could, IOW, it have been Edward himself who, by his inquiries, tipped
someone off that Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legal? As you say, Popes could
be gotten to issue all sorts of dispensations, but would Edward want that
knowledge to become public? Wasn't it best, especially once Eleanor died, to
let sleeping dogs lie?
I have always thought that it was a possible that the
Eleanor marriage resulted from Edward's and possibly Eleanor's lack of
understanding that the way they made their vows constituted a valid marriage
and saw it more as a betrothal. When it didn't work out, one or both of them
genuinely believed that they were still single. From J-AH's book, it seems more
likely that Eleanor may have considered it a genuine marriage because he
mentioned that the way she arranged her estate gave suggested that she
considered herself married, but Edward was King and she couldn't do anything
about it. I can't remember exactly what
he said though. I can imagine that 19 year old Edward was impulsive and not especially
concerned about the details of canon law at the time, but later on may have
realized that what he had previously seen as a brief relationship with Eleanor
may have been more than that. If it troubled his conscience, he may have sought
advice. I would think that the solution would be, if Eleanor was still alive,
an annulment (lack of understanding that you are entering a marriage should
make it voidable), or if she had died, to quietly remarry EW and seek to
legitimate any children with a dispensation. However, ehe could have thought
that the solution would undermine him and make his position less secure, so he
decided to let sleeping dogs lie and hope the truth never came out.Nico
On Tuesday, 14 May 2019, 09:45:43 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not
the real Warwick, then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed
to get actual custody of the real one. I don't entirely
rule out the possibility that
Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the idea that
Lincoln
assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in with how the
road
to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to Warwick.
As you
say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT certainly
needed to
be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had escaped the
Tower he
would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of the stories
about
Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low intelligence would be
much
more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a substitute was
used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real Warwick was
employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think an
impossible solution for a desperate King.
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the
Dublin King Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that
it could have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V,
Edward VI would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the
accounts that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore, putting together what we know
about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the most likely sequence of
events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and escaped with him to Burgundy
then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT had to find his own impostor
to discredit the rebels.
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether
people believed that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as
the best candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder
which could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of
undisputed legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles
only emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the
question of legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to
question Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have
sought to benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for
his benefit, and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the
Yorkists may have pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record of them questioning Titulus Regius
itself.)
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but
Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred
him out of the way to focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts
became known, he could have emerged as a rival and split supporters of the
rebellion in two camps.Nico
On Sunday, 12 May 2019, 04:26:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
It's
those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to
believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he
got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were
rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So,
in answer to your questions:
1.
During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was
actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need
a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly
did.
2.
Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I
don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to
Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick.
What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his
son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only
Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father
were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to
to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3.
I can't come up with any reason for not
declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was.
The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone
through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V.
(Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's
possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion,
but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put
into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could
never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various
possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I
count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping
sub-groups:
1.
Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were
dead,
1b.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still
been alive,
1b(1)
Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead
whether they were or not.
2.
Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate
divides into:
2a.
Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick,
or
2b.
Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy
goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir
William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also
include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne
for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst
those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just
tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then
moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now,
how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of
moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind?
Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Lincoln's
role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real
story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter
when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a
'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why
did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A
coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown
anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do
with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly
status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically
follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the
coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone
waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon
after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to
Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the
Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland
succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy
care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few
discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young
Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went
afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of
Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was
definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was
of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real
Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal
around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or
maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial
evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a
surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the
scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
FWIW, I've always leaned towards the idea that
Tudor made that pledge because he'd heard the rumors that EoY's brothers were
dead, leaving her as Edward IV's heir. After all, if Tudor was still only
angling to marry the sister of young Edward, why didn't he mention he'd
be fighting to restore the person who'd be his brother-in-law?It does seem to me that the link to Edward IV made
when his daughter married Tudor was much more important than often presumed.
Not in the sense of Tudor uniting York and Lancaster, but because it linked
Tudor with the last undisputed king; well, undisputed since 1471 anyway. To
the best of my knowledge, Tudor himself never claimed to represent any
dispossessed royal Lancastrian line; at least not until well after he'd taken
the throne.It also looks to me as his hesitation in marrying
EoY after Bosworth was because he'd launched his enterprise on the
assumption the boys were dead, suborned treason, and risked his life, only to
discover it wasn't known what happened to the boys and, as far as anyone knew,
they were still alive! Poor Henry, caught between the proverbial rock and a
hard place ! Repealing TR meant all of Edward's children would again be
officially recognized as legitimate, including young Edward and RoY; not
repealing TR meant the almost certain loss of those Yorkist supporters. People
such as Sir William, for example.My heart bleeds for him...not!
That is
another reason why I think that HT had already set his heart on claiming the
throne for himself without the help of MB or EW. Jasper may have encouraged
him, but my feeling is that is the ambition came from HT himself who was
probably boiling over with frustration from the limbo of all those years of
exile. I would have thought that if EW had anything to do with the marriage
arrangements, she would have pushed for the restoration of her sons' right to
the throne. Either she had no intention of EofY marrying HT or she had hoped
that MB's affinity would assist Edward V's restoration. HT on the other hand
was in France and probably relying on unsubstantiated rumours that the Princes
were dead, and had made his decision to make a bid for the throne and thought
the EofY would appease the Yorkists. As you say, he eventually realized that
there was no certainty that one or both of them were no longer alive and got
cold feet.
It would
be interesting if HT had attempted to get around the situation by resisting the
Yorkists who pressurized him to continue with the marriage. Would he have lost
their support? Maybe not if he had offered sufficient rewards. The ironic thing
is that keeping Titulus Regius and a foreign alliance marriage would have given
him some security as King, but he would need the personality to maintain it and
endear himself to the country to maintain it.Doug also wrote: Was Edward ever made
aware that the ceremony he'd gone through with Eleanor was indeed a legal
marriage? Could, IOW, it have been Edward himself who, by his inquiries, tipped
someone off that Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legal? As you say, Popes could
be gotten to issue all sorts of dispensations, but would Edward want that
knowledge to become public? Wasn't it best, especially once Eleanor died, to
let sleeping dogs lie?
I have always thought that it was a possible that the
Eleanor marriage resulted from Edward's and possibly Eleanor's lack of
understanding that the way they made their vows constituted a valid marriage
and saw it more as a betrothal. When it didn't work out, one or both of them
genuinely believed that they were still single. From J-AH's book, it seems more
likely that Eleanor may have considered it a genuine marriage because he
mentioned that the way she arranged her estate gave suggested that she
considered herself married, but Edward was King and she couldn't do anything
about it. I can't remember exactly what
he said though. I can imagine that 19 year old Edward was impulsive and not especially
concerned about the details of canon law at the time, but later on may have
realized that what he had previously seen as a brief relationship with Eleanor
may have been more than that. If it troubled his conscience, he may have sought
advice. I would think that the solution would be, if Eleanor was still alive,
an annulment (lack of understanding that you are entering a marriage should
make it voidable), or if she had died, to quietly remarry EW and seek to
legitimate any children with a dispensation. However, ehe could have thought
that the solution would undermine him and make his position less secure, so he
decided to let sleeping dogs lie and hope the truth never came out.Nico
On Tuesday, 14 May 2019, 09:45:43 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not
the real Warwick, then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed
to get actual custody of the real one. I don't entirely
rule out the possibility that
Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the idea that
Lincoln
assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in with how the
road
to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to Warwick.
As you
say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT certainly
needed to
be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had escaped the
Tower he
would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of the stories
about
Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low intelligence would be
much
more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a substitute was
used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real Warwick was
employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think an
impossible solution for a desperate King.
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the
Dublin King Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that
it could have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V,
Edward VI would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the
accounts that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore, putting together what we know
about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the most likely sequence of
events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and escaped with him to Burgundy
then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT had to find his own impostor
to discredit the rebels.
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether
people believed that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as
the best candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder
which could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of
undisputed legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles
only emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the
question of legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to
question Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have
sought to benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for
his benefit, and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the
Yorkists may have pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record of them questioning Titulus Regius
itself.)
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but
Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred
him out of the way to focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts
became known, he could have emerged as a rival and split supporters of the
rebellion in two camps.Nico
On Sunday, 12 May 2019, 04:26:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
It's
those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to
believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he
got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were
rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So,
in answer to your questions:
1.
During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was
actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need
a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly
did.
2.
Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I
don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to
Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick.
What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his
son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only
Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father
were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to
to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3.
I can't come up with any reason for not
declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was.
The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone
through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V.
(Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's
possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion,
but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put
into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could
never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various
possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I
count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping
sub-groups:
1.
Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were
dead,
1b.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still
been alive,
1b(1)
Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c.
Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead
whether they were or not.
2.
Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate
divides into:
2a.
Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick,
or
2b.
Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy
goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir
William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also
include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne
for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst
those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just
tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then
moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now,
how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of
moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind?
Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico
wrote:
Lincoln's
role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real
story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter
when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a
'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why
did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A
coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown
anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do
with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly
status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically
follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the
coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone
waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon
after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to
Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the
Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland
succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy
care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few
discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young
Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went
afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of
Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was
definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was
of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real
Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal
around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or
maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial
evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a
surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the
scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland atBosw
2019-05-14 10:52:50
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 14 May 2019 10:31
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Northumberland atBosworth
Doug wrote:
FWIW, I've always leaned towards the idea that Tudor made that pledge because he'd heard the rumors that EoY's brothers were dead, leaving her as Edward IV's heir. After all, if Tudor was still only angling to marry the sister of young Edward, why didn't he mention he'd be fighting to restore the person who'd be his brother-in-law?It does seem to me that the link to Edward IV made when his daughter married Tudor was much more important than often presumed.. Not in the sense of Tudor uniting York and Lancaster, but because it linked Tudor with the last undisputed king; well, undisputed since 1471 anyway. To the best of my knowledge, Tudor himself never claimed to represent any dispossessed royal Lancastrian line; at least not until well after he'd taken the throne.It also looks to me as his hesitation in marrying EoY after Bosworth was because he'd launched his enterprise on the assumption the boys were dead, suborned treason, and risked his life, only to discover it wasn't known what happened to the boys and, as far as anyone knew, they were still alive! Poor Henry, caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place ! Repealing TR meant all of Edward's children would again be officially recognized as legitimate, including young Edward and RoY; not repealing TR meant the almost certain loss of those Yorkist supporters. People such as Sir William, for example.My heart bleeds for him...not!
That is another reason why I think that HT had already set his heart on claiming the throne for himself without the help of MB or EW. Jasper may have encouraged him, but my feeling is that is the ambition came from HT himself who was probably boiling over with frustration from the limbo of all those years of exile. I would have thought that if EW had anything to do with the marriage arrangements, she would have pushed for the restoration of her sons' right to the throne. Either she had no intention of EofY marrying HT or she had hoped that MB's affinity would assist Edward V's restoration. HT on the other hand was in France and probably relying on unsubstantiated rumours that the Princes were dead, and had made his decision to make a bid for the throne and thought the EofY would appease the Yorkists. As you say, he eventually realized that there was no certainty that one or both of them were no longer alive and got cold feet.
It would be interesting if HT had attempted to get around the situation by resisting the Yorkists who pressurized him to continue with the marriage. Would he have lost their support? Maybe not if he had offered sufficient rewards. The ironic thing is that keeping Titulus Regius and a foreign alliance marriage would have given him some security as King, but he would need the personality to maintain it and endear himself to the country to maintain it.
