Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Hi all,

Briefly back. Please do share the article, David.

The Harrington-Stanley case isn't simple, and I'm not sure that all the relevant documents have yet been looked at, nor that they are likely to tell us the full story.

The statement from the little girls, Anne and Elizabeth, complaining that their uncles had abducted them and held them against their wills was, I believe, penned when they were still children and in Stanley custody and so is surely not reliable. The Harringtons were the girls' own family, and I believe it was not until 1466 that Edward IV granted their wardships and marriages to the Stanleys. The "abduction" by the Harrington brothers was therefore only abduction in the legal sense - i.e. they had refused to hand their nieces over.

I don't know whether there was a court ruling in the 1460s (so would love to see the article you refer to), but king Edward did appoint Gloucester and others to arbitrate between the Harringtons and Stanleys in the early 1470s, with the outcome that the Harringtons lost Hornby but kept some other properties.

The legalities may be more complicated than they appear. It has been suggested that, if the claim (by the Stanleys?) that Sir Thomas Harrington's eldest son John had survived a day longer than his father, were false then Sir Thomas' eldest surviving son would have been the right heir rather than John's little daughters, but I don't know whether that is really the legal position. It is also possible that Sir Thomas had enfeoffed his lands to the use, and done it in such a way that the rightful 'cestui qui use' after Wakefield was his eldest surviving son rather than his grand-daughters; anyway, I have read that the feoffees had made estate to Sir James Harrington quite some time before the girls' marriages were granted to Stanley.

The Stanleys were certainly highly expansionist in Lancashire and not above dirty tricks of their own. They mopped up the remaining Harrington lands after the Harrington brothers were attainted for fighting for Richard at Bosworth. A better idea of the view Elizabeth Harrington had of the family she had married into is contained in a letter written by her and her second husband in which they claimed that it was Stanley who had caused Sir James to be attainted, 'wher in for a treuth the said Jamys was never ayeinst the kyng in no field.' David Hipshon claims that Sir James Harrington, who died in 1487, was murdered, but I'm afraid I don't know the evidence for this.

Richard certainly didn't support the Harringtons willy-nilly. Last year I was lucky enough to get sight of the transcript of a document that had recently come to auction; it consisted of an arbitration award made by Gloucester's council in 1480 settling a dispute between the Harrington brothers and the Musgraves; this ordered the Harringtons to pay the Musgraves £200 compensation for their wounding and ill treatment of Richard Musgrave and forbade them to take any further action against the Musgraves for the their alleged trespass.

Marie

Hi all,

Briefly back. Please do share the article, David.

The Harrington-Stanley case isn't simple, and I'm not sure that all the relevant documents have yet been looked at, nor that they are likely to tell us the full story.

The statement from the little girls, Anne and Elizabeth, complaining that their uncles had abducted them and held them against their wills was, I believe, penned when they were still children and in Stanley custody and so is surely not reliable. The Harringtons were the girls' own family, and I believe it was not until 1466 that Edward IV granted their wardships and marriages to the Stanleys. The "abduction" by the Harrington brothers was therefore only abduction in the legal sense - i.e. they had refused to hand their nieces over.

I don't know whether there was a court ruling in the 1460s (so would love to see the article you refer to), but king Edward did appoint Gloucester and others to arbitrate between the Harringtons and Stanleys in the early 1470s, with the outcome that the Harringtons lost Hornby but kept some other properties.

The legalities may be more complicated than they appear. It has been suggested that, if the claim (by the Stanleys?) that Sir Thomas Harrington's eldest son John had survived a day longer than his father, were false then Sir Thomas' eldest surviving son would have been the right heir rather than John's little daughters, but I don't know whether that is really the legal position. It is also possible that Sir Thomas had enfeoffed his lands to the use, and done it in such a way that the rightful 'cestui qui use' after Wakefield was his eldest surviving son rather than his grand-daughters; anyway, I have read that the feoffees had made estate to Sir James Harrington quite some time before the girls' marriages were granted to Stanley.

The Stanleys were certainly highly expansionist in Lancashire and not above dirty tricks of their own. They mopped up the remaining Harrington lands after the Harrington brothers were attainted for fighting for Richard at Bosworth. A better idea of the view Elizabeth Harrington had of the family she had married into is contained in a letter written by her and her second husband in which they claimed that it was Stanley who had caused Sir James to be attainted, 'wher in for a treuth the said Jamys was never ayeinst the kyng in no field.' David Hipshon claims that Sir James Harrington, who died in 1487, was murdered, but I'm afraid I don't know the evidence for this.

Richard certainly didn't support the Harringtons willy-nilly. Last year I was lucky enough to get sight of the transcript of a document that had recently come to auction; it consisted of an arbitration award made by Gloucester's council in 1480 settling a dispute between the Harrington brothers and the Musgraves; this ordered the Harringtons to pay the Musgraves £200 compensation for their wounding and ill treatment of Richard Musgrave and forbade them to take any further action against the Musgraves for the their alleged trespass.

