Sir James Tyrell

Jan here. Warning - a long post coming up! I had a look at Audrey Williamson's chapter on Tyrell, got carried away &
send these notes for anyone who's interested:
13th January 1485 our Tyrell made commander of
Guisnes.
20th January 1485 receives £3000 at Calais
on behalf of R3  almost whole royal budget for a year according to J A
Speares.
After 22nd August 1485 loses some granted
lands in Wales, receives compensation.
Later is granted offices of sheriff of county of Glamorgan, chief
forester of Glamorgan, constableship of Cardiff Castle.
16th June 1486 one general pardon granted.
16th July 1486 second pardon granted. Not exceptional says Williamson.
25th November 1487 present at coronation of
Elizabeth of York.
13th June 1489 takes part in battle of Dixmude in
Flanders [Anglo-Habsburg victory over France].
1492 plays part in ceremony attached to Peace of
Etaples. France agrees to expel Warbeck
& pay an indemnity; England accepts French control of Brittany.
1494 present when Prince Henry is made duke of York. [So nobody expects E4's second boy to appear?]
1499 Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, flees to Burgundy
after being arraigned for killing a vassal.
He gets a pardon & travels back via Guisnes.
Comment here inserted from Thomas Penn's book: Tyrell .....
some months later was co-opted onto one of the planning sub-committees for
Arthur & Katherine's wedding. But in the autumn of 1499, at around the time
that Henry started to put the screws on Suffolk and his retainers, he issued
Tyrell with a financial bond for allegiance of £300, then confiscated one of
his lucrative royal estates, leasing it instead to a group of local farmers for
an inflated rent. Henry never missed a
chance for a quick profit  but, characteristically it was also a warning
shot. Tyrell's consorting with Suffolk
had been noted.
Suffolk attends reception for Katharine of Aragon [September1501]
& her marriage to Arthur [November]. Warning  I have this date from Williamson
but Rosemary Horrox dates Suffolk's second flight to summer 1501 [ODNB].
1501 [at some point] Suffolk flees to Burgundy again with his
brother Richard, received en route at Guisnes by Tyrell. Tyrell ordered to vacate Guisnes, returning
on ship sent by H7 with Thomas Lovell Lord Privy Seal giving his word for
safety of Tyrell & his son Thomas T.
Both arrested once aboard. Horrox
dates this arrest to spring 1502.
2nd May 1502 Tyrell tried at Guildhall with Sir
John Wyndham, Wellesbourne [gentleman servant to Tyrell] & an unnamed
sailor.
6th May 1502 Tyrell & Wyndham beheaded on Tower
Green. Wife & family allowed to bury
him in Austin Friars.
7th May 1502 Wyndham's son & James Holand
barber of London tried in Guildhall.
9th May 1502 Wyndham's son & Holand hdq.
During these two days Thomas Tyrell, Matthew Jonys/Jones &
Pursevant Cursum tried with Wellesbourne as witness. Jonys & Cursum sent to Guisnes for
execution. Penn calls PC the pursuivant/courier
of Sir Robert Curzon, a supporter of Suffolk who became a double agent.
Thomas Tyrell & Wellesbourne sentenced to remain in
prison at the king's pleasure.
A Thomas Tyrell, either son or brother of our Tyrell, named
in Vignolle's report of 1496, i.e. implicated in Warbeck affair.
1504 our Tyrell, dead 2 years, officially attainted of
treason on account of his connection with Edmonde de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk.
13th April 1504 Thomas Tyrell gets special
pardon.
1507 he appeals for his estates at Gipping & they are
restored. He resumes a normal career.
1513 Suffolk executed by H8.
1534 Vergil's account appears connecting Tyrell to murder of
Princes.
Nothing in writing before More's account of c.1514 about a
confession.
Wills  our Tyrell made one in 1475 with no mention of his
son so a later one may have existed.
Thomas Tyrell made 2 wills, one in 1550 with last page
missing, one in 1551 makes no mention of our Tyrell, nor do wills of Thomas's
son John, made in 1548 & 1573.

This is most interesting Jan; I have been investigating the Whetehills of Guisnes (Comptrollers of Calais) who are indirectly linked to Tyrell's executed father by marriage. They are also linked to a number of other folk who feature prominently in rebellions against HT in the 1490s, having previously supported him, including James Audley who led the Cornish rebellion - my Sir Thomas Moyle, who started all this, came from a Cornish family you'll recall. I will post it later; like yours it will be a long post. H. On Sunday, 27 April 2014, 20:32, J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
Jan here. Warning - a long post coming up! I had a look at Audrey Williamson's chapter on Tyrell, got carried away &
send these notes for anyone who's interested:
13th January 1485 our Tyrell made commander of
Guisnes.
20th January 1485 receives £3000 at Calais
on behalf of R3  almost whole royal budget for a year according to J A
Speares.
After 22nd August 1485 loses some granted
lands in Wales, receives compensation.
Later is granted offices of sheriff of county of Glamorgan, chief
forester of Glamorgan, constableship of Cardiff Castle.
16th June 1486 one general pardon granted.
16th July 1486 second pardon granted. Not exceptional says Williamson.
25th November 1487 present at coronation of
Elizabeth of York.
13th June 1489 takes part in battle of Dixmude in
Flanders [Anglo-Habsburg victory over France].
1492 plays part in ceremony attached to Peace of
Etaples. France agrees to expel Warbeck
& pay an indemnity; England accepts French control of Brittany.
1494 present when Prince Henry is made duke of York. [So nobody expects E4's second boy to appear?]
1499 Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, flees to Burgundy
after being arraigned for killing a vassal.
He gets a pardon & travels back via Guisnes.
Comment here inserted from Thomas Penn's book: Tyrell .....
some months later was co-opted onto one of the planning sub-committees for
Arthur & Katherine's wedding. But in the autumn of 1499, at around the time
that Henry started to put the screws on Suffolk and his retainers, he issued
Tyrell with a financial bond for allegiance of £300, then confiscated one of
his lucrative royal estates, leasing it instead to a group of local farmers for
an inflated rent. Henry never missed a
chance for a quick profit  but, characteristically it was also a warning
shot. Tyrell's consorting with Suffolk
had been noted.
Suffolk attends reception for Katharine of Aragon [September1501]
& her marriage to Arthur [November]. Warning  I have this date from Williamson
but Rosemary Horrox dates Suffolk's second flight to summer 1501 [ODNB].
1501 [at some point] Suffolk flees to Burgundy again with his
brother Richard, received en route at Guisnes by Tyrell. Tyrell ordered to vacate Guisnes, returning
on ship sent by H7 with Thomas Lovell Lord Privy Seal giving his word for
safety of Tyrell & his son Thomas T.
Both arrested once aboard. Horrox
dates this arrest to spring 1502.
2nd May 1502 Tyrell tried at Guildhall with Sir
John Wyndham, Wellesbourne [gentleman servant to Tyrell] & an unnamed
sailor.
6th May 1502 Tyrell & Wyndham beheaded on Tower
Green. Wife & family allowed to bury
him in Austin Friars.
7th May 1502 Wyndham's son & James Holand
barber of London tried in Guildhall.
9th May 1502 Wyndham's son & Holand hdq.
During these two days Thomas Tyrell, Matthew Jonys/Jones &
Pursevant Cursum tried with Wellesbourne as witness. Jonys & Cursum sent to Guisnes for
execution. Penn calls PC the pursuivant/courier
of Sir Robert Curzon, a supporter of Suffolk who became a double agent.
Thomas Tyrell & Wellesbourne sentenced to remain in
prison at the king's pleasure.
A Thomas Tyrell, either son or brother of our Tyrell, named
in Vignolle's report of 1496, i.e. implicated in Warbeck affair.
1504 our Tyrell, dead 2 years, officially attainted of
treason on account of his connection with Edmonde de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk.
13th April 1504 Thomas Tyrell gets special
pardon.
1507 he appeals for his estates at Gipping & they are
restored. He resumes a normal career.
1513 Suffolk executed by H8.
1534 Vergil's account appears connecting Tyrell to murder of
Princes.
Nothing in writing before More's account of c.1514 about a
confession.
Wills  our Tyrell made one in 1475 with no mention of his
son so a later one may have existed.
Thomas Tyrell made 2 wills, one in 1550 with last page
missing, one in 1551 makes no mention of our Tyrell, nor do wills of Thomas's
son John, made in 1548 & 1573.