Doug also wrote: Was Edward ever made aware that the ceremony he'd gone through with Eleanor was indeed a legal marriage? Could, IOW, it have been Edward himself who, by his inquiries, tipped someone off that Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legal? As you say, Popes could be gotten to issue all sorts of dispensations, but would Edward want that knowledge to become public? Wasn't it best, especially once Eleanor died, to let sleeping dogs lie?
I have always thought that it was a possible that the Eleanor marriage resulted from Edward's and possibly Eleanor's lack of understanding that the way they made their vows constituted a valid marriage and saw it more as a betrothal. When it didn't work out, one or both of them genuinely believed that they were still single. From J-AH's book, it seems more likely that Eleanor may have considered it a genuine marriage because he mentioned that the way she arranged her estate gave suggested that she considered herself married, but Edward was King and she couldn't do anything about it. I can't remember exactly what he said though. I can imagine that 19 year old Edward was impulsive and not especially concerned about the details of canon law at the time, but later on may have realized that what he had previously seen as a brief relationship with Eleanor may have been more than that. If it troubled his conscience, he may have sought advice. I would think that the solution would be, if Eleanor was still alive, an annulment (lack of understanding that you are entering a marriage should make it voidable), or if she had died, to quietly remarry EW and seek to legitimate any children with a dispensation. However, ehe could have thought that the solution would undermine him and make his position less secure, so he decided to let sleeping dogs lie and hope the truth never came out.
Nico
It has only ever been possible to annul a marriage, as Stillington doubtless could have told either of the couple he married, if it is publicly recorded. Furthermore, it could not legalise a marriage that preceded such an annulment, nor could such be repeated when Edward had knowingly pretended to be married to EW.
On Tuesday, 14 May 2019, 09:45:43 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not the real Warwick, then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed to get actual custody of the real one. I don't entirely rule out the possibility that Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the idea that Lincoln assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in with how the road to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to Warwick. As you say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT certainly needed to be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had escaped the Tower he would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of the stories about Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low intelligence would be much more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a substitute was used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real Warwick was employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think an impossible solution for a desperate King.
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the Dublin King Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that it could have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V, Edward VI would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the accounts that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore, putting together what we know about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the most likely sequence of events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and escaped with him to Burgundy then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT had to find his own impostor to discredit the rebels.
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether people believed that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as the best candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder which could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of undisputed legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles only emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the question of legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to question Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have sought to benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for his benefit, and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the Yorkists may have pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record of them questioning Titulus Regius itself.)
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred him out of the way to focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts became known, he could have emerged as a rival and split supporters of the rebellion in two camps.
Nico
On Sunday, 12 May 2019, 04:26:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
It's those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So, in answer to your questions:
1. During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly did.
2. Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick. What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3. I can't come up with any reason for not declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was. The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V. (Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion, but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping sub-groups:
1. Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a. Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead,
1b. Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still been alive,
1b(1) Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c. Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead whether they were or not.
2. Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate divides into:
2a. Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick, or
2b. Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now, how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind? Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico wrote:
Lincoln's role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a 'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 14 May 2019 10:31
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Northumberland atBosworth
Doug wrote:
FWIW, I've always leaned towards the idea that Tudor made that pledge because he'd heard the rumors that EoY's brothers were dead, leaving her as Edward IV's heir. After all, if Tudor was still only angling to marry the sister of young Edward, why didn't he mention he'd be fighting to restore the person who'd be his brother-in-law?It does seem to me that the link to Edward IV made when his daughter married Tudor was much more important than often presumed.. Not in the sense of Tudor uniting York and Lancaster, but because it linked Tudor with the last undisputed king; well, undisputed since 1471 anyway. To the best of my knowledge, Tudor himself never claimed to represent any dispossessed royal Lancastrian line; at least not until well after he'd taken the throne.It also looks to me as his hesitation in marrying EoY after Bosworth was because he'd launched his enterprise on the assumption the boys were dead, suborned treason, and risked his life, only to discover it wasn't known what happened to the boys and, as far as anyone knew, they were still alive! Poor Henry, caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place ! Repealing TR meant all of Edward's children would again be officially recognized as legitimate, including young Edward and RoY; not repealing TR meant the almost certain loss of those Yorkist supporters. People such as Sir William, for example.My heart bleeds for him...not!
That is another reason why I think that HT had already set his heart on claiming the throne for himself without the help of MB or EW. Jasper may have encouraged him, but my feeling is that is the ambition came from HT himself who was probably boiling over with frustration from the limbo of all those years of exile. I would have thought that if EW had anything to do with the marriage arrangements, she would have pushed for the restoration of her sons' right to the throne. Either she had no intention of EofY marrying HT or she had hoped that MB's affinity would assist Edward V's restoration. HT on the other hand was in France and probably relying on unsubstantiated rumours that the Princes were dead, and had made his decision to make a bid for the throne and thought the EofY would appease the Yorkists. As you say, he eventually realized that there was no certainty that one or both of them were no longer alive and got cold feet.
It would be interesting if HT had attempted to get around the situation by resisting the Yorkists who pressurized him to continue with the marriage. Would he have lost their support? Maybe not if he had offered sufficient rewards. The ironic thing is that keeping Titulus Regius and a foreign alliance marriage would have given him some security as King, but he would need the personality to maintain it and endear himself to the country to maintain it.
Doug also wrote: Was Edward ever made aware that the ceremony he'd gone through with Eleanor was indeed a legal marriage? Could, IOW, it have been Edward himself who, by his inquiries, tipped someone off that Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legal? As you say, Popes could be gotten to issue all sorts of dispensations, but would Edward want that knowledge to become public? Wasn't it best, especially once Eleanor died, to let sleeping dogs lie?
I have always thought that it was a possible that the Eleanor marriage resulted from Edward's and possibly Eleanor's lack of understanding that the way they made their vows constituted a valid marriage and saw it more as a betrothal. When it didn't work out, one or both of them genuinely believed that they were still single. From J-AH's book, it seems more likely that Eleanor may have considered it a genuine marriage because he mentioned that the way she arranged her estate gave suggested that she considered herself married, but Edward was King and she couldn't do anything about it. I can't remember exactly what he said though. I can imagine that 19 year old Edward was impulsive and not especially concerned about the details of canon law at the time, but later on may have realized that what he had previously seen as a brief relationship with Eleanor may have been more than that. If it troubled his conscience, he may have sought advice. I would think that the solution would be, if Eleanor was still alive, an annulment (lack of understanding that you are entering a marriage should make it voidable), or if she had died, to quietly remarry EW and seek to legitimate any children with a dispensation. However, ehe could have thought that the solution would undermine him and make his position less secure, so he decided to let sleeping dogs lie and hope the truth never came out.
Nico
It has only ever been possible to annul a marriage, as Stillington doubtless could have told either of the couple he married, if it is publicly recorded. Furthermore, it could not legalise a marriage that preceded such an annulment, nor could such be repeated when Edward had knowingly pretended to be married to EW.
On Tuesday, 14 May 2019, 09:45:43 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
Hi Doug,
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not the real Warwick, then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed to get actual custody of the real one. I don't entirely rule out the possibility that Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the idea that Lincoln assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in with how the road to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to Warwick. As you say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT certainly needed to be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had escaped the Tower he would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of the stories about Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low intelligence would be much more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a substitute was used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real Warwick was employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think an impossible solution for a desperate King.
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the Dublin King Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that it could have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V, Edward VI would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the accounts that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore, putting together what we know about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the most likely sequence of events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and escaped with him to Burgundy then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT had to find his own impostor to discredit the rebels.
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether people believed that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as the best candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder which could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of undisputed legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles only emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the question of legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to question Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have sought to benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for his benefit, and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the Yorkists may have pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record of them questioning Titulus Regius itself.)
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred him out of the way to focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts became known, he could have emerged as a rival and split supporters of the rebellion in two camps.
Nico
On Sunday, 12 May 2019, 04:26:17 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Nico,
It's those religious rites that are part of the coronation ceremonies that lead me to believe it was Warwick who was crowned in Dublin. Just how he got there, I don't know, but I do know I've read somewhere that there were rumors Warwick had escaped prior to the appearance of Simnel.
So, in answer to your questions:
1. During the rebellion, the person being paraded around London as Warwick was actually the person known to history as Lambert Simnel. The rebels didn't need a figurehead but, in order to discredit the rebels, Tudor certainly did.
2. Warwick had been in the Tower but escaped. Possibly Lincoln was involved, but I don't know. Which also means I don't think Clarence managed to get his son to Ireland, and that the boy placed in Anne's care at Sheriff Hutton was Warwick. What got George in trouble was, I think, that he threatened to take his son out of England without Edward's permission. A definite no-no; as not only Warwick was fourth in line for the throne, but if both Warwick and his father were beyond Edward's reach, what was to stop George from reviving his claim to to be Henry VI's acknowledged heir?
3. I can't come up with any reason for not declaring the person crowned in Dublin to have been Edward V is he actually was. The coronation could still have happened, since young Edward had never gone through those ceremonies, but he'd still have been crowned as Edward V. (Unless there's something about coronations I don't know?)
It's possible that being sent off to Portugal had nothing to do with the rebellion, but was simply something Brampton had considered since Bosworth and finally put into effect. The problem for the Yorkists, it seems to me, is that they could never unite behind a single candidate at one time. Considering the various possible permutations, it's no wonder!
I count at least .... groups and that doesn't include over-lapping sub-groups:
1. Those who believed TR was a fake divides into:
1a. Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead,
1b. Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother may have still been alive,
1b(1) Those who believed Warbeck was RoS.
1c. Those who believed TR was a fake and young Edward and his brother were dead whether they were or not.
2. Those who believed TR wasn't a fake and Edward IV's children were illegitimate divides into:
2a. Those who believed Richard's heir was his nephew Edward of Warwick, or
2b. Those who believed Richard's heir was Lincoln/the de la Poles.
Eoy goes into 1a, while EW goes into sub-group 1b, along with those such as Sir William Stanley. Those who supported Warwick go under 2a, but that may also include many who are better known as 2b's. Once Tudor had been on the throne for a while, it's likely some from almost every group could be found amongst those under 1b(1) who supported RoS/Warbeck.
Just tracking someone such as Sir William isn't simple. He started out as a 2, then moved to being a 1a, before ending up as a 1b, which cost him his life. Now, how can one write about such happenings if one is trying to prove some sort of moral or other, which is what too many historians seem to have had in mind? Where's the consistency? The standing on one's principles?
Doug
Nico wrote:
Lincoln's role in the events leading up to the battle of Stoke convince me that the real story of Lambert Simnel has never been told. Why would he support an imposter when he could push his own claim? It has been suggested that the boy was a 'stalking horse' for the real Warwick, which is perhaps possible, but if so, why did they have a coronation in Dublin if they didn't have the real King. A coronation was a solemn, religious occasion, so it didn't make sense to crown anyone but the intended wearer of the crown. Even HT was perplexed by what to do with 'Lambert Simnel' after his capture, as the coronation conferred priestly status on him. Therefore, if HT thought along those lines, then it logically follows that the recipient of the grace conferred by the prayers and vows of the coronation must have been the boy who was actually crowned, not the someone waiting in Tower to take over. That raises several questions:
-Was the Warwick in the Tower the real Warwick?
-If not, where was the real Warwick and what happened? Lincoln fled soon after meeting Warwick. Did he assist in liberating Warwick, and sending him to Ireland or Burgundy, while HT covered his tracks by placing a substitute in the Tower? Alternatively, had Clarence's plot to send young Warwick to Ireland succeeded and he eventually grew up at Binche's in Margaret of Burgundy care as Jehan le Sage, then taken to Ireland and crowned. (We have had a few discussions on him and didn't reach a conclusion, but if Clarence did take young Warwick to Ireland, this could be the missing link to where he went afterwards.