Marie

Hi Marie,

Thank you for the very informative article. Good to hear from you again.

Best wishes

Kathryn x

Hello David (and thanks and welcome back Marie). The most detailed account of the Stanley/Harrington feud I've found is in David Hipshon's 'Richard III and the Death of Chivalry'. I wouldn't do it justice by paraphrasing it, but it also goes into the impact on the Stanleys of Robert Harrington's tit for tat marriage to a Balderson heiress and the subsequent loss to the Stanleys of income from the balliwicks of Blackbournshire and Amoundernesse. The other Balderson heiress was married to a chum of Richard's, John Pickering. As far as the wardship of the Harrington girls was concerned this was granted by Edward to Thomas Stanley in 1466. James Harrington continued to protest invoking the deaths of his father and brother at Wakefield in the Yorkist cause and in 1468 Edward, fed up with the whole thing, ordered two enquiries to be undertaken under the abitration of Warwick. There were to be two because Edward wanted the will of Thomas Harrington (there was one) investigated. I think we are getting to the bit you are talking about, David? Warwick, anxious to offend neither party, passed it on to his deputy Henry Sotehill who was able to show in chancery that the girls were indeed the heirs of Thomas Harrington and that they and their lands were being held unlawfully by James Harrington and Sir John Huddleston.Chancery issued a writ (is this the one?) summoning all to Westminster to hear the verdict. Harrington refused to come and the summons was repeated in March 1469. Harrington and Huddleston did not appear 'because the writ also said they had been in transgression of the law for eight years'. When eventually they did appear they were put in the chancellor's prison in the Fleet for a time. The turmoil of the Warwick bebellion caused a respite and Harrington continued to occupy Hornby 1470. The Stanleys had been loyal to Edward during this and so when Stanley tried to blast his ways into Hornby and came into direct conflict with Richard who was there Edward was increasingly annoyed, particularly with Richard and issued a proclamation on 25 Mar 1470 from York telling Stanley, Richard and supporters on both sides to desist and behave. Hipshon quotes the proclamation. There is also a belief (quoted by Ross as well) that Richard should not have been at Hornby at all and was wanted elsewhere by Edward. BTW Hipshon is by no means Stanley-friendly. He gives a lovely account of Sir Thomas 'being stuck in the traffic' on the way to St Albans. Going back to my previous email, I would say that this was not Richard's finest hour. In fact it demonstrates very well the difference in political acumen of the two York brothers. Edward needed the Stanleys to fill the gap left by old-established Lancastrian dissidents and was willing to play the 'love your enemies' game if it suited him. When Richard lets loyalties or a sense of right take over he can wobble and some of his wobbles like this can have disasterous consquences down the line and can also be seen by others as acts of croneysism. Before some of you take me to the lynching mob I would add that Richard's quest to be the perfect knight is as endearing as it is irritating at times. I have him as a complex man whose imperfections add considerably to his appeal. Hope this helps :) H On Thursday, 8 May 2014, 18:18, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Absolutely agree Sandra. Thank you Marie.

Very interesting Hilary. There is also a report ( can't remember where I read it could be Kendall, Clive or Scofield) of Richard riding back North from Wales and coming across Stanley up to some mischief on the border between Wales and England. Richard sent him packing and then carried on his way further North, however, instead of going home Stanley turned tail and headed straight for London to tell Edward what had happened. When Richard returned to London Edward wasn't best pleased with him. This would have been about the same time as the Hornby situation, I think before Warwick took Edward into captivity. Richard would have been about 17 -18 and was probably an arrogant teenager who thought he knew it all because he was the King's brother. His instinct about Stanley was probably right though because he failed to turn up to fight for Edward on a few occasions. I like to think that Richard matured as he grew older and possibly Anne was a good influence on him. Mary

Only as a teenager Sandra. He then became the excellent administrator, law giver, battle commander, husband, father and King that we all know. Well that's what I like to think. My daughter had a school friend who appeared to be quite arrogant when he was a teenager. One day he called to see her when she wasn't at home and we had a long chat while waiting for her, and I realized that he had another side to him and probably the arrogance was something that he put on around his friends. I would imagine that Stanley probably annoyed Richard intensely. Mary

Hi Hilary and thanks to everyone who welcomed me back. Good to be back.

I'm afraid this is miles long, but it's my final words on the subject as I have to get on with real life again, I'm afraid.

Thanks for these details, Hilary  its a long time since I've read David Hipshon, though I did heard him speak on the subject last year.

Sir Thomas Harrington certainly left a testament of his goods and cash, which was written just before Blore Heath and proved in November 1461, but if there was a separate will of his landed estate it doesn't survive. He left his plate to his wife Elizabeth, and after her death to his son John, and he asked John to help his younger brothers with their marriages. He also left some money to his Ratcliffe niece towards her marriage. His wife Elizabeth and eldest son John were amongst the executors, and he also enlisted a lot of Neville support  Sir Thomas Neville was an executor, and Sir John Neville and the Countess of Salisbury were to be supervisors.