Thanks Jan for all that detail. Also for Carol, I had not overlooked Tyrrell's presence in London, nor the king's ransom taken to Calais in January 1485. My contention concerning the dubious confession affecting how we perceive events retrospectively, applies equally to these two events.Our attention is drawn to Tyrrell (and Gipping) because of the 'confession' but the events themselves have actually no connection to the fate of the 'Princes'.If you are writing a book about the princes, then it is very difficult to ignore the confession and not give Tyrrell special attention.His presence in London for an investiture would draw no attention at all but for the dubious confession. The payment of such a large amount of money, which I believe is far too much to be considered to be a nest egg to
ensure the safety of the 'boys', is the kind of sum that is either used to bribe a foreign power or to pay for an army.If you look at what was happening in Calais at the time, the garrison was rebelling against Richard, for whom John Dynham was trying to hold things together. He eventually held the town for Richard but let a substantial group from the garrison join Henry T. So there was a small scale battle or siege under way there. It could be that the garrison had taken the treasury with them - in any case, financing this struggle is a much more probable reason for the payment.Hope this makes senseKind regardsDavid

From:
J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Sir James Tyrell
Sent:
Sun, Apr 27, 2014 7:29:08 PM

 

 
Jan here.  Warning - a long post coming up!  I had a look at Audrey Williamson's chapter on Tyrell, got carried away &
send these notes for anyone who's interested:
13th January 1485 our Tyrell made commander of
Guisnes.
20th January 1485 receives £3000 at Calais
on behalf of R3  almost whole royal budget for a year according to J A
Speares.
After 22nd August 1485 loses some granted
lands in Wales, receives compensation. 
Later is granted offices of sheriff of county of Glamorgan, chief
forester of Glamorgan, constableship of Cardiff Castle.
16th June 1486 one general pardon granted.
16th July 1486 second pardon granted.  Not exceptional says Williamson.
25th November 1487 present at coronation of
Elizabeth of York.
13th June 1489 takes part in battle of Dixmude in
Flanders [Anglo-Habsburg victory over France].
1492  plays part in ceremony attached to Peace of
Etaples.  France agrees to expel Warbeck
& pay an indemnity; England accepts French control of Brittany. 
1494 present when Prince Henry is made duke of York.  [So nobody expects E4's second boy to appear?]
1499 Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, flees to Burgundy
after being arraigned for killing a vassal. 
He gets a pardon & travels back via Guisnes.
Comment here inserted from Thomas Penn's book: Tyrell .....
some months later was co-opted onto one of the planning sub-committees for
Arthur & Katherine's wedding. But in the autumn of 1499, at around the time
that Henry started to put the screws on Suffolk and his retainers, he issued
Tyrell with a financial bond for allegiance of £300, then confiscated one of
his lucrative royal estates, leasing it instead to a group of local farmers for
an inflated rent.  Henry never missed a
chance for a quick profit  but, characteristically it was also a warning
shot.  Tyrell's consorting with Suffolk
had been noted.
Suffolk attends reception for Katharine of Aragon [September1501]
& her marriage to Arthur [November]. Warning  I have this date from Williamson
but Rosemary Horrox dates Suffolk's second flight to summer 1501 [ODNB].
1501 [at some point] Suffolk flees to Burgundy again with his
brother Richard, received en route at Guisnes by Tyrell.  Tyrell ordered to vacate Guisnes, returning
on ship sent by H7 with Thomas Lovell Lord Privy Seal giving his word for
safety of Tyrell & his son Thomas T. 
Both arrested once aboard.  Horrox
dates this arrest to spring 1502.
2nd May 1502 Tyrell tried at Guildhall with Sir
John Wyndham, Wellesbourne [gentleman servant to Tyrell] & an unnamed
sailor.
6th May 1502 Tyrell & Wyndham beheaded on Tower
Green.  Wife & family allowed to bury
him in Austin Friars. 
7th May 1502 Wyndham's son & James Holand
barber of London tried in Guildhall. 
9th May 1502 Wyndham's son & Holand hdq.
During these two days Thomas Tyrell, Matthew Jonys/Jones &
Pursevant Cursum tried with Wellesbourne as witness.  Jonys & Cursum sent to Guisnes for
execution.  Penn calls PC the pursuivant/courier
of Sir Robert Curzon, a supporter of Suffolk who became a double agent.
Thomas Tyrell & Wellesbourne sentenced to remain in
prison at the king's pleasure.
A Thomas Tyrell, either son or brother of our Tyrell, named
in Vignolle's report of 1496, i.e. implicated in Warbeck affair.
1504 our Tyrell, dead 2 years, officially attainted of
treason on account of his connection with Edmonde de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk.
13th April 1504 Thomas Tyrell gets special
pardon.
1507 he appeals for his estates at Gipping & they are
restored. He resumes a normal career.
1513 Suffolk executed by H8.
1534 Vergil's account appears connecting Tyrell to murder of
Princes.
Nothing in writing before More's account of c.1514 about a
confession.
Wills  our Tyrell made one in 1475 with no mention of his
son so a later one may have existed.
Thomas Tyrell made 2 wills, one in 1550 with last page
missing, one in 1551 makes no mention of our Tyrell, nor do wills of Thomas's
son John, made in 1548 & 1573.
 