- Was the Dublin King, not actually Warwick, but Edward V? (Richard of Shrewsbury has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but the Dublin King was definitely an Edward.) My question is why was he Edward VI? The other Edward was of course Warwick, which brings us back to Lambert Simnel being the real Warwick. As for RofS, possibly it is a coincidence that PW was sent to Portugal around the time that serious preparations began for the Battle of Stoke, or maybe there is some significance to his sudden removal. The circumstantial evidence suggests to me that this was a plot in favour of Warwick, but a surviving RoS could have been a distraction and was best sent far away from the scene to Portugal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-15 15:48:07
Hilary,
Do
you know how long Stillington was in East Harptree? If his daughter, obviously
illegitimate, was later married into the Hampton, he must have made a fairly
good impression on them while in East Harptree! Or would she have been
officially introduced as being his niece (wink, wink)? I'm also
presuming Stillington's transfer to Llandaff was considered a promotion because
of the cathedral there?
When
it comes to the Stillington's relations with the York's and Nevilles, couldn't
that put down to the fact that Duchess Cecily was a Neville by birth? Since the
Duke of York was linked to the Nevilles by his marriage to Cecily, then it
follows that for Stillington to be also be linked to the Nevilles would have
been more or less expected; at least as long as the heads of the Neville and
York families were in agreement, anyway.
While
surfing the internet to refresh my memory about the Talbots, I came across two
items possibly of interest. The first, presuming the accuracy of
Wikipedia, is that it rather looks as if the Talbots and Yorks were
trying to out-maneuver each other when it came to being pre-eminent in Ireland.
Apparently both families had extensive familial, political and likely financial
interests in Ireland. So, what with the Talbots bing supporters of the
Lancastrian Henry VI and York finally deciding to take Henry's place on the
throne, their being completely at odds seems to be an accurate
summation.
I
hadn't realized George was so well-regarded in Ireland but, and presuming he
knew of it, that might be the explanation for his proposed/supposed plans for
his son, mightn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Stillington's first placement was to East Harptree in Somerset from which
he was fairly swiftly swapped to new Llandaff. Now, by looking at IPMs I've
discovered that East Harptree was 'owned' by the Hamptons, into whose family his
daughter married and the Berkeleys. On the other hand Wraxall, just down the
road, which became the home of his other 'friends' the Craddock-Newtons, was
indeed owned by Alice Neville's father at the time of his death (his IPM) and
therefore the Nevilles. Montagu owned vast swathes of the West Country as his
title as Earl of Salisbury suggests.
I don't think being a protegee of the Nevilles precludes Stillington being
of Richard's or ROY's affinity, quite the contrary.. And it's likely that that
loyalty would filter down to Alice's descendants, including Isabel and her
George. Today I've been reading an Irish article from their Society of
Antiquities on the relationship of ROY with Ireland.. It's very illuminating,
firstly because it puts him at complete odds with the Talbot family and secondly
because of the esteem in which George was held in Ireland as Lord of Cork
because he'd been born there at the time when ROY was held in great favour. I
reckon Ireland needs a lot more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Do
you know how long Stillington was in East Harptree? If his daughter, obviously
illegitimate, was later married into the Hampton, he must have made a fairly
good impression on them while in East Harptree! Or would she have been
officially introduced as being his niece (wink, wink)? I'm also
presuming Stillington's transfer to Llandaff was considered a promotion because
of the cathedral there?
When
it comes to the Stillington's relations with the York's and Nevilles, couldn't
that put down to the fact that Duchess Cecily was a Neville by birth? Since the
Duke of York was linked to the Nevilles by his marriage to Cecily, then it
follows that for Stillington to be also be linked to the Nevilles would have
been more or less expected; at least as long as the heads of the Neville and
York families were in agreement, anyway.
While
surfing the internet to refresh my memory about the Talbots, I came across two
items possibly of interest. The first, presuming the accuracy of
Wikipedia, is that it rather looks as if the Talbots and Yorks were
trying to out-maneuver each other when it came to being pre-eminent in Ireland.
Apparently both families had extensive familial, political and likely financial
interests in Ireland. So, what with the Talbots bing supporters of the
Lancastrian Henry VI and York finally deciding to take Henry's place on the
throne, their being completely at odds seems to be an accurate
summation.
I
hadn't realized George was so well-regarded in Ireland but, and presuming he
knew of it, that might be the explanation for his proposed/supposed plans for
his son, mightn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Stillington's first placement was to East Harptree in Somerset from which
he was fairly swiftly swapped to new Llandaff. Now, by looking at IPMs I've
discovered that East Harptree was 'owned' by the Hamptons, into whose family his
daughter married and the Berkeleys. On the other hand Wraxall, just down the
road, which became the home of his other 'friends' the Craddock-Newtons, was
indeed owned by Alice Neville's father at the time of his death (his IPM) and
therefore the Nevilles. Montagu owned vast swathes of the West Country as his
title as Earl of Salisbury suggests.
I don't think being a protegee of the Nevilles precludes Stillington being
of Richard's or ROY's affinity, quite the contrary.. And it's likely that that
loyalty would filter down to Alice's descendants, including Isabel and her
George. Today I've been reading an Irish article from their Society of
Antiquities on the relationship of ROY with Ireland.. It's very illuminating,
firstly because it puts him at complete odds with the Talbot family and secondly
because of the esteem in which George was held in Ireland as Lord of Cork
because he'd been born there at the time when ROY was held in great favour. I
reckon Ireland needs a lot more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-15 16:50:33
Nico wrote:
Hi
Doug,
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not the real Warwick,
then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed to get actual
custody of the real one. I don't entirely rule out the
possibility that Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the
idea that Lincoln assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in
with how the road to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to
Warwick. As you say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT
certainly needed to be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had
escaped the Tower he would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of
the stories about Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low
intelligence would be much more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a
substitute was used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real
Warwick was employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think
an impossible solution for a desperate King.
Doug here:
I would imagine that claim of low intelligence might be more a simple
lack of knowledge; presuming the person HT paraded around London was the real
Lambert Simnel, of course. I don't think Simnel was the one executed, if only
because I can't see HT risking the possibility of young Warwick, even as a
servant, leaving heirs with a better claim to the throne than Henry.
Nico continued
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the Dublin King
Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that it could
have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V, Edward VI
would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the accounts
that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore,
putting together what we know about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the
most likely sequence of events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and
escaped with him to Burgundy then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT
had to find his own impostor to discredit the rebels.
Doug here:
Yes, it's that VI that makes any attempt to claim the Dublin King was
Edward IV's son, seem a bit far-fetched and basically just an attempt to find
Edward V. Then there's the problem of what happened to Warwick if the person at
the head of the rebellion really was Edward V. And the further problem of why HT
felt he needed a substitute for Warwick. HT claiming the rebellion was in order
to place Warwick on the throne sort of makes sense when one remembers that,
officially anyway, young Edward his brother were dead. But Henry would still
have a spare, so to speak. What happened to him?
Maybe I'm a coward, but I prefer the simplest explanation: The Dublin
King was indeed Warwick who had escaped from the Tower. Simnel was
Tudor's substitute, used to try and discredit the rebellion,
and later rewarded with first a position in the Royal kitchens and later, I
believe, as the Royal Falconer.
I really can't find much about Warwick's escape, but personally I doubt he
went to Ireland via Burgundy. Presuming Lincoln was directly involved in
Warwick's escape, it would make more sense for them to split up, with Warwick
being taken to Ireland. Lincoln would have gone to Burgundy to raise money and
troops, using his position as the senior adult Yorkist to validate his
requests.
Nico continued
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether people believed
that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as the best
candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder which
could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of undisputed
legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles only
emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the question of
legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to question
Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have sought to
benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for his benefit,
and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the Yorkists may have
pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record
of them questioning Titulus Regius itself.)
Doug here:
Strictly speaking, Lincoln had the best claim that was unencumbered by any
allegations of illegitimacy or an attainder. The problem for the Yorkists, as I
see it, was that Lincoln was too closely associated with Richard, the contents
of TR were too widely known and believed to allow young Edward or his brother to
head a rebellion in their favor, and finally, their whereabouts were unknown.
Warwick was, I believe, the candidate that divided the Yorkists the least, which
was why Lincoln supported him. Unfortunately, there were enough Yorkists like
Sir William Stanley, to continue the divisions and make a restoration of the
House of York less than a sure thing.
Nico concluded:
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but
Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred him out of the way to
focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts became known, he could have
emerged as a rival and split supporters of the rebellion in two camps.
Doug here:
I don't know if was so much a matter of getting RoS/Warbeck out of the
way, as it was simply that it didn't matter that much where he was.
The position of the Yorkists was, and continued to be until after Stoke Field,
that TR recognized that Edward and EW were never legally married, so their
children were illegitimate. It was only after Warwick's failed rebellion that
the validity of TR was questioned by Yorkists.
Much of the problem comes down to what is, I think, a misapprehension about
just what TR was. It was by no means legislation such as that which allowed the
Beauforts to inherit; it was simply a declaration, perhaps proclamation would be
a better term, recognized that, because of the evidence that had been provided
to Parliament showed that Edward and Elizabeth Woodville had never been legally
married, their children were illegitimate. TR was simply the official
recognition of the situation, not the creator
of it. Had TR been a piece of regular, law-making legislation, there would have
been no need to drag in Eleanor Butler.
I think...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Hi
Doug,
If the Lambert Simnel' who was crowned in Dublin was not the real Warwick,
then surely the coronation would wait until they had managed to get actual
custody of the real one. I don't entirely rule out the
possibility that Clarence's changeling plot succeeded, but I lean towards the
idea that Lincoln assisted in Warwick's liberation from the Tower. It fits in
with how the road to Stoke Field gained momentum once Lincoln was introduced to
Warwick. As you say, the rebels didn't really need a figurehead,' but HT
certainly needed to be known to be in control of Warwick, so if Warwick had
escaped the Tower he would need to replace him. Perhaps this is the source of
the stories about Warwick being simple minded; a changeling with low
intelligence would be much more manageable. It is a horrendous thought, but if a
substitute was used he probably died in Warwick's place too, while the real
Warwick was employed as HT's servant. Stranger than fiction, but I don't think
an impossible solution for a desperate King.
Doug here:
I would imagine that claim of low intelligence might be more a simple
lack of knowledge; presuming the person HT paraded around London was the real
Lambert Simnel, of course. I don't think Simnel was the one executed, if only
because I can't see HT risking the possibility of young Warwick, even as a
servant, leaving heirs with a better claim to the throne than Henry.
Nico continued
According to Matthew Lewis, there was only one record of the Dublin King
Edward's regnal number, which was Edward VI, and he speculates that it could
have been a mistake. Edward V would have been crowned as Edward V, Edward VI
would have to be another person entirely, but that fits in with the accounts
that this rebellion was in favour of Warwick. Therefore,
putting together what we know about the coronation and Lincoln's behaviour, the
most likely sequence of events is that Lincoln freed Warwick from the Tower and
escaped with him to Burgundy then had him crowned as Edward VI in Ireland. HT
had to find his own impostor to discredit the rebels.
Doug here:
Yes, it's that VI that makes any attempt to claim the Dublin King was
Edward IV's son, seem a bit far-fetched and basically just an attempt to find
Edward V. Then there's the problem of what happened to Warwick if the person at
the head of the rebellion really was Edward V. And the further problem of why HT
felt he needed a substitute for Warwick. HT claiming the rebellion was in order
to place Warwick on the throne sort of makes sense when one remembers that,
officially anyway, young Edward his brother were dead. But Henry would still
have a spare, so to speak. What happened to him?