The Harrington dispute is complicated, whatever the ruling in 1468 (which was not the end of the story). I am personally highly suspicious of both Sir James' claim to Hornby and Stanley's apparent claim (but in the absence of his own submissions I am not entirely clear that this was what he put forward) that the nieces should have inherited everything, because surely Sir Thomas Harrington would have made some provision for his younger sons, and I incline to the belief that the eventual settlement, made in the 1470s, whereby the Sir James kept Brierley, probably does represent the settlement Sir Thomas had had in mind; at any rate, according to Hipshon (whom I am now rechecking) Sir Thomas' feoffees granted Sir Thomas possession of Brierley early in 1463, and he is described as of Brierley in a document of 1465.

Since I wrote my last post I've found a fascinating source; it's volume 2, pages 261-2, of Whitaker's History of Richmondshire. It's available on www.archive.org and both volumes are in the same volume if you take my meaning, so you need to go to the second page 261. Basically, the author found documents at Hornby Castle which seem to be Harrington submissions to the 1468 enquiry. These indicate that, as well as making the above testament, Sir Thomas Harrington had enfeoffed his lands to various individuals high in the favour of the Lancastrian regime, people who would have the clout to ensure the enfeoffments were honoured, and the lands saved from confiscation, in the event of his dying on the losing side.

After the deaths of Sir Thomas and his eldest son John, Sir Thomas's widow Elizabeth went for sorrow' to live with her daughter and her husband Thomas Broughton (presumably the Broughton of Broughton Tower in Furness), but John's widow Maude Clifford stayed on at Hornby. Maude took the precaution of rendering her late father-in-law's seal unusable  basically she chopped it in half with an axe, kept one half and sent the other to her mother-in-law at Broughton. That the Harringtons felt the need to explain this to the court may suggest that Sir James had been accused by the Stanleys of forging documents in his father's name. Sir James had eventually got the enfeoffment of Hornby just before the legal battle, when John Parsons, one of his father's old servants who was also a feoffee of same, handed it over to him because he felt sorry for him. This was probably the feoffee who was imprisoned in the Fleet with Sir James after the court hearing. What also emerges is that the court case was not about the Harringtons' continued refusal to surrender the girls to the Stanleys  they had already done so  but was about possession of Hornby. Whitaker also mentions the claim that Sir James Harrington was murdered: apparently he died rather suddenly in 1487, and the Harringtons accused the Stanleys of poisoning him.

Actually, the Stanleys had no right at all to the marriage of the elder Harrington girl, Anne, as in 1463, in cooperation with the feoffees, the King had sold her wardship and marriage to one Geoffrey Middleton for 100 marks. My guess is that the Stanleys simply gazumped Middleton and that the 1468 ruling had more to do with filling the King's coffers than with legalities. I don't know whether Hornby was held of the Duchy of Lancaster, but as someone has remarked, much of Lancashire is, and certainly many of the documents relating to this case are in the Duchy of Lancaster records. It's interesting that King Edward didn't submit the question to a court of common law, but went first for the court of Chancery, which was a court of equity  i.e. it made rulings according to what seemed fair irrespective of whether the parties had a valid case under common law. This sounds great, but of course was open to abuse. And after Chancery he went for arbitration by Stanley's brother-in-law. King Edward's anxiousness to profit from the sale of wardships in the Duchy lands, and his impatience with being prevented from doing so by enfeoffments, eventually led to an Act of Parliament making feoffments and wills no bar to the King exercising his right of wardship in the Duchy, and specifically forbidding people to try to hide their children; so perhaps the Harringtons had good reason to fear they would not get justice.

To leave aside the legal question, Edward IV's treatment of the Harringtons was insensitive. Firstly, Sir James does seem to have been the legal owner of Brierley, which may also have been threatened, and his presence with his brother at Hornby may have been viewed by his sister-in-law as at least semi-welcome protection even if she had her suspicions about his ultimate intentions. Second, the Harringtons had done amazing service in the Yorkist cause. Sir James' father and elder brother had died at Wakefield, and in 1465, just months before the Stanleys were granted the girls' marriages, he himself had personally led the party that tracked down and captured Henry VI; for this huge service he had received from the King merely £66 to cover his expenses. Thirdly, Anne Harrington's wardship and marriage had already been peaceably granted to Geoffrey Middleton, and if Middleton had allowed her to go on living with her mother that would not have invalidated the arrangement.

To force the family to give up their little girls and all their estates to Lord Stanley of all people was jaw-droppingly insensitive as he was the family enemy. In 1459, just after Blore Heath (at which Sir Thomas Harrington fought for York but Stanley didn't), Stanley had captured Sir Thomas Harrington and Sir John Neville and had kept them locked up in Chester Castle for over a year. They hadn't been long free when Sir Thomas met his death at Wakefield.