There are so many tangled webs in the story of Richard III. It is like a giant chess game!


From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Durose David
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re : Sir James Tyrell


Thanks Jan for all that detail.
Also for Carol, I had not overlooked Tyrrell's presence in London, nor the king's ransom taken to Calais in January 1485.


My contention concerning the dubious confession affecting how we perceive events retrospectively, applies equally to these two events.

Our attention is drawn to Tyrrell (and Gipping) because of the 'confession' but the events themselves have actually no connection to the fate of the 'Princes'.

If you are writing a book about the princes, then it is very difficult to ignore the confession and not give Tyrrell special attention.

His presence in London for an investiture would draw no attention at all but for the dubious confession.


The payment of such a large amount of money, which I believe is far too much to be considered to be a nest egg to ensure the safety of the 'boys', is the kind of sum that is either used to bribe a foreign power or to pay for an army.

If you look at what was happening in Calais at the time, the garrison was rebelling against Richard, for whom John Dynham was trying to hold things together. He eventually held the town for Richard but let a substantial group from the garrison join Henry T.
So there was a small scale battle or siege under way there. It could be that the garrison had taken the treasury with them - in any case, financing this struggle is a much more probable reason for the payment.

Hope this makes sense
Kind regards
David

From: J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...>;

To: <>;

Subject: Sir James Tyrell
Sent: Sun, Apr 27, 2014 7:29:08 PM



Jan here.

Warning - a long post coming up! I had a look at Audrey Williamson's chapter on Tyrell, got carried away & send these notes for anyone who's
interested:

13th January 1485 our Tyrell made commander of Guisnes.
20th January 1485 receives £3000 at Calais on behalf of R3  almost whole royal budget for a year according to J A Speares.
After 22nd August 1485 loses some granted lands in Wales, receives compensation. Later is granted offices of sheriff of county
of Glamorgan, chief forester of Glamorgan, constableship of Cardiff Castle.
16th June 1486 one general pardon granted.
16th July 1486 second pardon granted. Not exceptional says Williamson.
25th November 1487 present at coronation of Elizabeth of York.
13th June 1489 takes part in battle of Dixmude in Flanders [Anglo-Habsburg victory over France].
1492 plays part in ceremony attached to Peace of Etaples. France agrees to expel Warbeck & pay an indemnity; England accepts French control
of Brittany.
1494 present when Prince Henry is made duke of York. [So nobody expects E4's second boy to appear?]
1499 Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, flees to Burgundy after being arraigned for killing a vassal. He gets a pardon & travels back via
Guisnes.

Comment here inserted from Thomas Penn's book: Tyrell ..... some months later was co-opted onto one of the planning sub-committees for Arthur
& Katherine's wedding. But in the autumn of 1499, at around the time that Henry started to put the screws on Suffolk and his retainers, he issued Tyrell with a financial bond for allegiance of £300, then confiscated one of his lucrative royal estates, leasing
it instead to a group of local farmers for an inflated rent. Henry never missed a chance for a quick profit  but, characteristically it was also a warning shot. Tyrell's consorting with Suffolk had been noted.

Suffolk attends reception for Katharine of Aragon [September1501] & her marriage to Arthur [November]. Warning  I have this date from Williamson
but Rosemary Horrox dates Suffolk's second flight to summer 1501 [ODNB].

1501 [at some point] Suffolk flees to Burgundy again with his brother Richard, received en route at Guisnes by Tyrell. Tyrell ordered to
vacate Guisnes, returning on ship sent by H7 with Thomas Lovell Lord Privy Seal giving his word for safety of Tyrell & his son Thomas T. Both arrested once aboard. Horrox dates this arrest to spring 1502.
2nd May 1502 Tyrell tried at Guildhall with Sir John Wyndham, Wellesbourne [gentleman servant to Tyrell] & an unnamed sailor.
6th May 1502 Tyrell & Wyndham beheaded on Tower Green. Wife & family allowed to bury him in Austin Friars.

7th May 1502 Wyndham's son & James Holand barber of London tried in Guildhall.

9th May 1502 Wyndham's son & Holand hdq.

During these two days Thomas Tyrell, Matthew Jonys/Jones & Pursevant Cursum tried with Wellesbourne as witness. Jonys & Cursum sent to Guisnes
for execution. Penn calls PC the pursuivant/courier of Sir Robert Curzon, a supporter of Suffolk who became a double agent.
Thomas Tyrell & Wellesbourne sentenced to remain in prison at the king's pleasure.
A Thomas Tyrell, either son or brother of our Tyrell, named in Vignolle's report of 1496, i.e. implicated in Warbeck affair.

1504 our Tyrell, dead 2 years, officially attainted of treason on account of his connection with Edmonde de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk.

13th April 1504 Thomas Tyrell gets special pardon.
1507 he appeals for his estates at Gipping & they are restored. He resumes a normal career.
1513 Suffolk executed by H8.

1534 Vergil's account appears connecting Tyrell to murder of Princes.
Nothing in writing before More's account of c.1514 about a confession.
Wills  our Tyrell made one in 1475 with no mention of his son so a later one may have existed.
Thomas Tyrell made 2 wills, one in 1550 with last page missing, one in 1551 makes no mention of our Tyrell, nor do wills of Thomas's son
John, made in 1548 & 1573.

I do indeed agree. But the same names are moving all over the board and keep cropping up again and again. What I do believe is that it is nothing personally to do with Richard, but with opportunity, and grievances stored over many years. And David, I have no sentimentality over Tyrell; given his associations it could well have been an opportunity on the part of H7 to get rid of him and also to use him as a scapegoat to get rid of the endless rumours. H On Monday, 28 April 2014, 14:40, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
There are so many tangled webs in the story of Richard III. It is like a giant chess game!
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Durose David
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re : Sir James Tyrell
Thanks Jan for all that detail.
Also for Carol, I had not overlooked Tyrrell's presence in London, nor the king's ransom taken to Calais in January 1485.


My contention concerning the dubious confession affecting how we perceive events retrospectively, applies equally to these two events.