Maybe I'm a coward, but I prefer the simplest explanation: The Dublin
King was indeed Warwick who had escaped from the Tower. Simnel was
Tudor's substitute, used to try and discredit the rebellion,
and later rewarded with first a position in the Royal kitchens and later, I
believe, as the Royal Falconer.
I really can't find much about Warwick's escape, but personally I doubt he
went to Ireland via Burgundy. Presuming Lincoln was directly involved in
Warwick's escape, it would make more sense for them to split up, with Warwick
being taken to Ireland. Lincoln would have gone to Burgundy to raise money and
troops, using his position as the senior adult Yorkist to validate his
requests.
Nico continued
When you consider all the subgroups divided along whether people believed
that Titulus Regius was a fake or not, Warwick still emerges as the best
candidate, who unites most people. His only problem was his attainder which
could be reversed by statute. Other than that he had the advantage of undisputed
legitimate descent in the male line with support for the de la Poles only
emerging later. The problem with supporting Edward IV's sons was the question of
legitimacy. Even after Bosworth, there was no popular movement to question
Titulus Regius; people seemed to accept it, even nobles who may have sought to
benefit from denouncing it. HT restored EofY's legitimacy, but for his benefit,
and not under pressure from any particular faction. (While the Yorkists may have
pushed for the marriage; there doesn't seem to be any record
of them questioning Titulus Regius itself.)
Doug here:
Strictly speaking, Lincoln had the best claim that was unencumbered by any
allegations of illegitimacy or an attainder. The problem for the Yorkists, as I
see it, was that Lincoln was too closely associated with Richard, the contents
of TR were too widely known and believed to allow young Edward or his brother to
head a rebellion in their favor, and finally, their whereabouts were unknown.
Warwick was, I believe, the candidate that divided the Yorkists the least, which
was why Lincoln supported him. Unfortunately, there were enough Yorkists like
Sir William Stanley, to continue the divisions and make a restoration of the
House of York less than a sure thing.
Nico concluded:
The removal of PW to Portugal could be coincidental, but
Margaret of Burgandy may have preferred him out of the way to
focus the rebellion on Warwick. If RoY's whereabouts became known, he could have
emerged as a rival and split supporters of the rebellion in two camps.
Doug here:
I don't know if was so much a matter of getting RoS/Warbeck out of the
way, as it was simply that it didn't matter that much where he was.
The position of the Yorkists was, and continued to be until after Stoke Field,
that TR recognized that Edward and EW were never legally married, so their
children were illegitimate. It was only after Warwick's failed rebellion that
the validity of TR was questioned by Yorkists.
Much of the problem comes down to what is, I think, a misapprehension about
just what TR was. It was by no means legislation such as that which allowed the
Beauforts to inherit; it was simply a declaration, perhaps proclamation would be
a better term, recognized that, because of the evidence that had been provided
to Parliament showed that Edward and Elizabeth Woodville had never been legally
married, their children were illegitimate. TR was simply the official
recognition of the situation, not the creator
of it. Had TR been a piece of regular, law-making legislation, there would have
been no need to drag in Eleanor Butler.
I think...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-15 21:29:12
Doug, Nico, just a bit of information I just remembered. I think it was in Thomas Penn's programme about his book "The Winter King" and if I remember rightly he showed a family tree that belonged to Lincoln and the de la Poles. There was a section on the heirs to the throne and after Richard it showed Warwick. The Princes were on there but they were just shown as children of E4 and EW. Penn took that to mean that Lincoln believed that the Princes were illegitimate. So what if the Dublin King was Warwick either in Ireland because he was sent by his father or Richard or even rescued by Lincoln and all this about Edward V has muddied the water.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 10:31:59
Doug (et al) I haven't been writing in the last day or two because I've been looking at Ireland and its relationships with ROY and the Nevilles. So I'll start with that.Firstly the Nevilles. We talk about how ambitious the Stanleys were but the Nevilles had succeeded in bagging two of the richest heiresses going - Alice Montagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right and Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick in her own right (a fact willfully ignored by Edward). Together they brought the family vast swathes of land in Wales, the Midlands and South West. No wonder Warwick was so powerful. Alice his mother was, as you know, attainted for plotting against Henry VI with Thomas Vaughan, William Oldhall and Philip Malpas and died in Ireland in 1462. It so happens that William Oldhall's brother, Edmund, was Bishop of Meath (dying in 1459). Hold on to that.Ireland. There's a good article here:https://www.jstor.org/stable/25513645?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentsYou can download it for free as one of the 6 samples you're allowed.You're absolutely right about ROY's relationship with Eleanor's father; they were literally at daggers drawn. ROY played quite a clever game in Ireland, winning over those who wanted to keep some identity and independence (very much like Wales Mary) but who were actually descended from Norman aristocracy (just like Wales). Talbot headed the English party on behalf of the King who wanted to bring Ireland to heel. ROY's 'games' in Ireland were very much like those played by Edward later with the aristocracy and gentry. Like Edward, and unlike Richard, he seems to have had no conscience. Cis was with him in Ireland and apparently greatly admired. As you'll see from the article ROY was virtually King of Ireland and his popularity filtered down to George, who was born there during his 'reign'. So here begins the logic of 'Edward VI' not being a son of Edward IV but of their own 'king' and former Lord Lieutenant, George. Just as the people of York to this day regard Richard as 'their' king.I'm still working on this but there are other things which have come to light as well. Edmund Oldhall was succeeded as Bishop of Meath by William Shirwood (or Sherwood). He's hard to trace but he came from York and had formally been at Llandaff (!). You may recall when we were talking about cardinals that I found Richard had written to the Pope on behalf of John Shirwood, Bishop of Durham, who was papal emissary? John Shirwood is easier to trace. He came from a family of York merchants and sheriffs (just like Stillington) and his patron was Warwick's brother, Archbishop George. His family is covered in a number of York wills though I have yet to find our William, even though William is a dominant family name. Still looking.If you wiki William Shirwood you'll find that it was he it was reckoned who informed against the Earl of Desmond, resulting in his execution and murder of two of his sons - the EW scandal. He is also accused of bringing down John Tiptoft, Desmond's successor. Desmond was of course acting as deputy to George. I haven't had time yet to look at more of this and I've no suggestions for motives.Stillington was at his first posting in East Harptree for less than a year and he 'swapped' with another priest to go to Mathry which is near Llandaff - I recall Mary said they were linked. East Harptree is near to Wraxall which was owned by the Montagus (and then the Nevilles). William Oldhall's heiress married Sir Walter Gorges, whose son married, as his second wife, Stillington's granddaughter. The first wife was the daughter of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk, so these were no mean folk. My theory is that whilst at East Harptree in the early 1440s Stillington had an affair and I doubt it was with the blacksmith's daughter, hence his sharp exit. Once his daughter had the status of a bishop's daughter she was a good prize.Finally, going back to the Talbots I wonder if Edward would ever have considered marrying the daughter of one of his father's arch-enemies. Was her seduction a sort of 'triumph' for him? And would Eleanor ever have considered it either? In fact you'd have to be very brave to make this up, wouldn't you? So it probably was true.As ever, more and more questions. I hadn't really looked in detail at the Simnel case before. I think your point about the coronation is good but does is it really only transformative when the anointing oil is used. For example HT was supposedly crowned on the battlefield but only a coronation and anointing in the right place with the right oil is when the monarch takes on a different self? H
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019, 15:57:13 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Do
you know how long Stillington was in East Harptree? If his daughter, obviously
illegitimate, was later married into the Hampton, he must have made a fairly
good impression on them while in East Harptree! Or would she have been
officially introduced as being his niece (wink, wink)? I'm also
presuming Stillington's transfer to Llandaff was considered a promotion because
of the cathedral there?
When
it comes to the Stillington's relations with the York's and Nevilles, couldn't
that put down to the fact that Duchess Cecily was a Neville by birth? Since the
Duke of York was linked to the Nevilles by his marriage to Cecily, then it
follows that for Stillington to be also be linked to the Nevilles would have
been more or less expected; at least as long as the heads of the Neville and
York families were in agreement, anyway.
While
surfing the internet to refresh my memory about the Talbots, I came across two
items possibly of interest. The first, presuming the accuracy of
Wikipedia, is that it rather looks as if the Talbots and Yorks were
trying to out-maneuver each other when it came to being pre-eminent in Ireland.
Apparently both families had extensive familial, political and likely financial
interests in Ireland. So, what with the Talbots bing supporters of the
Lancastrian Henry VI and York finally deciding to take Henry's place on the
throne, their being completely at odds seems to be an accurate
summation.
I
hadn't realized George was so well-regarded in Ireland but, and presuming he
knew of it, that might be the explanation for his proposed/supposed plans for
his son, mightn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Stillington's first placement was to East Harptree in Somerset from which
he was fairly swiftly swapped to new Llandaff. Now, by looking at IPMs I've
discovered that East Harptree was 'owned' by the Hamptons, into whose family his
daughter married and the Berkeleys. On the other hand Wraxall, just down the
road, which became the home of his other 'friends' the Craddock-Newtons, was
indeed owned by Alice Neville's father at the time of his death (his IPM) and
therefore the Nevilles. Montagu owned vast swathes of the West Country as his
title as Earl of Salisbury suggests.
I don't think being a protegee of the Nevilles precludes Stillington being
of Richard's or ROY's affinity, quite the contrary.. And it's likely that that
loyalty would filter down to Alice's descendants, including Isabel and her
George. Today I've been reading an Irish article from their Society of
Antiquities on the relationship of ROY with Ireland.. It's very illuminating,
firstly because it puts him at complete odds with the Talbot family and secondly
because of the esteem in which George was held in Ireland as Lord of Cork
because he'd been born there at the time when ROY was held in great favour. I
reckon Ireland needs a lot more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019, 15:57:13 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Do
you know how long Stillington was in East Harptree? If his daughter, obviously
illegitimate, was later married into the Hampton, he must have made a fairly
good impression on them while in East Harptree! Or would she have been
officially introduced as being his niece (wink, wink)? I'm also
presuming Stillington's transfer to Llandaff was considered a promotion because
of the cathedral there?
When
it comes to the Stillington's relations with the York's and Nevilles, couldn't
that put down to the fact that Duchess Cecily was a Neville by birth? Since the
Duke of York was linked to the Nevilles by his marriage to Cecily, then it
follows that for Stillington to be also be linked to the Nevilles would have
been more or less expected; at least as long as the heads of the Neville and
York families were in agreement, anyway.
While
surfing the internet to refresh my memory about the Talbots, I came across two
items possibly of interest. The first, presuming the accuracy of
Wikipedia, is that it rather looks as if the Talbots and Yorks were
trying to out-maneuver each other when it came to being pre-eminent in Ireland.
Apparently both families had extensive familial, political and likely financial
interests in Ireland. So, what with the Talbots bing supporters of the
Lancastrian Henry VI and York finally deciding to take Henry's place on the
throne, their being completely at odds seems to be an accurate
summation.
I
hadn't realized George was so well-regarded in Ireland but, and presuming he
knew of it, that might be the explanation for his proposed/supposed plans for
his son, mightn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Stillington's first placement was to East Harptree in Somerset from which
he was fairly swiftly swapped to new Llandaff. Now, by looking at IPMs I've
discovered that East Harptree was 'owned' by the Hamptons, into whose family his
daughter married and the Berkeleys. On the other hand Wraxall, just down the
road, which became the home of his other 'friends' the Craddock-Newtons, was
indeed owned by Alice Neville's father at the time of his death (his IPM) and
therefore the Nevilles. Montagu owned vast swathes of the West Country as his
title as Earl of Salisbury suggests.
