From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Northumberland at Bosworth
Sent: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 5:01:24 PM

Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-06 15:49:24

hjnatdat

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

Paul Trevor bale

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.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 6 mars 2019 à 16:13, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

So this is my very simplified version of what he says:

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

Hilary Jones

Sorry, for Stoke Golding in Northumberland's case read Sutton Cheney! H
On Wednesday, 6 March 2019, 16:46:08 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

So this is my very simplified version of what he says:

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

Hilary Jones

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.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 6 mars 2019 à 16:13, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

So this is my very simplified version of what he says:

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

ricard1an

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

Bale PAUL

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:

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

Doug Stamate

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:

So this is my very simplified version of what he says:

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

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-08 05:24:15

Doug Stamate

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: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-08 11:03:50

Hilary Jones

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.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-09 02:54:32

Doug Stamate

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: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-09 04:12:59

Pamela Bain

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:

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-09 04:57:06

Doug Stamate

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: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-11 11:01:31

Hilary Jones

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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-11 13:53:55

Doug Stamate

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

2019-03-11 15:14:38

Hilary Jones

:) :) 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

2019-03-13 11:17:27

Nicholas Brown

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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-14 11:45:42

Hilary Jones

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu

2019-03-14 12:28:00

Doug Stamate

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: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu

2019-03-14 15:44:38

Hilary Jones

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-14 21:10:29

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-15 13:27:34

Nicholas Brown

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-15 14:21:00

Hilary Jones

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-15 17:34:56

Nicholas Brown

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:

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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-18 10:15:27

Hilary Jones

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:

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-18 10:44:15

Nicholas Brown

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:

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-19 10:31:09

Hilary Jones

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 Archive

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:

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-19 10:36:46

Hilary Jones

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:

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-19 12:26:54

Nicholas Brown

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:

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-19 14:49:33

Hilary Jones

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.
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> 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 Archive

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...

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-19 14:54:24

Hilary Jones

You might just get this without paying! H
Stirnet

Stirnet

On Tuesday, 19 March 2019, 14:03:39 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> 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:

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...

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-20 09:56:52

Nicholas Brown

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
Hi 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:

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:

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-20 10:16:06

Hilary Jones

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:

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:

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-20 10:35:03

Hilary Jones

Success! I said it was long! Sorry folks
For 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:

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:

Book digitized by Google from the library of the University of California and uploaded to the Internet Archive b...

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 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-20 10:46:19

ricard1an

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

2019-03-20 22:08:37

Nicholas Brown

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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-21 09:22:24

Hilary Jones

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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-21 10:23:38

Nicholas Brown

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:

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-21 14:02:46

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-21 16:40:06

ricard1an

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

Paul Trevor Bale

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!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 21 mars 2019 à 17:35, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

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

ricard1an

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

Nicholas Brown

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.
Nico

I 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: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-03-23 09:17:50

ricard1an

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

Paul Trevor Bale

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.
Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 23 mars 2019 à 10:00, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

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

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

Hilary Jones

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 1481-86
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? 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

Hilary Jones

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,

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?

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

2019-03-27 10:44:51

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-27 15:47:47

Doug Stamate

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: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-27 17:43:32

ricard1an

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

Nicholas Brown

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? :-)Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 mars 2019 à 06:37, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-28 13:35:43

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-28 14:15:00

Paul Trevor bale

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! :-)Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 mars 2019 à 16:29, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2019-03-29 10:16:27

Hilary Jones

Love it! Another version of all gas and gaiters. H
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019, 06:11:38 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-03-29 13:35:31

2019-04-02 14:13:16

Nicholas Brown

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:

Don't forget Doug William has already been declared a traitor for greeting Tudor when he landed and aiding his safe passage through Wales.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-04-02 18:54:56

Stephen Lark

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

2019-04-09 14:15:08

Nicholas Brown

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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu

2019-04-09 14:16:19

Nicholas Brown

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:

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.

Nico
Doug 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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu

2019-04-09 14:45:48

Hilary Jones

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 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.

Nico
Doug 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:

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-04-09 14:58:37

Hilary Jones

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:

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

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-04-10 11:53:50

Hilary Jones

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-04-10 14:08:10

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:

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

Nicholas Brown

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)?

2019-04-15 17:18:52

Hilary Jones

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu

2019-04-15 20:54:27

ricard1an

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

Hilary Jones

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2019-04-17 01:24:20

Doug Stamate

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.

2019-04-26 09:54:36

Hilary Jones

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:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-04-26 10:18:15

Hilary Jones

2019-04-28 21:02:31

Nicholas Brown

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:

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2019-04-29 15:50:39

2019-05-01 15:13:22

ricard1an

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

Hilary Jones

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:

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu

2019-05-02 10:19:19

Hilary Jones

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,

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq

Nico

On Saturday, 27 April 2019, 23:21:54 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Mary

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-02 16:56:02

Doug Stamate

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: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-03 02:03:29

Doug Stamate

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 09:16:18

Hilary Jones

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:

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-03 09:53:19

Hilary Jones

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.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northu

2019-05-03 10:17:07

Hilary Jones

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,

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fLRSAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq

Re: When was the Pre-Contract Revealed?

2019-05-04 17:14:59

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-05-04 17:19:22

Doug Stamate

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.

2019-05-07 15:03:50

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-07 17:08:05

ricard1an

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

Hilary Jones

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 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

ricard1an

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

Doug Stamate

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

2019-05-08 17:40:40

ricard1an

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

Hilary Jones

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 10:48:14

Hilary Jones

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.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-05-09 15:26:44

ricard1an

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

Hilary Jones

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:

Mary

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-09 18:11:36

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-09 23:46:21

Doug Stamate

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: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland at Bos

2019-05-10 06:31:19

Paul Trevor Bale

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 at Bos

2019-05-10 11:31:11

Nicholas Brown

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 11:46:41

Stephen

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: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Northumberland atBosw

2019-05-10 12:00:49

Hilary Jones

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:

Hilary Jones

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:

Mary

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-16 15:49:01

ricard1an

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

Hilary Jones

Thanks Mary..H
On Thursday, 16 May 2019, 15:49:07 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Mary

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-16 16:43:00

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-16 17:23:01

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-16 17:31:01

ricard1an

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

2019-05-17 09:30:00

Hilary Jones

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:

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-17 16:34:24

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-18 15:51:21

Doug Stamate

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.

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-20 23:41:53

mariewalsh2003

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

mariewalsh2003

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

mariewalsh2003

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

Doug Stamate

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 09:50:38

Hilary Jones

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.

Marie

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-21 09:51:33

Hilary Jones

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:

Marie:

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-21 10:03:23

Hilary Jones

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??

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-21 10:23:48

mariewalsh2003

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

Hilary Jones

Eleanor's father. H
On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 10:25:17 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Doug wrote:

Marie asks:

Which earl of Shrewsbury are we talking about - 1 or 2?

Re: Northumberland at Bosworth

2019-05-21 12:13:57

Paul Trevor Bale

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 iPad
Le 21 mai 2019 à 07:19, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

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 12:24:10

mariewalsh2003

Show message history On Tuesday, 21 May 2019, 10:25:17 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Doug wrote:

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.