Our attention is drawn to Tyrrell (and Gipping) because of the 'confession' but the events themselves have actually no connection to the fate of the 'Princes'.

If you are writing a book about the princes, then it is very difficult to ignore the confession and not give Tyrrell special attention.

His presence in London for an investiture would draw no attention at all but for the dubious confession.


The payment of such a large amount of money, which I believe is far too much to be considered to be a nest egg to ensure the safety of the 'boys', is the kind of sum that is either used to bribe a foreign power or to pay for an army.

If you look at what was happening in Calais at the time, the garrison was rebelling against Richard, for whom John Dynham was trying to hold things together. He eventually held the town for Richard but let a substantial group from the garrison join Henry T.
So there was a small scale battle or siege under way there. It could be that the garrison had taken the treasury with them - in any case, financing this struggle is a much more probable reason for the payment.

Hope this makes sense
Kind regards
David
From: J MULRENAN <janmulrenan@...>;

To: <>;

Subject: Sir James Tyrell
Sent: Sun, Apr 27, 2014 7:29:08 PM
Jan here.
Warning - a long post coming up! I had a look at Audrey Williamson's chapter on Tyrell, got carried away & send these notes for anyone who's
interested:
13th January 1485 our Tyrell made commander of Guisnes.
20th January 1485 receives £3000 at Calais on behalf of R3  almost whole royal budget for a year according to J A Speares.
After 22nd August 1485 loses some granted lands in Wales, receives compensation. Later is granted offices of sheriff of county
of Glamorgan, chief forester of Glamorgan, constableship of Cardiff Castle.
16th June 1486 one general pardon granted.
16th July 1486 second pardon granted. Not exceptional says Williamson.
25th November 1487 present at coronation of Elizabeth of York.
13th June 1489 takes part in battle of Dixmude in Flanders [Anglo-Habsburg victory over France].
1492 plays part in ceremony attached to Peace of Etaples. France agrees to expel Warbeck & pay an indemnity; England accepts French control
of Brittany.
1494 present when Prince Henry is made duke of York. [So nobody expects E4's second boy to appear?]
1499 Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, flees to Burgundy after being arraigned for killing a vassal. He gets a pardon & travels back via
Guisnes.
Comment here inserted from Thomas Penn's book: Tyrell ..... some months later was co-opted onto one of the planning sub-committees for Arthur
& Katherine's wedding. But in the autumn of 1499, at around the time that Henry started to put the screws on Suffolk and his retainers, he issued Tyrell with a financial bond for allegiance of £300, then confiscated one of his lucrative royal estates, leasing
it instead to a group of local farmers for an inflated rent. Henry never missed a chance for a quick profit  but, characteristically it was also a warning shot. Tyrell's consorting with Suffolk had been noted.
Suffolk attends reception for Katharine of Aragon [September1501] & her marriage to Arthur [November]. Warning  I have this date from Williamson
but Rosemary Horrox dates Suffolk's second flight to summer 1501 [ODNB].
1501 [at some point] Suffolk flees to Burgundy again with his brother Richard, received en route at Guisnes by Tyrell. Tyrell ordered to
vacate Guisnes, returning on ship sent by H7 with Thomas Lovell Lord Privy Seal giving his word for safety of Tyrell & his son Thomas T. Both arrested once aboard. Horrox dates this arrest to spring 1502.
2nd May 1502 Tyrell tried at Guildhall with Sir John Wyndham, Wellesbourne [gentleman servant to Tyrell] & an unnamed sailor.
6th May 1502 Tyrell & Wyndham beheaded on Tower Green. Wife & family allowed to bury him in Austin Friars.
7th May 1502 Wyndham's son & James Holand barber of London tried in Guildhall.
9th May 1502 Wyndham's son & Holand hdq.
During these two days Thomas Tyrell, Matthew Jonys/Jones & Pursevant Cursum tried with Wellesbourne as witness. Jonys & Cursum sent to Guisnes
for execution. Penn calls PC the pursuivant/courier of Sir Robert Curzon, a supporter of Suffolk who became a double agent.
Thomas Tyrell & Wellesbourne sentenced to remain in prison at the king's pleasure.
A Thomas Tyrell, either son or brother of our Tyrell, named in Vignolle's report of 1496, i.e. implicated in Warbeck affair.
1504 our Tyrell, dead 2 years, officially attainted of treason on account of his connection with Edmonde de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk.
13th April 1504 Thomas Tyrell gets special pardon.
1507 he appeals for his estates at Gipping & they are restored. He resumes a normal career.
1513 Suffolk executed by H8.
1534 Vergil's account appears connecting Tyrell to murder of Princes.
Nothing in writing before More's account of c.1514 about a confession.
Wills  our Tyrell made one in 1475 with no mention of his son so a later one may have existed.
Thomas Tyrell made 2 wills, one in 1550 with last page missing, one in 1551 makes no mention of our Tyrell, nor do wills of Thomas's son
John, made in 1548 & 1573.

David Durose wrote :"Our attention is drawn to Tyrrell (and Gipping) because of the 'confession' but the events themselves have actually no connection to the fate of the 'Princes'."Carol responds:There was no confession. More invented it. Tyrell, as I'm sure you know, was executed for supporting Edmund de la Pole. The two pardons are, I think, a red herring as well.I'm afraid I don't agree with your reasoning relating to the reward (and you seem not to have mentioned Richard's secret correspondence with his sister Margaret in Burgundy). We need a researcher who can cover all angles without preconceptions and with access to materials not available to me. I would do it in a heartbeat if I had the time, the energy, the funds, and the resources (access to primary sources). Forgot to mention the eyesight!Carol

Carol in the last Ricardian Bulletin Wendy Moorhen reported that the Society are funding a well known historian to research the Burgundian records. Also Philippa mentioned ( in another Bulletin article) that there were two pieces of research going on but that she couldn't say anything yet.Mary

David Durose wrote:
//snip//
"Our attention is drawn to Tyrell (and Gipping)
because of the 'confession' but the events themselves have actually no
connection to the fate of the 'Princes'."
//snip//
Doug here:
*Our* attention may be drawn because of the
"confession", but why was it first proposed that there ever *was* a connection
between Sir James and the 'Princes'? Sheer chance? Doubtful, because if Sir
James was known *not* to have ever been in any position which met the
requirements of the "confession," the attempt to finally close the subject
of the 'Princes' whereabouts would have collapsed. It's my contention that Sir
James made a confession, that he'd done so was known, but what wasn't known was
what the confession actually contained; thus allowing HT to "give out" *his*
version of its' contents, knowing full well his (HT's) version couldn't be
contradicted.
However, the "confession" isn't the *only*
connection between Sir James, Gipping and 'the Princes'. There's Williamson's
documentation of the Tyrell family tradition of the boys being at Gipping Hall
with their mother. There's also the well-documented trust in Sir James that
Richard displayed on several occasions. While it can't be said that the above
"proves" the boys were at Gipping, it certainly allows for a great distrust of
the story, so advantageous to HT that's been accepted for so long.
Then there's one of the "dogs that didn't bark." If
the boys *were* dead and HT knew that, why didn't he build a chapel for them? He
did for Richard, but then HT *knew* Richard was
dead...