I don't think being a protegee of the Nevilles precludes Stillington being
of Richard's or ROY's affinity, quite the contrary.. And it's likely that that
loyalty would filter down to Alice's descendants, including Isabel and her
George. Today I've been reading an Irish article from their Society of
Antiquities on the relationship of ROY with Ireland.. It's very illuminating,
firstly because it puts him at complete odds with the Talbot family and secondly
because of the esteem in which George was held in Ireland as Lord of Cork
because he'd been born there at the time when ROY was held in great favour. I
reckon Ireland needs a lot more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 10:33:30
That's absolutely right Mary. It was a good programme, well worth re-visiting. H
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019, 21:29:19 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Doug, Nico, just a bit of information I just remembered. I think it was in Thomas Penn's programme about his book "The Winter King" and if I remember rightly he showed a family tree that belonged to Lincoln and the de la Poles. There was a section on the heirs to the throne and after Richard it showed Warwick. The Princes were on there but they were just shown as children of E4 and EW. Penn took that to mean that Lincoln believed that the Princes were illegitimate. So what if the Dublin King was Warwick either in Ireland because he was sent by his father or Richard or even rescued by Lincoln and all this about Edward V has muddied the water.Mary
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019, 21:29:19 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Doug, Nico, just a bit of information I just remembered. I think it was in Thomas Penn's programme about his book "The Winter King" and if I remember rightly he showed a family tree that belonged to Lincoln and the de la Poles. There was a section on the heirs to the throne and after Richard it showed Warwick. The Princes were on there but they were just shown as children of E4 and EW. Penn took that to mean that Lincoln believed that the Princes were illegitimate. So what if the Dublin King was Warwick either in Ireland because he was sent by his father or Richard or even rescued by Lincoln and all this about Edward V has muddied the water.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 15:49:01
Hilary just to say Mathry is in Pembrokeshire. I will have to look at my notes but I think that it had a connection to Tregwynt which is where Matthew Craddock's grandfather, William Horton was from before he married Joan de Canteloupe of Candelston Castle in Glamorgan, will check. Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 15:57:46
Thanks Mary..H
On Thursday, 16 May 2019, 15:49:07 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary just to say Mathry is in Pembrokeshire. I will have to look at my notes but I think that it had a connection to Tregwynt which is where Matthew Craddock's grandfather, William Horton was from before he married Joan de Canteloupe of Candelston Castle in Glamorgan, will check. Mary
On Thursday, 16 May 2019, 15:49:07 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary just to say Mathry is in Pembrokeshire. I will have to look at my notes but I think that it had a connection to Tregwynt which is where Matthew Craddock's grandfather, William Horton was from before he married Joan de Canteloupe of Candelston Castle in Glamorgan, will check. Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 16:43:00
Nico wrote:
That is another reason why I think that HT had already
set his heart on claiming the throne for himself without the help of MB or EW.
Jasper may have encouraged him, but my feeling is that is the ambition came from
HT himself who was probably boiling over with frustration from the limbo of all
those years of exile. I would have thought that if EW had anything to do with
the marriage arrangements, she would have pushed for the restoration of her
sons' right to the throne. Either she had no intention of EofY marrying HT or
she had hoped that MB's affinity would assist Edward V's restoration. HT on the
other hand was in France and probably relying on unsubstantiated rumours that
the Princes were dead, and had made his decision to make a bid for the throne
and thought the EofY would appease the Yorkists. As you say, he eventually
realized that there was no certainty that one or both of them were no longer
alive and got cold feet.
It
would be interesting if HT had attempted to get around the situation by
resisting the Yorkists who pressurized him to continue with the marriage. Would
he have lost their support? Maybe not if he had offered sufficient rewards. The
ironic thing is that keeping Titulus Regius and a foreign alliance marriage
would have given him some security as King, but he would need the personality to
maintain it and endear himself to the country to maintain
it.
Doug here:
FWIW, I have the following, very rough, timeline in mind
for Tudor's decision to aim for the throne:
1.
MB and EW come to some sort of agreement that aligns MB's affinity and whatever
support HT can muster to assist in restoring Edward V to the throne. This was
the basis for Buckingham's rebellion, aka the October
Rebellion.
2.
In December 1483, Tudor pledges to marry EoY, but still hadn't decided to try
for the throne.
3.
During the spring of 1484, EW makes her peace with Richard and she and her
daughters come out of sanctuary. The boys are moved from the Tower. This is
where it gets a little complicated, because I don't follow the accepted view; at
least, not completely. I tend to think that those rumors about the boys' deaths,
while they may have originated during the October Rebellion, had died away
because enough people had seen them still in the Tower after
the rebellion had failed. However, once the boys were moved sometime that
spring, the rumors may very well have resurfaced and, or so I tend to believe,
it was after the rumors may have arisen a second time, that
Tudor decided to make a try for the throne. He still planned on marrying EoY, or
one of her sisters, but that was what he was offering any discontented Yorkists
in return for their support.
From his actions immediately after Bosworth, I'm left
with impression that Tudor would have preferred to not carry
out his pledge to marry EoY but, because he so desperately needed support from
at least some of the Yorkists, he finally agreed to carry out his pledge. Tudor
based his claim to the throne on conquest, but that only applies if the
conqueror can hold what he's taken. I really think it came as quite a shock to
Tudor to realize that many of those who were willing to support him should
he marry EoY, were just as willing to not support him if
he didn't. And without their support, staying on the throne would be very, very
iffy. FWIW, I rather wonder if what happened to Sir William Stanley wasn't
indicative of what Tudor would have liked to do to those Parliamentary
Yorkists of 1485?
Nico concluded:
I have always thought that it was a possible
that the Eleanor marriage resulted from Edward's and possibly Eleanor's lack of
understanding that the way they made their vows constituted a valid marriage and
saw it more as a betrothal. When it didn't work out, one or both of them
genuinely believed that they were still single. From J-AH's book, it seems more
likely that Eleanor may have considered it a genuine marriage because he
mentioned that the way she arranged her estate gave suggested that she
considered herself married, but Edward was King and she couldn't do anything
about it. I can't remember exactly what he said though. I can
imagine that 19 year old Edward was impulsive and not especially concerned about
the details of canon law at the time, but later on may have realized that what
he had previously seen as a brief relationship with Eleanor may have been more
than that. If it troubled his conscience, he may have sought advice. I would
think that the solution would be, if Eleanor was still alive, an annulment (lack
of understanding that you are entering a marriage should make it voidable), or
if she had died, to quietly remarry EW and seek to legitimate any children with
a dispensation. However, ehe could have thought that the solution would
undermine him and make his position less secure, so he decided to let sleeping
dogs lie and hope the truth never came out.
Doug here:
It's only me, but I tend to
think that Edward only viewed his exchanging vows with Eleanor as a form of
betrothal that could easily be superseded by a real marriage. Eleanor, OTOH,
as you and J-AH note, likely viewed it as what it was a valid marriage. Part
of the reason is the ceremony he went through with EW. Now, really, would
anyone, even an over-sexed 19-year old, marry someone solely to
get them into bed? OTOH, if Edward didn't believe he was in love with EW,
there was absolutely nothing to prevent him from saddling his horse and riding
off. IOW, Edward's actions in regard to Eleanor, align perfectly with the idea
that he thought what he was doing wasn't a marriage, but just a
ploy to get a reluctant female into his bed. I doubt he even thought about
Eleanor when he went through that marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville; as
far as Edward was concerned, while she may not have been the only woman he'd
ever bedded (using whatever means to do so), Elizabeth was the only woman he'd
ever married.
If Edward
ever had any doubts about the legality of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, I
imagine he'd be very careful about making inquiries. We know about what was
required in order that the Beauforts could inherit, Letters Patent from the king
following a dispensation from the Pope. Edward could easily discover that
without needing to explain why by simply asking just why it was that the
Beauforts weren't considered heirs to the throne. It would make sense for Edward
to understand why any attempt to put Tudor forward as the heir of the House of
Lancaster wasn't valid in law. And, again, if Edward then
realized that his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville wasn't valid, his options
would have been extremely limited. While he might be able to get a dispensation
from the Pope without informing the world about doing so, how was he to manage
issuing those Letters Patent that were required in order for his children to
inherit without making them public? It would have been better to only have to
manage covering up one problem, his marriage to Eleanor, than three,
his marriage to Eleanor, the dispensation and the Letters Patent. It would have
been, as you said, best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
That is another reason why I think that HT had already
set his heart on claiming the throne for himself without the help of MB or EW.
Jasper may have encouraged him, but my feeling is that is the ambition came from
HT himself who was probably boiling over with frustration from the limbo of all
those years of exile. I would have thought that if EW had anything to do with
the marriage arrangements, she would have pushed for the restoration of her
sons' right to the throne. Either she had no intention of EofY marrying HT or
she had hoped that MB's affinity would assist Edward V's restoration. HT on the
other hand was in France and probably relying on unsubstantiated rumours that
the Princes were dead, and had made his decision to make a bid for the throne
and thought the EofY would appease the Yorkists. As you say, he eventually
realized that there was no certainty that one or both of them were no longer
alive and got cold feet.
It
would be interesting if HT had attempted to get around the situation by
resisting the Yorkists who pressurized him to continue with the marriage. Would
he have lost their support? Maybe not if he had offered sufficient rewards. The
ironic thing is that keeping Titulus Regius and a foreign alliance marriage
would have given him some security as King, but he would need the personality to
maintain it and endear himself to the country to maintain
it.
Doug here:
FWIW, I have the following, very rough, timeline in mind
for Tudor's decision to aim for the throne:
1.
MB and EW come to some sort of agreement that aligns MB's affinity and whatever
support HT can muster to assist in restoring Edward V to the throne. This was
the basis for Buckingham's rebellion, aka the October
Rebellion.
2.
In December 1483, Tudor pledges to marry EoY, but still hadn't decided to try
for the throne.
3.
During the spring of 1484, EW makes her peace with Richard and she and her
daughters come out of sanctuary. The boys are moved from the Tower. This is
where it gets a little complicated, because I don't follow the accepted view; at
least, not completely. I tend to think that those rumors about the boys' deaths,
while they may have originated during the October Rebellion, had died away
because enough people had seen them still in the Tower after
the rebellion had failed. However, once the boys were moved sometime that
spring, the rumors may very well have resurfaced and, or so I tend to believe,
it was after the rumors may have arisen a second time, that
Tudor decided to make a try for the throne. He still planned on marrying EoY, or
one of her sisters, but that was what he was offering any discontented Yorkists
in return for their support.
From his actions immediately after Bosworth, I'm left
with impression that Tudor would have preferred to not carry
out his pledge to marry EoY but, because he so desperately needed support from
at least some of the Yorkists, he finally agreed to carry out his pledge. Tudor
based his claim to the throne on conquest, but that only applies if the
conqueror can hold what he's taken. I really think it came as quite a shock to
Tudor to realize that many of those who were willing to support him should
he marry EoY, were just as willing to not support him if
he didn't. And without their support, staying on the throne would be very, very
iffy. FWIW, I rather wonder if what happened to Sir William Stanley wasn't
indicative of what Tudor would have liked to do to those Parliamentary
Yorkists of 1485?