I'm not clear whether Sir James Harrington had planned to keep Hornby for himself all along  if he had been claiming Hornby back in 1463 it is hard to see why Geoffrey Middleton would have bothered paying 100 marks for Anne Harrington's marriage. Perhaps temptation in that direction got the better of him after the girls' marriages were granted to Stanley, because now the Harringtons stood to be completely sundered from the girls and from the old family home. I got it back to front before; it was Sir James who came up with the argument that, because his brother had died first, he had been his father's eldest son at the time of his death and was therefore his heir. I'm not sure that's a correct interpretation of inheritance law, and I'm quite sure Stanley could pay for better lawyers than the Harringtons.

Anyway, I suppose my feeling is that Sir James Harrington had no legal right to Hornby, but that the elder Harrington girl ought to have been allowed to marry into the Middletons as already agreed, in which case the Stanleys probably couldn't have got it either. What do I feel about Richard's actions? My head tells me he was in the wrong and behaving like a total teenage twit, but I'm proud of him too because what he did showed that he cared about what the Harringtons had sacrificed. After Edward's Re-adeption he behaved quite differently, and became part of the solution rather than part of the problem, which confirms for me that his foolhardy and illegal actions in 1470 were the result of immaturity; but I don't think he ever stopped feeling outraged about the way the Edward sold two girl children and caused them to be wrested away from their family. I do feel Edward deserves a large share of the blame for making such a provocative decision: did he even know the background when he granted those girls' wardships to Lord Stanley?

And I feel, probably as Richard and the Harringtons did, that Stanley was up to no good but was already seeking to make himself into a great power in the region. The key to Lancashire, of course, was control of the Duchy of Lancaster tenancies and offices in the region. The Stanleys and Harringtons were already in dispute over some of the Duchy offices, as Hilary has pointed out. I am convinced that Stanley's ambitions over control of the Duchy estates went even further, and that he coveted not just the stewardships of individual estates but the post of Chief Steward of the Duchy in the North of England. Richard held this post from 1472, and I suspect that one reason Stanley was initially happy to support Richard's bid for the throne was that he believed the Chief Stewardship would then be up for grabs and he might be granted it. He must have been furious when he realised Richard intended to retain the post in his own hands even though he was now king, and administer it through his old deputy. At any rate, the Chief Stewardship was granted to Stanley within days of Bosworth. It wasn't only the Harringtons, therefore, who may have fallen foul of Stanley's Duchy ambitions and been the victims of false testimony after Bosworth; the Metcalfe brothers, Thomas and Miles, respectively Richard's Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Deputy Chief Steward, were both proscribed after Bosworth and took some months to clear their names.

As for what Richard continued to think of Edward's policy of profiteering from Duchy wardships and snatching children from their families, we have a very clear idea because he repealed Edward's Acts of Parliament that had protected the King's wardship rights from feoffments and wills: The king, notwithstanding that he believes the said acts to be to his great profit and benefit, believes them to be to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects, and having more affection to the common weal of this his realm and of his subjects than to his personal profit, ... has ordained, enacted and decreed that the aforesaid acts, and each of them, be annulled, repealed and of no force or effect, and that his said subjects shall stand and be at their same liberty and freedom as they were before the same acts were made.

Phew!

Marie

Very thought provoking Hilary...and assuming that is correct that William was Yorkist....for which he died o.k.....because he believed that one or both of princes had survived..it doesn't seem a clever thing to help a Lancastrian king on to the throne...Should one of the princes return to claim his throne back it was going to be even tougher...I think....Oh I dunno!..it just makes my head spin.....Eileen

Sandra,

I don't think it could be better said.

Kathryn x

Sorry,

Should have included Eileen as well.

Kathryn x

Hi Hilary and thanks to everyone who welcomed me back. Good to be back.

I'm afraid this is miles long, but it's my final words on the subject as I have to get on with real life again, I'm afraid.

Thanks for these details, Hilary  its a long time since I've read David Hipshon, though I did heard him speak on the subject last year.

Sir Thomas Harrington certainly left a testament of his goods and cash, which was written just before Blore Heath and proved in November 1461, but if there was a separate will of his landed estate it doesn't survive. He left his plate to his wife Elizabeth, and after her death to his son John, and he asked John to help his younger brothers with their marriages. He also left some money to his Ratcliffe niece towards her marriage. His wife Elizabeth and eldest son John were amongst the executors, and he also enlisted a lot of Neville support  Sir Thomas Neville was an executor, and Sir John Neville and the Countess of Salisbury were to be supervisors.