I have a feeling that whatever happened to the Princes, Sir James Tyrell was up to his neck in it. The connections with the Tyrell family are fairly local to me, I believe his wife was from Maldon, and the Tyrell's as a family go deep into the roots of aristocratic families in Essex.
I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, but personally I would love to know more.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:
Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To:
<>;
Cc:
Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject:
Sir James Tyrell
Sent:
Tue, Apr 29, 2014 3:59:33 PM

 

David Durose wrote:
//snip//
"Our attention is drawn to Tyrell (and Gipping)
because of the 'confession' but the events themselves have actually no
connection to the fate of the 'Princes'."
//snip//
 
Doug here:
*Our* attention may be drawn because of the
"confession", but why was it first proposed that there ever *was* a connection
between Sir James and the 'Princes'? Sheer chance? Doubtful, because if Sir
James was known *not* to have ever been in any position which met the
requirements of the "confession," the attempt to finally close the subject
of the 'Princes' whereabouts would have collapsed. It's my contention that Sir
James made a confession, that he'd done so was known, but what wasn't known was
what the confession actually contained; thus allowing HT to "give out" *his*
version of its' contents, knowing full well his (HT's) version couldn't be
contradicted.
However, the "confession" isn't the *only*
connection between Sir James, Gipping and 'the Princes'. There's Williamson's
documentation of the Tyrell family tradition of the boys being at Gipping Hall
with their mother. There's also the well-documented trust in Sir James that
Richard displayed on several occasions. While it can't be said that the above
"proves" the boys were at Gipping, it certainly allows for a great distrust of
the story, so advantageous to HT that's been accepted for so long.
Then there's one of the "dogs that didn't bark." If
the boys *were* dead and HT knew that, why didn't he build a chapel for them? He
did for Richard, but then HT *knew* Richard was
dead...

Doug, there was no confession, nor did Henry VII "give out" anything. Please see Susan Leas's article, "What the King Gave Out," in our Files.Carol

Jessica, I agree with you. For a start, the Tyrells and the Hautes had been joined at the hip for a very long time. There is a lot of contact within Kent and Essex and indeed with Cornwall - Sir James's wife was an Arundel. Why does everything find a path to Cornwall, even plotters in Northants? I have yet to tell you about his Whetehill relations. From somewhere has come this notion of the loyal Sir James; I fear it's another Victorian sentiment. You can serve someone, and serve them well, without actually liking them (how many of us have had bosses that we really don't admire). My test for loyalty would be presence by Richard's side at Bosworth or afterwards at Stoke. Sir James seems conventiently absent from both of these
occasions. As for Richard trusting him, well as we know, Richard expected loyalty. It was second nature to him, so it would surely be the same for others. Just how good that judgment was we can see from Buckingham. One thing Edward was better at was judging people. H. On Tuesday, 29 April 2014, 17:41, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
I have a feeling that whatever happened to the Princes, Sir James Tyrell was up to his neck in it. The connections with the Tyrell family are fairly local to me, I believe his wife was from Maldon, and the Tyrell's as a family go deep into the roots of aristocratic families in Essex.
I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, but personally I would love to know more.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:
Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To:
<>;
Cc:
Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject:
Sir James Tyrell
Sent:
Tue, Apr 29, 2014 3:59:33 PM

David Durose wrote:
//snip//
"Our attention is drawn to Tyrell (and Gipping)
because of the 'confession' but the events themselves have actually no
connection to the fate of the 'Princes'."
//snip//
Doug here:
*Our* attention may be drawn because of the
"confession", but why was it first proposed that there ever *was* a connection
between Sir James and the 'Princes'? Sheer chance? Doubtful, because if Sir
James was known *not* to have ever been in any position which met the
requirements of the "confession," the attempt to finally close the subject
of the 'Princes' whereabouts would have collapsed. It's my contention that Sir
James made a confession, that he'd done so was known, but what wasn't known was
what the confession actually contained; thus allowing HT to "give out" *his*
version of its' contents, knowing full well his (HT's) version couldn't be
contradicted.
However, the "confession" isn't the *only*
connection between Sir James, Gipping and 'the Princes'. There's Williamson's
documentation of the Tyrell family tradition of the boys being at Gipping Hall
with their mother. There's also the well-documented trust in Sir James that
Richard displayed on several occasions. While it can't be said that the above
"proves" the boys were at Gipping, it certainly allows for a great distrust of
the story, so advantageous to HT that's been accepted for so long.
Then there's one of the "dogs that didn't bark." If
the boys *were* dead and HT knew that, why didn't he build a chapel for them? He
did for Richard, but then HT *knew* Richard was
dead...

Carol wrote: Doug, there was no confession, nor did Henry VII "give out" anything.
Please see Susan Leas's article, "What the King Gave Out," in our Files....................................I had a look for the Susan Leas article, but couldn't find it. It doesn't seem to be in the Ricardian Index. Do you (or anyone else) know how to access it.Nico

“AS the King gave out” – proving that the
rumours of a confession date from More etc writing in c.1513.

From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of nico11238@...
Sent: 30 April 2014 12:18
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Sir James Tyrell


Carol
wrote: Doug, there was no confession, nor
did Henry VII "give out" anything. Please see Susan Leas's article,
"What the King Gave Out," in our Files.
...................................

I had a look for the Susan Leas article, but couldn't find it. It doesn't
seem to be in the Ricardian Index. Do you (or anyone else) know how to
access it.