Nico concluded:
I have always thought that it was a possible
that the Eleanor marriage resulted from Edward's and possibly Eleanor's lack of
understanding that the way they made their vows constituted a valid marriage and
saw it more as a betrothal. When it didn't work out, one or both of them
genuinely believed that they were still single. From J-AH's book, it seems more
likely that Eleanor may have considered it a genuine marriage because he
mentioned that the way she arranged her estate gave suggested that she
considered herself married, but Edward was King and she couldn't do anything
about it. I can't remember exactly what he said though. I can
imagine that 19 year old Edward was impulsive and not especially concerned about
the details of canon law at the time, but later on may have realized that what
he had previously seen as a brief relationship with Eleanor may have been more
than that. If it troubled his conscience, he may have sought advice. I would
think that the solution would be, if Eleanor was still alive, an annulment (lack
of understanding that you are entering a marriage should make it voidable), or
if she had died, to quietly remarry EW and seek to legitimate any children with
a dispensation. However, ehe could have thought that the solution would
undermine him and make his position less secure, so he decided to let sleeping
dogs lie and hope the truth never came out.
Doug here:
It's only me, but I tend to
think that Edward only viewed his exchanging vows with Eleanor as a form of
betrothal that could easily be superseded by a real marriage. Eleanor, OTOH,
as you and J-AH note, likely viewed it as what it was a valid marriage. Part
of the reason is the ceremony he went through with EW. Now, really, would
anyone, even an over-sexed 19-year old, marry someone solely to
get them into bed? OTOH, if Edward didn't believe he was in love with EW,
there was absolutely nothing to prevent him from saddling his horse and riding
off. IOW, Edward's actions in regard to Eleanor, align perfectly with the idea
that he thought what he was doing wasn't a marriage, but just a
ploy to get a reluctant female into his bed. I doubt he even thought about
Eleanor when he went through that marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville; as
far as Edward was concerned, while she may not have been the only woman he'd
ever bedded (using whatever means to do so), Elizabeth was the only woman he'd
ever married.
If Edward
ever had any doubts about the legality of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, I
imagine he'd be very careful about making inquiries. We know about what was
required in order that the Beauforts could inherit, Letters Patent from the king
following a dispensation from the Pope. Edward could easily discover that
without needing to explain why by simply asking just why it was that the
Beauforts weren't considered heirs to the throne. It would make sense for Edward
to understand why any attempt to put Tudor forward as the heir of the House of
Lancaster wasn't valid in law. And, again, if Edward then
realized that his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville wasn't valid, his options
would have been extremely limited. While he might be able to get a dispensation
from the Pope without informing the world about doing so, how was he to manage
issuing those Letters Patent that were required in order for his children to
inherit without making them public? It would have been better to only have to
manage covering up one problem, his marriage to Eleanor, than three,
his marriage to Eleanor, the dispensation and the Letters Patent. It would have
been, as you said, best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 17:23:01
Mary,
That
family tree displays, I think, the problem faced by the Yorkists. Did Tudor's
repeal of TR have a legal effect on the position of young Edward and his
brother? The de la Poles, obviously, believed (as do I) that TR didn't make
Edward IV's children illegitimate, it simply recognized that they were. Thus,
repealing TR had no effect on the status of Edward's children and they remained
the products of an unsanctioned union. Unfortunately, that wasn't the position
of all Yorkists, the best example being Sir William
Stanley.
OTOH,
there was Warwick. Even though barred by his father's Attainder, that could
easily be reversed once he was on the throne. I can't swear to
it, but I'd be surprised if Edward IV hadn't also been the subject of an
Attainder during the Re-Adeption. If he was, it would have been easily reversed
after he regained the throne. The same would apply to Warwick; they just had to
get him onto the throne first, though.
It
does rather appear to me as if Lincoln supported Warwick because he believed
George's son divided the Yorkists the least as well as standing the best chance
of hiving off some of Tudor's Yorkist supporters. Didn't work.
It
sort of looks as if trying to make Edward VI be Edward V as just an attempt to
clean things up and account for not knowing what happened to young Edward
after the spring of 1484.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
Nico, just a bit of information I just remembered. I think it was in Thomas
Penn's programme about his book "The Winter King" and if I remember rightly he
showed a family tree that belonged to Lincoln and the de la Poles. There was a
section on the heirs to the throne and after Richard it showed Warwick. The
Princes were on there but they were just shown as children of E4 and EW. Penn
took that to mean that Lincoln believed that the Princes were
illegitimate. So what if the Dublin King was Warwick either in Ireland because
he was sent by his father or Richard or even rescued by Lincoln and all this
about Edward V has muddied the water.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
That
family tree displays, I think, the problem faced by the Yorkists. Did Tudor's
repeal of TR have a legal effect on the position of young Edward and his
brother? The de la Poles, obviously, believed (as do I) that TR didn't make
Edward IV's children illegitimate, it simply recognized that they were. Thus,
repealing TR had no effect on the status of Edward's children and they remained
the products of an unsanctioned union. Unfortunately, that wasn't the position
of all Yorkists, the best example being Sir William
Stanley.
OTOH,
there was Warwick. Even though barred by his father's Attainder, that could
easily be reversed once he was on the throne. I can't swear to
it, but I'd be surprised if Edward IV hadn't also been the subject of an
Attainder during the Re-Adeption. If he was, it would have been easily reversed
after he regained the throne. The same would apply to Warwick; they just had to
get him onto the throne first, though.
It
does rather appear to me as if Lincoln supported Warwick because he believed
George's son divided the Yorkists the least as well as standing the best chance
of hiving off some of Tudor's Yorkist supporters. Didn't work.
It
sort of looks as if trying to make Edward VI be Edward V as just an attempt to
clean things up and account for not knowing what happened to young Edward
after the spring of 1484.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Doug,
Nico, just a bit of information I just remembered. I think it was in Thomas
Penn's programme about his book "The Winter King" and if I remember rightly he
showed a family tree that belonged to Lincoln and the de la Poles. There was a
section on the heirs to the throne and after Richard it showed Warwick. The
Princes were on there but they were just shown as children of E4 and EW. Penn
took that to mean that Lincoln believed that the Princes were
illegitimate. So what if the Dublin King was Warwick either in Ireland because
he was sent by his father or Richard or even rescued by Lincoln and all this
about Edward V has muddied the water.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 17:31:01
Tregwynt is in the Parish of Granston and the living is annexed to that of Mathry where Stillington was at one time. Sir John Newton of East Harptree was the son of Sir Richard Craddock Newton who was appointed arbiter in 1441 in the dispute over the inheritance of Thomas Berkeley. If I remember rightly wasn't Elizabeth Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury's second wife and Eleanor Talbot's mother, involved in this? Some of the Craddock family changed their name to Newton after Newton Noyes in Llanstadwel Pembs. I think it is where they were from. Initially I thought John Newton and Matthew Craddock could have been brothers because Matthews father was a Richard Craddock but now I am pretty sure they were not. They could have been related though. William Horton was from Tregwynt and it is possible that he knew Stillington. He married Joan de Cantelope of Candelston and their daughter Jennet Horton married Richard Craddock ap Veichras who may or may not have known or was related to the Newton's of East Harptree. Incidentally, just down the coast from Candelston there is a part of Porthcawl which is the village of Newton. It is a very old village and apparently had connections to the Knights Hospitallers. Could the Craddock Newtons have owned it at one time? Also this part of Glamorgan would be in the diocese of Llandaff.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-16 17:39:55
Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, While in 1461 Edward was head of his family and they probably couldn't do much about him being married to his father's enemy's daughter, on the other hand I doubt that Eleanor would have wanted to confess to having married the son of her father's enemy. So could she have not wanted anything said until she could talk her family round? I can't imagine Cis being very pleased either.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-17 09:23:47
That's exactly right Mary! East Harptree itself belonged to the Hamptons via the Berkeleys. The Hamptons are descended from the Gournays/Gurneys, who served the Berkeleys and were involved in the murder of Edward II. And it's all tied in with the tortuous inheritance of the Byttons, which is where the Barres and Catesbys come in.Elizabeth Berkeley was EB's sister-in-law, wife of her half-brother John who died at Northampton and yes she was involved in a row over the Berkeley inheritance. EB's mother, you'll recall, was Margaret Beauchamp, the half-sister of Anne Beauchamp Countess of Warwick. Incidentally, EB's father's first wife was Maud Neville, 6 Baroness Furnival, second cousin to Ralph Neville Earl of Salisbury. She was long dead by the time of the troubles in Ireland. H
On Thursday, 16 May 2019, 17:36:46 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Tregwynt is in the Parish of Granston and the living is annexed to that of Mathry where Stillington was at one time. Sir John Newton of East Harptree was the son of Sir Richard Craddock Newton who was appointed arbiter in 1441 in the dispute over the inheritance of Thomas Berkeley. If I remember rightly wasn't Elizabeth Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury's second wife and Eleanor Talbot's mother, involved in this? Some of the Craddock family changed their name to Newton after Newton Noyes in Llanstadwel Pembs. I think it is where they were from. Initially I thought John Newton and Matthew Craddock could have been brothers because Matthews father was a Richard Craddock but now I am pretty sure they were not. They could have been related though. William Horton was from Tregwynt and it is possible that he knew Stillington. He married Joan de Cantelope of Candelston and their daughter Jennet Horton married Richard Craddock ap Veichras who may or may not have known or was related to the Newton's of East Harptree. Incidentally, just down the coast from Candelston there is a part of Porthcawl which is the village of Newton. It is a very old village and apparently had connections to the Knights Hospitallers. Could the Craddock Newtons have owned it at one time? Also this part of Glamorgan would be in the diocese of Llandaff.Mary
On Thursday, 16 May 2019, 17:36:46 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Tregwynt is in the Parish of Granston and the living is annexed to that of Mathry where Stillington was at one time. Sir John Newton of East Harptree was the son of Sir Richard Craddock Newton who was appointed arbiter in 1441 in the dispute over the inheritance of Thomas Berkeley. If I remember rightly wasn't Elizabeth Talbot, the Earl of Shrewsbury's second wife and Eleanor Talbot's mother, involved in this? Some of the Craddock family changed their name to Newton after Newton Noyes in Llanstadwel Pembs. I think it is where they were from. Initially I thought John Newton and Matthew Craddock could have been brothers because Matthews father was a Richard Craddock but now I am pretty sure they were not. They could have been related though. William Horton was from Tregwynt and it is possible that he knew Stillington. He married Joan de Cantelope of Candelston and their daughter Jennet Horton married Richard Craddock ap Veichras who may or may not have known or was related to the Newton's of East Harptree. Incidentally, just down the coast from Candelston there is a part of Porthcawl which is the village of Newton. It is a very old village and apparently had connections to the Knights Hospitallers. Could the Craddock Newtons have owned it at one time? Also this part of Glamorgan would be in the diocese of Llandaff.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-17 09:26:17
I would agree with this too, Mary. In fact she might have felt some shame about it all. I do also wonder whether Elizabeth Talbot's silence in 1483 was because she was secretly enjoying this final revenge over Edward, who had not only seduced her sister, but conned her out of the Mowbray lands. H
On Thursday, 16 May 2019, 17:40:18 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, While in 1461 Edward was head of his family and they probably couldn't do much about him being married to his father's enemy's daughter, on the other hand I doubt that Eleanor would have wanted to confess to having married the son of her father's enemy. So could she have not wanted anything said until she could talk her family round? I can't imagine Cis being very pleased either.Mary
On Thursday, 16 May 2019, 17:40:18 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, While in 1461 Edward was head of his family and they probably couldn't do much about him being married to his father's enemy's daughter, on the other hand I doubt that Eleanor would have wanted to confess to having married the son of her father's enemy. So could she have not wanted anything said until she could talk her family round? I can't imagine Cis being very pleased either.Mary
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-17 09:30:00
One other thing that is in the Irish document. You'll recall that when we were discussing the 1483 rebellions I said it was as though someone had kept a list of those with grudges against the Yorkists.Well at some point one William Overey was sent as a messenger from England and ROY duly had him executed. The Overeys came from Southampton, where they were mayors. In 1483 another William Overey was a rebel - what a co-incidence! H
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019, 15:57:13 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Do
you know how long Stillington was in East Harptree? If his daughter, obviously
illegitimate, was later married into the Hampton, he must have made a fairly
good impression on them while in East Harptree! Or would she have been
officially introduced as being his niece (wink, wink)? I'm also
presuming Stillington's transfer to Llandaff was considered a promotion because
of the cathedral there?