The Harrington dispute is complicated, whatever the ruling in 1468 (which was not the end of the story).  I am personally highly suspicious of both Sir James' claim to Hornby and Stanley's apparent claim (but in the absence of his own submissions I am not entirely clear that this was what he put forward) that the nieces should have inherited everything, because surely Sir Thomas Harrington would have made some provision for his younger sons, and I incline to the belief that the eventual settlement, made in the 1470s, whereby the Sir James kept Brierley, probably does represent the settlement Sir Thomas had had in mind; at any rate, according to Hipshon (whom I am now rechecking) Sir Thomas' feoffees granted Sir Thomas possession of Brierley early in 1463, and he is described as of Brierley in a document of 1465.

Since I wrote my last post I've found a fascinating source; it's volume 2, pages 261-2, of Whitaker's History of Richmondshire. It's available on www.archive.org and both volumes are in the same volume if you take my meaning, so you need to go to the second page 261. Basically, the author found documents at Hornby Castle which seem to be Harrington submissions to the 1468 enquiry. These indicate that, as well as making the above testament, Sir Thomas Harrington had enfeoffed his lands to various individuals high in the favour of the Lancastrian regime, people who would have the clout to ensure the enfeoffments were honoured, and the lands saved from confiscation, in the event of his dying on the losing side.

After the deaths of Sir Thomas and his eldest son John, Sir Thomas's widow Elizabeth went for sorrow' to live with her daughter and her husband Thomas Broughton (presumably the Broughton of Broughton Tower in Furness), but John's widow Maude Clifford stayed on at Hornby. Maude took the precaution of rendering her late father-in-law's seal unusable   basically she chopped it in half with an axe, kept one half and sent the other to her mother-in-law at Broughton. That the Harringtons felt the need to explain this to the court may suggest that Sir James had been accused by the Stanleys of forging documents in his father's name. Sir James had eventually got the enfeoffment of Hornby just before the legal battle, when John Parsons, one of his father's old servants who was also a feoffee of same,  handed it over to him because he felt sorry for him. This was probably the feoffee who was imprisoned in the Fleet with Sir James after the court hearing. What also emerges is that the court case was not about the Harringtons' continued refusal to surrender the girls to the Stanleys  they had already done so  but was about possession of Hornby. Whitaker also mentions the claim that Sir James Harrington was murdered: apparently he died rather suddenly in 1487, and the Harringtons accused the Stanleys of poisoning him.

Actually, the Stanleys had no right at all to the marriage of the elder Harrington girl, Anne, as in 1463, in cooperation with the feoffees, the King had sold her wardship and marriage to one Geoffrey Middleton for 100 marks. My guess is that the Stanleys simply gazumped Middleton and that the 1468 ruling had more to do with filling the King's coffers than with legalities. I don't know whether Hornby was held of the Duchy of Lancaster, but as someone has remarked, much of Lancashire is, and certainly many of the documents relating to this case are in the Duchy of Lancaster records.  It's interesting that King Edward didn't submit the question to a court of common law, but went first for the court of Chancery, which was a court of equity  i.e. it made rulings according to what seemed fair irrespective of whether the parties had a valid case under common law. This sounds great, but of course was open to abuse. And after Chancery he went for arbitration by Stanley's brother-in-law. King Edward's anxiousness to profit from the sale of wardships in the Duchy lands, and his impatience with being prevented from doing so by enfeoffments, eventually led to an Act of Parliament making feoffments and wills no bar to the King exercising his right of wardship in the Duchy, and specifically forbidding people to try to hide their children; so perhaps the Harringtons had good reason to fear they would not get justice.

To leave aside the legal question, Edward IV's treatment of the Harringtons was insensitive. Firstly, Sir James does seem to have been the legal owner of Brierley, which may also have been threatened, and his presence with his brother at Hornby may have been viewed by his sister-in-law as at least semi-welcome protection even if she had her suspicions about his ultimate intentions. Second, the Harringtons had done amazing service in the Yorkist cause. Sir James' father and elder brother had died at Wakefield, and in 1465, just months before the Stanleys were granted the girls' marriages, he himself had personally led the party that tracked down and captured Henry VI; for this huge service he had received from the King merely £66 to cover his expenses. Thirdly, Anne Harrington's wardship and marriage had already been peaceably granted to Geoffrey Middleton, and if Middleton had allowed her to go on living with her mother that would not have invalidated the arrangement.

To force the family to give up their little girls and all their estates to Lord Stanley of all people was jaw-droppingly insensitive as he was the family enemy. In 1459, just after Blore Heath (at which Sir Thomas Harrington fought for York but Stanley didn't), Stanley had captured Sir Thomas Harrington and Sir John Neville  and had kept them locked up in Chester Castle for over a year. They hadn't been long free when Sir Thomas met his death at Wakefield.