Nico

Carol wrote:
"Doug, there was no confession, nor did Henry VII
'give out' anything. Please see Susan Leas's article 'What the King Gave Out' in
our files."
Doug here:
I phrased what I was trying to say badly.
Actually, I'm not even certain *how* to phrase what I
mean!
My thinking boils down to:
1) Sir James was executed in May of 1502. No
confession is published.
2) Vergil, in 1534, connects Sir James'
execution his execution to the fates of the Princes.
3) But why did Vergil settle on Sir
James?
From there I go to the following
facts:
1) Sir James, regardless of whatever his (Sir
James') personal feelings towards him (Richard) may have been, *was* trusted by
Richard.
2) Sir James was well-known as a Yorkist (the only
question.possibly being *which* one; Richard III, EV/Richard of Shrewsbury,
Warwick or Lincoln).
3) So, when the "history" was being written, *why*
pick on Sir James?
And the only result I come up with is that, to fit
Tudor requirements, September/October of 1483 was when the boys *had* to
have died. Why? Because that time-frame is that last definitely known for
certain period when the boys could be located *while under Richard's control.*
Then, when trying to explain *why* HT made such determined, and
underhanded, efforts to get hold of Sir James, a quarter-century *after*
Bosworth, and rather than base it on the most probable reason - fears for
the continuity of HT's newly-established dynasty, Vergil plumped on Sir James as
the murderer of the boys *because Sir James was at the Tower when the boys were
"last" noted as definitely being there* (which was also just before when the
rumors of their death had been spread). And because one didn't accuse
one's monarch of treachery and double-dealing, or the father of one's monarch, a
"confession" concerning the boys (rather than continuing fears of Yorkists) was
invented to explain *why* HT had Sir James executed, so long after any
apparent Yorkist activity on Sir James' part (Question: did Sir James even
*know* HT was after Edmund when the latter passed through
Guisnes?).
Sir James' execution as the boys' murderer had
been preceded by decades of vehement denials on HT's part that *any* of the
pretenders were who they said they were. *If* the pretenders weren't who they
claimed, then *something* had to have happened to EV and his brother. Personal
safety would prevent any musings, written or verbal (especially the
latter!) that just perhaps maybe HT got it wrong and the boys *had*
survived. Therefore the boys *were* dead and the only question being under what
circumstances did they perish.
IOW, Sir James, by sheer bad luck, became the "fall
guy." And has served as a red herring on the fate of the boys ever
since
Anyway, that's my basic reasoning on why Sir James
gotted tagged with killing the boys - HT's actions in 1502 against Sir James had
to be explained *somehow* and most emphatically *not* because HT was *still*
worried about his retaining the throne!
Doug

I don't give any credence to whatever HT may or may not have said about Sir James Tyrell, but rather that he was a faithful supporter of Richard, and that he seems to have been heavily involved in whatever machinations were going on. That, together with the family recollections at Gipping, and the very large sum of money given to him when he was in Guines, is what puts my antenna on the alert.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:
Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>;
To:
<>;
Cc:
Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject:
Sir James Tyrell
Sent:
Wed, Apr 30, 2014 4:47:51 PM

 

Carol wrote:
"Doug, there was no confession, nor did Henry VII
'give out' anything. Please see Susan Leas's article 'What the King Gave Out' in
our files."
 
Doug here:
I phrased what I was trying to say badly.
Actually,  I'm not even certain *how* to phrase what I
mean!
My thinking boils down to:
1) Sir James was executed in May of 1502. No
confession is published.
2) Vergil, in 1534, connects Sir James'
execution his execution to the fates of the Princes.
3) But why did Vergil settle on Sir
James?
From there I go to the following
facts:
1) Sir James, regardless of whatever his (Sir
James') personal feelings towards him (Richard) may have been, *was* trusted by
Richard.
2) Sir James was well-known as a Yorkist (the only
question.possibly being *which* one; Richard III, EV/Richard of Shrewsbury,
Warwick or Lincoln).
3) So, when the "history" was being written, *why*
pick on Sir James?
And the only result I come up with is that, to fit
Tudor requirements, September/October of 1483 was when the boys *had* to
have died. Why? Because that time-frame is that last definitely known for
certain period when the boys could be located *while under Richard's control.*
Then, when trying to explain *why* HT made such determined, and
underhanded, efforts to get hold of Sir James, a quarter-century *after*
Bosworth, and rather than base it on the most probable reason - fears for
the continuity of HT's newly-established dynasty, Vergil plumped on Sir James as
the murderer of the boys *because Sir James was at the Tower when the boys were
"last" noted as definitely being there* (which was also just before when the
rumors of their death had been spread).  And because one didn't accuse
one's monarch of treachery and double-dealing, or the father of one's monarch, a
"confession" concerning the boys (rather than continuing fears of Yorkists) was
invented to explain *why* HT had Sir James executed, so long after any
apparent Yorkist activity on Sir James' part (Question: did Sir James even
*know* HT was after Edmund when the latter passed through
Guisnes?).
Sir James' execution as the boys' murderer had
been preceded by decades of vehement denials on HT's part that *any* of the
pretenders were who they said they were. *If* the pretenders weren't who they
claimed, then *something* had to have happened to EV and his brother. Personal
safety would prevent any musings, written or verbal (especially the
latter!) that just perhaps maybe HT got it wrong and the boys *had*
survived. Therefore the boys *were* dead and the only question being under what
circumstances did they perish.
IOW, Sir James, by sheer bad luck, became the "fall
guy." And has served as a red herring on the fate of the boys ever
since
Anyway, that's my basic reasoning on why Sir James
gotted tagged with killing the boys - HT's actions in 1502 against Sir James had
to be explained *somehow* and most emphatically *not* because HT was *still*
worried about his retaining the throne!
Doug

Doug,among all the different opinions about the "role" of Sir James Tyrell expressed here, I tend to agree toyour thinking. Whatever the family connections of Sir James were, (and I greatly admire the meticulous research by members of this forum), I think that his name was conviniently used by HT. Ferdinand of Spain had to be set at ease that there was no son of Edward IV lurking somewhere to eventually bring down theTudor dynasty before he would agree to marry his daughter to Prince Arthur. As Tyrell was executed anyway, what better opportunity than to use him as a scapegoat and finally end all rumours about the Princes'eventual surviving.Eva

Stephen wrote :"AS the King gave out  proving that the
rumours of a confession date from More etc writing in c.1513.Carol responds:Mea culpa. I'm the one who posted the article to our Files, and I'm aware of Bacon's phrase, which the title quotes. I guess my brain was asleep when I typed "what" for "as."Carol

Nico wrote:"I had a look for the Susan Leas article, but couldn't find it. It doesn't seem to be in the Ricardian Index. Do you (or anyone else) know how to access it."Carol responds:It's in our Files, accessible from our website under the Files link. If you post from your e-mail rather than from the site, try this link: Yahoo GroupsOh, dear. No telling where that link will lead you! I copied the URL and that's how it came out. Anyway, go to the website for the Richard III Society forum, click Files, and scroll down to "Leas, 'As the King Gave Out." It will be in alphabetical order under "L." (My apologies for giving the title slightly indirectly as "What the King Gave Out," which may have caused the difficulty. You should see my user ID, justcarol67, as the person who posted it.Yahoo won't let me delete the ad for Yahoo Groups under this post. Sorry about that.Carol Yahoo Groups Yahoo! Groups offers free mailing lists, photo & file sharing, group calendars and more. Discuss hot topics, share interests, join online communities. View on groups.yahoo.com Preview by Yahoo