When
it comes to the Stillington's relations with the York's and Nevilles, couldn't
that put down to the fact that Duchess Cecily was a Neville by birth? Since the
Duke of York was linked to the Nevilles by his marriage to Cecily, then it
follows that for Stillington to be also be linked to the Nevilles would have
been more or less expected; at least as long as the heads of the Neville and
York families were in agreement, anyway.
While
surfing the internet to refresh my memory about the Talbots, I came across two
items possibly of interest. The first, presuming the accuracy of
Wikipedia, is that it rather looks as if the Talbots and Yorks were
trying to out-maneuver each other when it came to being pre-eminent in Ireland.
Apparently both families had extensive familial, political and likely financial
interests in Ireland. So, what with the Talbots bing supporters of the
Lancastrian Henry VI and York finally deciding to take Henry's place on the
throne, their being completely at odds seems to be an accurate
summation.
I
hadn't realized George was so well-regarded in Ireland but, and presuming he
knew of it, that might be the explanation for his proposed/supposed plans for
his son, mightn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Stillington's first placement was to East Harptree in Somerset from which
he was fairly swiftly swapped to new Llandaff. Now, by looking at IPMs I've
discovered that East Harptree was 'owned' by the Hamptons, into whose family his
daughter married and the Berkeleys. On the other hand Wraxall, just down the
road, which became the home of his other 'friends' the Craddock-Newtons, was
indeed owned by Alice Neville's father at the time of his death (his IPM) and
therefore the Nevilles. Montagu owned vast swathes of the West Country as his
title as Earl of Salisbury suggests.
I don't think being a protegee of the Nevilles precludes Stillington being
of Richard's or ROY's affinity, quite the contrary.. And it's likely that that
loyalty would filter down to Alice's descendants, including Isabel and her
George. Today I've been reading an Irish article from their Society of
Antiquities on the relationship of ROY with Ireland.. It's very illuminating,
firstly because it puts him at complete odds with the Talbot family and secondly
because of the esteem in which George was held in Ireland as Lord of Cork
because he'd been born there at the time when ROY was held in great favour. I
reckon Ireland needs a lot more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
On Wednesday, 15 May 2019, 15:57:13 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary,
Do
you know how long Stillington was in East Harptree? If his daughter, obviously
illegitimate, was later married into the Hampton, he must have made a fairly
good impression on them while in East Harptree! Or would she have been
officially introduced as being his niece (wink, wink)? I'm also
presuming Stillington's transfer to Llandaff was considered a promotion because
of the cathedral there?
When
it comes to the Stillington's relations with the York's and Nevilles, couldn't
that put down to the fact that Duchess Cecily was a Neville by birth? Since the
Duke of York was linked to the Nevilles by his marriage to Cecily, then it
follows that for Stillington to be also be linked to the Nevilles would have
been more or less expected; at least as long as the heads of the Neville and
York families were in agreement, anyway.
While
surfing the internet to refresh my memory about the Talbots, I came across two
items possibly of interest. The first, presuming the accuracy of
Wikipedia, is that it rather looks as if the Talbots and Yorks were
trying to out-maneuver each other when it came to being pre-eminent in Ireland.
Apparently both families had extensive familial, political and likely financial
interests in Ireland. So, what with the Talbots bing supporters of the
Lancastrian Henry VI and York finally deciding to take Henry's place on the
throne, their being completely at odds seems to be an accurate
summation.
I
hadn't realized George was so well-regarded in Ireland but, and presuming he
knew of it, that might be the explanation for his proposed/supposed plans for
his son, mightn't it?
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Hi
Doug, Stillington's first placement was to East Harptree in Somerset from which
he was fairly swiftly swapped to new Llandaff. Now, by looking at IPMs I've
discovered that East Harptree was 'owned' by the Hamptons, into whose family his
daughter married and the Berkeleys. On the other hand Wraxall, just down the
road, which became the home of his other 'friends' the Craddock-Newtons, was
indeed owned by Alice Neville's father at the time of his death (his IPM) and
therefore the Nevilles. Montagu owned vast swathes of the West Country as his
title as Earl of Salisbury suggests.
I don't think being a protegee of the Nevilles precludes Stillington being
of Richard's or ROY's affinity, quite the contrary.. And it's likely that that
loyalty would filter down to Alice's descendants, including Isabel and her
George. Today I've been reading an Irish article from their Society of
Antiquities on the relationship of ROY with Ireland.. It's very illuminating,
firstly because it puts him at complete odds with the Talbot family and secondly
because of the esteem in which George was held in Ireland as Lord of Cork
because he'd been born there at the time when ROY was held in great favour. I
reckon Ireland needs a lot more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-17 16:34:24
Hilary,
So
it rather looks as if RoY was trying to build a party supporting himself, while
Talbot was doing the same only for Henry VI?
It
also sort of looks as if what happened to the Desmonds may not have been EW's
work, but rather that of Edward himself determined to prevent George from
repeating their father's tricks, doesn't it?
Your
explanation of Stillington's quick departure from Harptree sounds valid enough.
It would explain why he was there for such a short time, as well as his later
links to the Hamptons.
FWIW,
I don't think Edward ever believed he was marrying Eleanor, so it wouldn't
have mattered what her family's relationship with his father had been. I
certainly could be mistaken, though.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
(et al) I haven't been writing in the last day or two because I've been looking
at Ireland and its relationships with ROY and the Nevilles. So I'll start
with that.
Firstly the Nevilles. We talk about how ambitious the Stanleys were but the
Nevilles had succeeded in bagging two of the richest heiresses going - Alice
Montagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right and Anne Beauchamp, Countess of
Warwick in her own right (a fact willfully ignored by Edward). Together they
brought the family vast swathes of land in Wales, the Midlands and South West.
No wonder Warwick was so powerful. Alice his mother was, as you know, attainted
for plotting against Henry VI with Thomas Vaughan, William Oldhall and Philip
Malpas and died in Ireland in 1462. It so happens that William Oldhall's
brother, Edmund, was Bishop of Meath (dying in 1459). Hold on to that.
Ireland. There's a good article here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25513645?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
You can download it for free as one of the 6 samples you're
allowed.
You're absolutely right about ROY's relationship with Eleanor's
father; they were literally at daggers drawn. ROY played quite a clever game in
Ireland, winning over those who wanted to keep some identity and independence
(very much like Wales Mary) but who were actually descended from Norman
aristocracy (just like Wales). Talbot headed the English party on behalf of the
King who wanted to bring Ireland to heel. ROY's 'games' in Ireland were very
much like those played by Edward later with the aristocracy and gentry. Like
Edward, and unlike Richard, he seems to have had no conscience. Cis was with him
in Ireland and apparently greatly admired. As you'll see from the article ROY
was virtually King of Ireland and his popularity filtered down to George, who
was born there during his 'reign'. So here begins the logic of 'Edward VI' not
being a son of Edward IV but of their own 'king' and former Lord Lieutenant,
George. Just as the people of York to this day regard Richard as 'their'
king.
I'm still working on this but there are other things which have come
to light as well. Edmund Oldhall was succeeded as Bishop of Meath by William
Shirwood (or Sherwood). He's hard to trace but he came from York and had
formally been at Llandaff (!). You may recall when we were talking about
cardinals that I found Richard had written to the Pope on behalf of John
Shirwood, Bishop of Durham, who was papal emissary? John Shirwood is easier to
trace. He came from a family of York merchants and sheriffs (just like
Stillington) and his patron was Warwick's brother, Archbishop George. His family
is covered in a number of York wills though I have yet to find our William, even
though William is a dominant family name. Still looking.
If you wiki William Shirwood you'll find that it was he it was
reckoned who informed against the Earl of Desmond, resulting in his execution
and murder of two of his sons - the EW scandal. He is also accused of bringing
down John Tiptoft, Desmond's successor. Desmond was of course acting as deputy
to George. I haven't had time yet to look at more of this and I've no
suggestions for motives.
Stillington was at his first posting in East Harptree for less than a
year and he 'swapped' with another priest to go to Mathry which is near Llandaff
- I recall Mary said they were linked. East Harptree is near to Wraxall which
was owned by the Montagus (and then the Nevilles). William Oldhall's heiress
married Sir Walter Gorges, whose son married, as his second wife, Stillington's
granddaughter. The first wife was the daughter of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk,
so these were no mean folk. My theory is that whilst at East Harptree in the
early 1440s Stillington had an affair and I doubt it was with the blacksmith's
daughter, hence his sharp exit. Once his daughter had the status of a bishop's
daughter she was a good prize.
Finally, going back to the Talbots I wonder if Edward would ever have
considered marrying the daughter of one of his father's arch-enemies. Was her
seduction a sort of 'triumph' for him? And would Eleanor ever have considered it
either? In fact you'd have to be very brave to make this up, wouldn't you? So it
probably was true.
As ever, more and more questions. I hadn't really looked in detail at
the Simnel case before. I think your point about the coronation is good but does
is it really only transformative when the anointing oil is used. For example HT
was supposedly crowned on the battlefield but only a coronation and anointing in
the right place with the right oil is when the monarch takes on a different
self?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
So
it rather looks as if RoY was trying to build a party supporting himself, while
Talbot was doing the same only for Henry VI?
It
also sort of looks as if what happened to the Desmonds may not have been EW's
work, but rather that of Edward himself determined to prevent George from
repeating their father's tricks, doesn't it?
Your
explanation of Stillington's quick departure from Harptree sounds valid enough.
It would explain why he was there for such a short time, as well as his later
links to the Hamptons.
FWIW,
I don't think Edward ever believed he was marrying Eleanor, so it wouldn't
have mattered what her family's relationship with his father had been. I
certainly could be mistaken, though.
Doug
Hilary
wrote:
Doug
(et al) I haven't been writing in the last day or two because I've been looking
at Ireland and its relationships with ROY and the Nevilles. So I'll start
with that.
Firstly the Nevilles. We talk about how ambitious the Stanleys were but the
Nevilles had succeeded in bagging two of the richest heiresses going - Alice
Montagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right and Anne Beauchamp, Countess of
Warwick in her own right (a fact willfully ignored by Edward). Together they
brought the family vast swathes of land in Wales, the Midlands and South West.
No wonder Warwick was so powerful. Alice his mother was, as you know, attainted
for plotting against Henry VI with Thomas Vaughan, William Oldhall and Philip
Malpas and died in Ireland in 1462. It so happens that William Oldhall's
brother, Edmund, was Bishop of Meath (dying in 1459). Hold on to that.
Ireland. There's a good article here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25513645?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
You can download it for free as one of the 6 samples you're
allowed.
You're absolutely right about ROY's relationship with Eleanor's
father; they were literally at daggers drawn. ROY played quite a clever game in
Ireland, winning over those who wanted to keep some identity and independence
(very much like Wales Mary) but who were actually descended from Norman
aristocracy (just like Wales). Talbot headed the English party on behalf of the
King who wanted to bring Ireland to heel. ROY's 'games' in Ireland were very
much like those played by Edward later with the aristocracy and gentry. Like
Edward, and unlike Richard, he seems to have had no conscience. Cis was with him
in Ireland and apparently greatly admired. As you'll see from the article ROY
was virtually King of Ireland and his popularity filtered down to George, who
was born there during his 'reign'. So here begins the logic of 'Edward VI' not
being a son of Edward IV but of their own 'king' and former Lord Lieutenant,
George. Just as the people of York to this day regard Richard as 'their'
king.