I'm not clear whether Sir James Harrington had planned to keep Hornby for himself all along  if he had been claiming Hornby back in 1463 it is hard to see why Geoffrey Middleton would have bothered paying 100 marks for Anne Harrington's marriage. Perhaps temptation in that direction got the better of him after the girls' marriages were granted to Stanley, because now the Harringtons stood to be completely sundered from the girls and from the old family home. I got it back to front before; it was Sir James who came up with the argument that, because his brother had died first, he had been his father's eldest son at the time of his death and was therefore his heir. I'm not sure that's a correct interpretation of inheritance law, and I'm quite sure Stanley could pay for better lawyers than the Harringtons.

Anyway, I suppose my feeling is that Sir James Harrington had no legal right to Hornby, but that the elder Harrington girl ought to have been allowed to marry into the Middletons as already agreed, in which case the Stanleys probably couldn't have got it either. What do I feel about Richard's actions? My head tells me he was in the wrong and behaving like a total teenage twit, but I'm proud of him too because what he did showed that he cared about what the Harringtons had sacrificed. After Edward's Re-adeption he behaved quite differently, and became part of the solution rather than part of the problem, which confirms for me that his foolhardy and illegal actions in 1470 were the result of immaturity; but I don't think he ever stopped feeling outraged about the way the Edward sold  two girl children and caused them to be wrested away from their family. I do feel Edward deserves a large share of the blame for making such a provocative decision: did he even know the background when he granted those girls' wardships to Lord Stanley?

And I feel, probably as Richard and the Harringtons did, that Stanley was up to no good but was already seeking to make himself into a great power in the region. The key to Lancashire, of course, was control of the Duchy of Lancaster tenancies and offices in the region. The Stanleys and Harringtons were already in dispute over some of the Duchy offices, as Hilary has pointed out. I am convinced that Stanley's ambitions over control of the Duchy estates went even further, and that he coveted not just the stewardships of individual estates but the post of  Chief Steward of the Duchy in the North of England. Richard held this post from 1472, and I suspect that one reason Stanley was initially happy to support Richard's bid for the throne was that he believed the Chief Stewardship would then be up for grabs and he might be granted it. He must have been furious when he realised Richard intended to retain the post in his own hands even though he was now king, and administer it through his old deputy. At any rate, the Chief Stewardship was granted to Stanley within days of Bosworth. It wasn't only the Harringtons, therefore, who may have fallen foul of Stanley's Duchy ambitions and been the victims of false testimony after Bosworth; the Metcalfe brothers, Thomas and Miles, respectively Richard's Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Deputy Chief Steward, were both proscribed after Bosworth and took some months to clear their names.

As for what Richard continued to think of Edward's policy of profiteering from Duchy wardships and snatching children from their families, we have a very clear idea because he repealed Edward's Acts of Parliament that had protected the King's wardship rights from feoffments and wills: The king, notwithstanding that he believes the said acts to be to his great profit and benefit, believes them to be to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects, and having more affection to the common weal of this his realm and of his subjects than to his personal profit, ... has ordained, enacted and decreed that the aforesaid acts, and each of them, be annulled, repealed and of no force or effect, and that his said subjects shall stand and be at their same liberty and freedom as they were before the same acts were made.

Phew!

Marie

David, (and Marie....I have just read your very eloquent article again )

Thank you for this information. It is interesting that Richard is taking a stance quite early on in his adulthood with regards to his ethics. He was obviously close to his family, sisters and possibly Isobel and Anne. This may have given him insight into what could be the consequences of removing girls from their families and possibly his view of the chivalry required by a Christian knight. Although lawful in the eyes of the law,it obviously did not sit easy with him and he may have had other insights of which we are not aware. He obviously had qualities that Edward valued and perhaps the older he grew Edward may have accepted that they would not agree on everything but definitely what was important. A strong, peaceful and wealthy country with all that entailed. Richard eventually was able to marry the person he chose. He stood up for Clarence. Made his absence when the Treaties with the French were signed. Edward needed someone with the ability to make independent, sensible and responsible judgements and be completely loyal. Richard proved that by his actions and during his exile alongside Edward, the bonds were forged.

Kathryn x

avid:

"View

David:

"I think, though, that to attempt to re-try the case of Hornby Castle is to miss the point. The case had been put to the appropriate court and that court had found in favour of the Stanleys. So in supporting the Haringtons and particularly doing so by means of force was acting with disregard to the law, whether or not we agree with that law today."

Marie:

I agreed that Richard's apparent armed support of the Harringtons went against the legal decision so I'm sure I'm not missing that point at all. Actually, however, I've checked my notes since and it looks to me as though the evidence for Richard's armed aggression in support of Sir James Harrington may be rather thin. A decree from King Edward refers to Richard's quarrel with Stanley but does not mention any Harringtons, and according to my notes Rosemary Horrox claims that the problem was over Duchy offices that Stanley had held but Edward had now granted to his brother. The only direct evidence for Richard's support of the Harringtons' occupation of Hornby that I'm aware of offhand is that he wrote a letter from Hornby during this period, but the offices in question had to do with Amounderness, the area in which Hornby lay, so perhaps his visiting Hornby is not that surprising. I think it's very clear what Richard thought about the legal decision, however, from his outspoken repeal of Edward's Act nullifying the effect of feoffments in the Duchy.