Doug wrote:"I phrased what I was trying to say badly.
Actually, I'm not even certain *how* to phrase what I
mean!My thinking boils down to:1) Sir James was executed in May of 1502. No
confession is published.2) Vergil, in 1534, connects Sir James'
execution his execution to the fates of the Princes.3) But why did Vergil settle on Sir
James?From there I go to the following
facts:1) Sir James, regardless of whatever his (Sir
James') personal feelings towards him (Richard) may have been, *was* trusted by
Richard.2) Sir James was well-known as a Yorkist (the only
question.possibly being *which* one; Richard III, EV/Richard of Shrewsbury,
Warwick or Lincoln).3) So, when the "history" was being written, *why*
pick on Sir James?And the only result I come up with is that, to fit
Tudor requirements, September/October of 1483 was when the boys *had* to
have died. Why? Because that time-frame is that last definitely known for
certain period when the boys could be located *while under Richard's control.*
Then, when trying to explain *why* HT made such determined, and
underhanded, efforts to get hold of Sir James, a quarter-century *after*
Bosworth, and rather than base it on the most probable reason - fears for
the continuity of HT's newly-established dynasty, Vergil plumped on Sir James as
the murderer of the boys *because Sir James was at the Tower when the boys were
"last" noted as definitely being there* (which was also just before when the
rumors of their death had been spread). And because one didn't accuse
one's monarch of treachery and double-dealing, or the father of one's monarch, a
"confession" concerning the boys (rather than continuing fears of Yorkists) was
invented to explain *why* HT had Sir James executed, so long after any
apparent Yorkist activity on Sir James' part"Carol responds:Vergil times the supposed murders as occurring when Tyrell went to London during Richard's progress in early September, but More (who invented the "confession"--Vergil and early chroniclers don't mention it) has, if I recall correctly, a later date.Doug wrote:"Sir James' execution as the boys' murderer had
been preceded by decades of vehement denials on HT's part that *any* of the
pretenders were who they said they were. *If* the pretenders weren't who they
claimed, then *something* had to have happened to EV and his brother. [snip]."Carol responds:But Sir James was *not* executed as the boys' murderer. He was executed for his involvement with Edmund de la Pole, another of Richard's nephews and another Yorkist claimant. (Perkin Warbeck had been executed three years earlier, along with Edward, Earl of Warwick, so Edmund, assuming that all the cousins in line ahead of him were dead, claimed the throne as the next heir.) Henry *may* have circulated a rumor involving Tyrell since the rumor that he killed Richard's nephews on Richard's orders was already in circulation before Vergil and More created their conflicting versions of his involvement in the murder, but there was no confession, real and coerced or feigned by Henry. (It's all Bacon's fault. He's the one who thought that More's story was based on details given out by Henry VII. Wrong. Every bit of that story except the idea that Tyrell was involved came from More's fertile imagination.)But, yes, Tyrell's Yorkist connections, especially with Richard, his presence in London at the "right" time, and his convenient execution did make him the perfect scapegoat--for Vergil and More. I suspect that Vergil, in his researches, discovered that Tyrell had been in London in early September and made up the part about Tyrell riding sorrowfully to London to conduct the murders after Brackenbury refused. More then embroidered on the tale, involving other names in some way connected with Richard. But More never intended for his tale to be published, and its publication has led to unfortunate consequences, the myth of Tyrell's confession being among them.Please do read the Leas article. Sorry I gave the title incorrectly. It's in our Files under "Leas, 'As the King Gave Out.'"Carol

Jess wrote :I don't give any credence to whatever HT may or may not have said about Sir James Tyrell, but rather that he was a faithful supporter of Richard, and that he seems to have been heavily involved in whatever machinations were going on. That, together with the family recollections at Gipping, and the very large sum of money given to him when he was in Guines, is what puts my antenna on the alert."Carol responds:Henry didn't say *anything* about Tyrell (except to execute him for his involvement with Edmund de la Pole). As I keep saying, the supposed confession was invented by More and "the king" (Henry) did not "give out" anything. To the end of his days, he seems not to have known what happened to Richard's nephews.I am also on the alert for the same reasons (also because Tyrell was Master of Henchmen, meaning pages, and the perfect person to escort the boys without arousing suspicions). But that letter from Margaret to Isabella of Spain has thrown a wrench in the works for me.By the way, Henry's epitaph for Richard III pointedly did *not* accuse Richard of murdering his nephews. That would have been the perfect opportunity to publish Richard's "guilt," and he didn't do it. The English translation is in J A-H's book, "Last Days of Richard III" if anyone is interested.Carol

Carol wrote:
"Vergil times the supposed murders as occurring
when Tyrell went to London during Richard's progress in early September, but
More (who invented the 'confession' -- Vergil and early chroniclers don't
mention it) has, if I recall correctly, a later date."
Doug here:
I've been going by Williamson's "Mystery of the
Princes" for the timeline of when Sir James was connected to the "murders" (she
has Vergil doing so in 1534) and it's the *connection* itself that puzzles me.
Why wait more than a quarter-century *after* Sir James' execution to connect him
in *any* manner with the boys' disappearance?
And, of course, to further muddy the waters, More's
version, while published in 1543, was *written* two decades or more
earlier!
It's probably not worth the effort I'm expending on
it, but it looks, (to me, at least) as if it was highly impolitic for *Henry* to
have acknowledged that there *still* were Yorkist pretenders to the throne *that
presented a real danger to the continuance of the Tudor dynasty."
And that's where I'm stuck right now. We know no
"confession" was "given out", at least officially by Henry. We also know that
within a decade of Sir James' execution (More), it was apparently *believeable*
that Sir James could have had *something* to do with the disappearance of Edward
and Richard. Then in the mid-1530s we have Vergil, sans confession, again
mixing Sir James into their disappearance.
Even if the idea originated with More (perhaps
spread by people who knew about his manuscript?), we're still left with *More*
would have thought Sir James was involved.
I'm beginning more and more (sorry about that!) to
wonder if a rumor wasn't *officially* spread that the "real" reason for Sir
James' execution was his involvement in the boys' disappearance two decades
earlier solely in order to distract from the fact that there were *still*
Yorkist plots against Henry.
Especially with Arthur dying when he did (April
1502).
Doug