I'm still working on this but there are other things which have come
to light as well. Edmund Oldhall was succeeded as Bishop of Meath by William
Shirwood (or Sherwood). He's hard to trace but he came from York and had
formally been at Llandaff (!). You may recall when we were talking about
cardinals that I found Richard had written to the Pope on behalf of John
Shirwood, Bishop of Durham, who was papal emissary? John Shirwood is easier to
trace. He came from a family of York merchants and sheriffs (just like
Stillington) and his patron was Warwick's brother, Archbishop George. His family
is covered in a number of York wills though I have yet to find our William, even
though William is a dominant family name. Still looking.
If you wiki William Shirwood you'll find that it was he it was
reckoned who informed against the Earl of Desmond, resulting in his execution
and murder of two of his sons - the EW scandal. He is also accused of bringing
down John Tiptoft, Desmond's successor. Desmond was of course acting as deputy
to George. I haven't had time yet to look at more of this and I've no
suggestions for motives.
Stillington was at his first posting in East Harptree for less than a
year and he 'swapped' with another priest to go to Mathry which is near Llandaff
- I recall Mary said they were linked. East Harptree is near to Wraxall which
was owned by the Montagus (and then the Nevilles). William Oldhall's heiress
married Sir Walter Gorges, whose son married, as his second wife, Stillington's
granddaughter. The first wife was the daughter of John Howard, Duke of Norfolk,
so these were no mean folk. My theory is that whilst at East Harptree in the
early 1440s Stillington had an affair and I doubt it was with the blacksmith's
daughter, hence his sharp exit. Once his daughter had the status of a bishop's
daughter she was a good prize.
Finally, going back to the Talbots I wonder if Edward would ever have
considered marrying the daughter of one of his father's arch-enemies. Was her
seduction a sort of 'triumph' for him? And would Eleanor ever have considered it
either? In fact you'd have to be very brave to make this up, wouldn't you? So it
probably was true.
As ever, more and more questions. I hadn't really looked in detail at
the Simnel case before. I think your point about the coronation is good but does
is it really only transformative when the anointing oil is used. For example HT
was supposedly crowned on the battlefield but only a coronation and anointing in
the right place with the right oil is when the monarch takes on a different
self?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-18 15:51:21
Mary,
I
have no proof, but I do believe she had already told some member/s of her family
some time after their marriage. So a
feeling of having been used and then
abandoned by someone so anti-Talbot might also have affected her decision to not
go public when Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.
Duchess
Cecily's views on a marriage between Edward and Eleanor would likely have been
the same her views on Edward and Elizabeth's marriage not good.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Just
had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, While in 1461 Edward
was head of his family and they probably couldn't do much about him being
married to his father's enemy's daughter, on the other hand I doubt that Eleanor
would have wanted to confess to having married the son of her father's enemy. So
could she have not wanted anything said until she could talk her family round? I
can't imagine Cis being very pleased either.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
I
have no proof, but I do believe she had already told some member/s of her family
some time after their marriage. So a
feeling of having been used and then
abandoned by someone so anti-Talbot might also have affected her decision to not
go public when Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.
Duchess
Cecily's views on a marriage between Edward and Eleanor would likely have been
the same her views on Edward and Elizabeth's marriage not good.
Doug
Mary
wrote:
Just
had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, While in 1461 Edward
was head of his family and they probably couldn't do much about him being
married to his father's enemy's daughter, on the other hand I doubt that Eleanor
would have wanted to confess to having married the son of her father's enemy. So
could she have not wanted anything said until she could talk her family round? I
can't imagine Cis being very pleased either.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-20 23:41:53
Hi all,Good to be back but can't say long - still overloaded, I'm afraid.According to my notes, Stillington was "in" East Harptree (.i.e. had the prebend of same) for precisely six months, from August 1445 to February 1446 (reference p. ix of the Introduction to the published version of the registers of bishops Stillington and Fox). Marie
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-20 23:44:28
Hilary wrote:Firstly the Nevilles. We talk about how ambitious the Stanleys were but the Nevilles had succeeded in bagging two of the richest heiresses going - Alice Montagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right and Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick in her own right (a fact willfully ignored by Edward).Marie: Wholly agree that the Nevilles made great marriages, but really the foundation of those was Earl Ralph's marriage to Henry IV's sister - the elder Neville line was not able to bag heirs and heiresses of that sort of status, however ambitious they may have felt. Just an additional pedantic point, but of course Anne Beauchamp was not an heiress at the time of the marriage. It was Richard's Neville Jr's sister, Cecily, who married Henry Beauchamp at the same time, who was bagging one of the richest heirs. It was only the death of first Duke Henry, and then his and Cecily's daughter, that left Henry's full sister Anne as heiress to the earldom of Warwick.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 00:56:24
Mary wrote:Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, Marie asks:Sorry, have I missed something??
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 06:20:00
Marie,
Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to
build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I
don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for
opposite aims.
Doug
Mary wrote:
Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn,
Marie asks:
Sorry, have I missed something??
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to
build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I
don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for
opposite aims.
Doug
Mary wrote:
Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn,
Marie asks:
Sorry, have I missed something??
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 09:50:38
Welcome, always welcome. Yes it's confirmed in the Lateran Registra as well. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 23:42:01 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,Good to be back but can't say long - still overloaded, I'm afraid.According to my notes, Stillington was "in" East Harptree (.i.e. had the prebend of same) for precisely six months, from August 1445 to February 1446 (reference p. ix of the Introduction to the published version of the registers of bishops Stillington and Fox). Marie
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 23:42:01 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,Good to be back but can't say long - still overloaded, I'm afraid.According to my notes, Stillington was "in" East Harptree (.i.e. had the prebend of same) for precisely six months, from August 1445 to February 1446 (reference p. ix of the Introduction to the published version of the registers of bishops Stillington and Fox). Marie
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 09:51:33
Absolutely! And of course Duke Henry was playmate of Henry VI. H
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 23:45:40 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:Firstly the Nevilles. We talk about how ambitious the Stanleys were but the Nevilles had succeeded in bagging two of the richest heiresses going - Alice Montagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right and Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick in her own right (a fact willfully ignored by Edward).Marie: Wholly agree that the Nevilles made great marriages, but really the foundation of those was Earl Ralph's marriage to Henry IV's sister - the elder Neville line was not able to bag heirs and heiresses of that sort of status, however ambitious they may have felt. Just an additional pedantic point, but of course Anne Beauchamp was not an heiress at the time of the marriage. It was Richard's Neville Jr's sister, Cecily, who married Henry Beauchamp at the same time, who was bagging one of the richest heirs. It was only the death of first Duke Henry, and then his and Cecily's daughter, that left Henry's full sister Anne as heiress to the earldom of Warwick.
On Monday, 20 May 2019, 23:45:40 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary wrote:Firstly the Nevilles. We talk about how ambitious the Stanleys were but the Nevilles had succeeded in bagging two of the richest heiresses going - Alice Montagu, Countess of Salisbury in her own right and Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick in her own right (a fact willfully ignored by Edward).Marie: Wholly agree that the Nevilles made great marriages, but really the foundation of those was Earl Ralph's marriage to Henry IV's sister - the elder Neville line was not able to bag heirs and heiresses of that sort of status, however ambitious they may have felt. Just an additional pedantic point, but of course Anne Beauchamp was not an heiress at the time of the marriage. It was Richard's Neville Jr's sister, Cecily, who married Henry Beauchamp at the same time, who was bagging one of the richest heirs. It was only the death of first Duke Henry, and then his and Cecily's daughter, that left Henry's full sister Anne as heiress to the earldom of Warwick.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 10:03:23
We were talking about ROY in Ireland and the fact that John Talbot was very much in the Henry VI camp in his views on managing the Irish. It came out of a discussion on Simnel and Warwick. H
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 00:57:01 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Mary wrote:Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, Marie asks:Sorry, have I missed something??
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 00:57:01 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Mary wrote:Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn, Marie asks:Sorry, have I missed something??
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 10:23:48
Doug wrote:Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for opposite aims.Marie asks:Which earl of Shrewsbury are we talking about - 1 or 2?
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 10:40:38
Eleanor's father. H
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 10:25:17 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Doug wrote:Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for opposite aims.Marie asks:Which earl of Shrewsbury are we talking about - 1 or 2?
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 10:25:17 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Doug wrote:Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for opposite aims.Marie asks:Which earl of Shrewsbury are we talking about - 1 or 2?
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 12:13:57
Bit like Game of Thrones, Jon Snow, York, the real heir, Henry down the line of succession. As for Tudor, not even on the horizon...GOT was inspired by the WOTR. Sorry. Having withdrawal symptoms after last night!Envoyé de mon iPadLe 21 mai 2019 à 07:19, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :
Marie,
Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to
build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I
don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for
opposite aims.
Doug
Mary wrote:
Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn,
Marie asks:
Sorry, have I missed something??
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Marie,
Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to
build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I
don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for
opposite aims.
Doug
Mary wrote:
Just had a thought about ROY and Shrewsbury being daggers drawn,
Marie asks:
Sorry, have I missed something??
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Northumberland at Bosworth
2019-05-21 12:24:10
Show message history On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 10:25:17 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: Doug wrote:Apparently both RoY and Shrewsbury were trying to build up support in Ireland; RoY for himself and Shrewsbury for Henry VI. I don't know about the daggers drawn, but they were definitely working for opposite aims.Marie asked:Which earl of Shrewsbury are we talking about - 1 or 2?Hilary replied:Eleanor's father.Marie responds:Thanks, Hilary. But is there is really evidence of bad blood between York and the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury? Yes, the Talbots had Irish connections and territorial claims, and yes, Shrewsbury was twice Lieutenant of Ireland, but only for short periods: his real military career was in France. He had worked closely under York during the Duke's period as Governor of Normandy, and had stood godfather to York's daughter Elizabeth in 1444. He and York returned to England together with Margaret of Anjou. York was apparently paying him substantial annuities, and went on doing so.Yes, Shrewsbury was then appointed Lieutenant of Ireland for the second time, and yes, he was replaced by York after only a year, but it can't be assumed that either man really wanted that appointment, which generally wasn't a good career move, and was even less so in the mid 15th century, with the colony hanging on by a thread and the English government unwilling to finance military aid for it. In fact, there is good evidence that York had wanted - and expected - to have his appointment as Lieutenant of France renewed so even if Shrewsbury had been unhappy at leaving Ireland he probably wouldn't have blamed York for it.After York was appointed lieutenant of Ireland, Shrewsbury went back to France with the new governor of Normandy, Edmund Beaufort, who was his brother-in-law. What he'd been angling for all along?Whilst in Ireland in 1449-60, York successfully - if temporarily - brought together the main, often mutually hostile, Anglo-Irish families under his leadership (his royal blood went down very well in Ireland as nobody felt disparaged by taking orders from him or [in the case of the Gaelic Irish] making treaties with him). George's baptism is often cited as a prime example of this policy in action, with Richard Talbot, Archbishop of Dublin, as the officiating priest, and James Butler, Earl of Ormonde (d. 1452), and Thomas FitzGerald, Earl of Kildare, as the two godfathers.The only person who ever competed with York for influence in Ireland was the Earl of Ormonde's son, James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire.It is not necessary for the Talbots to have been Yorkist in order for a liaison between Edward and Eleanor to be plausible. Just look at the Woodville example. And Lady Margaret Lucy's husband had been killed fighting for Lancaster.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.