I've thought more about the whole Harrington business since my last post, and it seems to me a huge element of the problem may have been largely overlooked by writers both pro and anti Richard's stance, and that is Edward's retrospective claim to warship rights over Hornby during the minority of the heiresses. As can be seen from his Act of 1483, where there was no feoffment, etc, the King was due not only the wardship and marriage of the heirs but all the revenues of the estates in question during the minority bar what was required to maintain the heirs. Various bits of evidence suggest that in 1468 Edward may have been attempting to claw eight years' back profits of the Hornby estates. By this time the Harringtons had already given up the girls to the Stanleys so the quarrel was not about that as such.

I really want to research this subject in depth some time, but thus far I have found no evidence that Sir James claimed Hornby until the family came under this intolerable financial pressure as a result of the King's belated notion that he had missed out on profiting from a minority situation. The girls' own mother apparently supported the Harringtons' claim that the feoffment document relating to Hornby was genuine because she related that herself had destroyed Sir Thomas's seal after his death. If Edward IV honoured the feoffment then there was no minority situation because the estates were in the hands of adult trustees. If he did not, then the only other solution for the family would have been to argue that the little girls had not been the heirs, but their (adult) uncle instead. This may explain Sir James' sudden claim to Hornby.

David wrote:

I am not sure about the earlier wardship for the older of the daughters. It seems that that earlier wardship can not have been enacted, or else, the daughter would have been in another household. I am not sure what happens if the parties to a purchased wardship wish to withdraw from the agreement.

Marie:

Nothing happened at all. It was quite common for wards to remain with their mothers if very young, or if older to be sent to complete their education with a third party. An example (by no means isolated) is James Tyrell, whose wardship was granted to Cecily, Duchess of York, but she let him stay with his mother until he was old enough to begin more formal training for his adult life, which he did in the household of her daughter the Duchess of Suffolk. The legal guardian retained control of the situation and the revenues of the ward's estates went to them.

Also, in the case under discussion the money had been paid by Geoffrey Middleton to the King, not to the Harrringtons.

David wrote:
The language used in Richard's act in repealing his rights to the sale of wardships certainly has that ring to appeal to the modern reader, talking about common weal of his subjects, could have been from a speech by Obama.
However, if you actually consider who will actually benefit from the act, the change does not have such a wide impact, nor does it benefit in any way what we might call the common people today.
If I am not mistaken, those benefitting from that legal amendment are those who hold land of the king in the Duchy of Lancaster whose holdings are enfeoffed...
Now the biggest benefit will accrue to the greatest land holders with the cleverest lawyers. It is more a case that this act actually benefits the super-rich from that era. One thinks of people like the Stanleys...
The enfeoffments that are protected were a part of the problem - a mediaeval tax avoidance scam that allowed the powerful regional magnates to dispose of their property as they wished and deprived the crown of income that would normally be due. These arrangements only benefited large land holders and lawyers.

Marie:

Yes, of course I understand that feoffments were only made by people with property so Richard's law was only going to affect those who held directly of the Duchy, i.e. mainly the gentry class. There weren't however, many people "like the Stanleys" in that category. The Stanleys had become a huge regional power in the North-west and were in a league of their own.

Feoffments are often dismissed as a huge scam, mere tax avoidance, but actually, like modern trusts they could be just tax dodges but they had other more legitimate uses. And they were legal. Even King Edward used them to ring-fence income to fund the bequests in his will. Everyone used them, and in a time of civil war they provided families with some protection in the event that the head member came out on the wrong side during one of the many dynastic reversals. This is the chief reason that Sir Thomas Harrington enfeoffed his lands, because he was fighting for the Yorkists against the government of Henry VI. Given this, Edward IV's attempt to turn the clock back and set aside that feoffment several years after Sir Thomas' death - if that is indeed what he was doing - is pretty crass.

The wardship rights question wasn't just about crown revenue, of course: there were children involved. I don't think many people would defend the ruthless operation of the Court of Wards in Tudor times.

David wrote:

For those who are interested, the law school article is below. It is in a large magazine and you need to go past several earlier articles.

http://www.bppstudents.com/files/tinybrowser/legal_incite_autumn_2013.pdf

Marie replies:

Had a look. Afraid I'm not impressed. If a man is going to nit-pick about the odd sentence in an RIII Soc press release (and yes, I agree that Richard only extended the use of bail, he didn't invent it) he really ought to get his own facts straight. I'm also irritated by his straw man tactics, setting up the idea that Ricardians are cult members who all spout from the same catechism, therefore all you have to do to demolish all arguments in favour of Richard III is to find a single inaccurate quotation made by a Ricardian: faulty catechism, ergo false religion. Susan Higginbotham employs the same irritating tactic.