Doug wrote:I've been going by Williamson's "Mystery of the
Princes" for the timeline of when Sir James was connected to the "murders" (she
has Vergil doing so in 1534) and it's the *connection* itself that puzzles me.
Why wait more than a quarter-century *after* Sir James' execution to connect him
in *any* manner with the boys' disappearance? [snip]I'm beginning more and more (sorry about that!) to
wonder if a rumor wasn't *officially* spread that the "real" reason for Sir
James' execution was his involvement in the boys' disappearance two decades
earlier solely in order to distract from the fact that there were *still*
Yorkist plots against Henry."Carol responds:I wrote a long-lost thread on this topic about two years ago, exchanging ideas with Marie. I took Leas's article (which I hope you have read) one step further to propose that--even though there was no confession and Henry never gave one out--he *may* have unofficially spread a rumor that Tyrell was the murderer (rumor being one of his favorite weapons) after Tyrell's execution. That would explain the reference in the Great Chronicle to a rumor that Tyrell was the murderer. Here's what Leas says on the matter: "The only two pre-More references to Tyrell as murderer are a rumour reported in the Great Chronicle of London and Vergil's Anglia Historia. The former mentions several versions of the prince's [sic] death and adds 'of which Cruell dede sir Jamys Tyrell was Reportid to be the doer. But other[s] putt that wyght upon an old servaunt of King Richard's named [blank in the manuscript].' Vergil describes the unwilling Tyrell, who, 'being forcyd to do the king's commandment, rode sorrowfully to London." Neither mentions a confession." (My italics.) So the rumor that Tyrell killed Richard's nephews (whether or not Henry or his agents spread it) existed as early as 1501-02, if Charles Ross is correct about the date of composition for the pre-1496 portions of the Great Chronicle. And, interestingly, Sir James was executed in 1502. So either the rumors were already in circulation, reported by Fabyan in the Great Chronicle (which also reports various rumors of the methods used, none of which corresponds with More's tale) or they began to circulate at about the time of his execution or death. *There was no confession* nor did Henry "give out" that there was. That idea results, as Leas convincingly shows, from Bacon's false assumption that More's tale was based on Tyrell's confession as given out by Henry. (It did not occur to Bacon that More could have invented the whole shebang.) But there were rumors. (Of course, those rumors could have begun as late as 1513, the point at which Fabyan died, if Ross is wrong about the composition dates.If Vergil read the Great Chronicle and then went back to the wardrobe accounts, he would have found the time at which Sir James arrived in London, conveniently during Richard's progress just before the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales--and about a month before the rumors began circulating of the "princes'" deaths. More took it from there, adding the confession to make his fictional account sound authentic (to anyone who didn't see the holes in it).In short, I don't think there was an *official* rumor or historians would have found traces of it. But an unofficial rumor certainly reached the ears of Fabyan and appeared in the Great Chronicle some time before 1513 and possibly as early as 1501-02. But it took Vergil to put Tyrell's name and together with the visit to London in early September as the perfect time to commit the "murders" and More to invent the confession--which, alas, is still reported as fact by many historians who have not taken the trouble to research the topic.Carol

Carol wrote:
//snip//
"In short, I don't think there was an *official*
rumor or historians would have found traces of it. But an unofficial rumor
certainly reached the ears of Fabyan and appeared in the Great Chronicle some
time before 1513 and possibly as early as 1501-02. But it took Vergil to put
Tyrell's name together with the visit to London in early September as the
perfect time to commit the 'murders' and More to invent the confession--which
alas, is still reported as fact by many historians whho have not taken the
trouble to research the topic."
Doug here:
I quite agree that that there wasn't an "official"
rumor for the reasons you've given. An "unofficial" one, say, coming from
someone who'd be expected to know *and* with no names being mentioned, is
another thing entirely (is plausible denial, the term?). People *do* love being
the recipient of information noone else has - especially if they can then spread
that information *as long as no direct attribution is given.* Just
look at reporters nowadays...
Something else regarding Sir James came to me last
night while I was having an, um, beverage at a local establishment
(surely it's also happened to you?):
Sir James is noted for *not* being involved in
either Buckingham's Rebellion, which *originally* was touted as an effort to
return EV to the throne or with the efforts to put Perkin/Richard on the throne.
Yet he's definitely connected to EIV via the Woodvilles, so *why* didn't Sir
James stir his stumps, so to speak? And that
thought led me to Titulus Regius.
I know *I* have a tendency to think that TR
"declared" EIV's marriage to EW as invalid, but what if one looks at TR as, not
"declaring" the marriage to be invalid (as, for example the Countess of Warwick
was "declared to be as if dead"), but as "recognizing" the marriage as invalid?
The former is a legal act on its own; the latter is a merely recognition of an
*existing* legal state and isn't making any *legal* changes. So, repeal of TR itself really had no effect on whether or not the
situation it "recognized" was changed; all repeal did in law was remove
*official sanction* from the recognition of that situation. Yes, the actual
results were as if there'd been a "legal" change in the status of EW's marriage
(and the legitimacy of her children by EIV), but if TR hadn't changed any laws
(and didn't in my reading of it), then repealing TR didn't make EoY legitimate,
nor, espescially, did it make her brothers legitmate
And *that* explains why Sir James wasn't in the
West with Buckingham or rounding up troops for Perkin/Richard - both (Buckingham
at first, anyway) were attempts to put an illegitmate son of EIV on the throne
and Sir James, otherwise a supporter of the Woodvilles, would have none of
that.
A de la Pole, a *legitimate* Yorkist heir, on
the other hand...
Doug

Doug wrote:"[snip] Sir James is noted for *not* being involved in
either Buckingham's Rebellion, which *originally* was touted as an effort to
return EV to the throne or with the efforts to put Perkin/Richard on the throne. [snip] but if TR hadn't changed any laws
(and didn't in my reading of it), then repealing TR didn't make EoY legitimate,
nor, espescially, did it make her brothers legitmate. And *that* explains why Sir James wasn't in the
West with Buckingham or rounding up troops for Perkin/Richard - both (Buckingham
at first, anyway) were attempts to put an illegitmate son of EIV on the throne
and Sir James, otherwise a supporter of the Woodvilles, would have none of
that. [snip]"Carol responds:Or, more simply, Tyrell was loyal to Richard and had perhaps helped him to send the illegitimate boys to safety. (And he might have been a better judge than Richard of Buckingham's flawed character, but that's beside the point.)Carol