Perhaps we could take Hannay's claims one by one, if you or anyone else is interested.

David wrote:

My own view is that the Hornby incident also undermines Richard's generally accepted faithful support for Edward, as he ignored several commissions from his brother.

Marie:

Would be interested in the details to add to my Harrington notes, if you can spare the time. But no, I agree that Richard's support for Edward wasn't always as wholehearted as writers like Kendall would have us think. Edward's decisions left him pretty conflicted at times.

David wrote:

[snip] The language used in Richard's act in repealing his rights to the sale of wardships certainly has that ring to appeal to the modern reader, talking about common weal of his subjects, could have been from a speech by Obama. However, if you actually consider who will actually benefit from the act, the change does not have such a wide impact, nor does it benefit in any way what we might call the common people today. If I am not mistaken, those benefitting from that legal amendment are those who hold land of the king in the Duchy of Lancaster whose holdings are enfeoffed... Now the biggest benefit will accrue to the greatest land holders with the cleverest lawyers. It is more a case that this act actually benefits the super-rich from that era. One thinks of people like the Stanleys... The enfeoffments that are protected were a part of the problem - a mediaeval tax avoidance scam that allowed the powerful regional magnates to dispose of their property as they wished and deprived the crown of income that would normally be due. These arrangements only benefited large land holders and lawyers.[snip]

Carol responds:

David, I wish I had Marie's expertise to refute your arguments as you seem determined to present the Tudor perspective and uphold the traditional view of Richard (modified slightly in keeping with the modern traditionalist perspective of such historians as Hicks and Ross). As I'm no authority on medieval law or the Harrington affair, I can't present my own arguments. However, I would be grateful if you would carefully read the following article, which counters traditionalist views of Richard's legislation:

http://www.r3.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Rebuttal-Richard_s-Parliament-Laws.pdf

Carol

David wrote:

Hello Carol,
I have read the article a couple of times. It is obviously well researched. I have no cause to doubt Richard's motives in putting forward the measures before parliament. The acts are clearly intended to improve matters.

Marie butting in:

Do you mean the Hannay article? It absolutely isn't well researched. Richard kidnapped his mother-in-law? Even Rous, who is our sole source for her having been kept a prisoner at Middleham, stresses that she went to Richard there very willingly, believing him to be her rescuer. Hannay may not be aware that Richard had fought long and hard to get Edward to agree to let her join his household as EIV had been keeping her imprisoned at Beaulieu under armed guard - we know this from the Countess's own harangue - sorry, petition - to Parliament in 1472, which was preserved amongst Richard's papers at Middleham. Edward, I would contend, would have made it clear to Richard that the Countess was not to come to court to harangue him from there. A letter that Tony Pollard claims to have seen indicates that the Countess was in the habit of attending functions around the Middleham area in the 1470s, and that she was commissioning extremely expensive items of goldsmiths' work.

David wrote:

The only part that seemed odd was that the writer was obviously looking at things from a very Ricardian viewpoint - speculating about Richard's possible legal training, while stating that the acts would have very much pleased John Russell.
It seems that there is a possible inference that can be drawn, that Russell may have been the prime mover behind the legislation - especially given his experience as a judge in chancery and one of Richard's main councillors.
Wasn't Russell dismissed just before Bosworth? Does anyone know why?

Marie replies:

Russell would, I'm sure, have advised on drafting, but the abuse of royal privileges in the Duchy of Lancaster would not have come to Russell's attention in any meaningful way, but would have been all too well known to Richard as Chief Steward of the northern Duchy lands. The Act has Richard's fingerprints all over it.

David wrote:

Regarding the narrower topic of Hornby and the protection of the enfeoffments, I am still of the opinion that the Stanleys would be the biggest beneficiaries, and the fault with the 'system' was that the enfeoffments were being used for something that was not intended and were depriving the Crown of extra parliamentary income.

This may have actually led to the sale of wardships because it was needed to make up the shortfall.

Marie replies:

Not following, I'm afraid. The Stanleys didn't benefit in any way from Sir Thomas Harrington's enfeoffments. And didn't the exploitation of wardships increase dramatically during Tudor times at the same time that enfeoffments to the use were made illegal? Remember that the crown had received a windfall in 1399 in the shape of the Duchy of Lancaster, so may not really have needed to exploit these rather archaic and punitive sources of revenue provided kings were careful not to grant away too much of crown property; baronial income, on the other hand, had fallen since the Black Death.

Similar things were happening a lower levels of society. In certain area of the south of England, for instance, tenants started to be permitted by the lord to operate a system of leasehold whereby there were always three names in the lease and as soon as one of these individuals died a younger family member was co-opted in thus fines for entering into inheritance were perpetually avoided.

David wrote:

"Hello Carol, I have read the article a couple of times. It is obviously well researched. I have no cause to doubt Richard's motives in putting forward the measures before parliament. The acts are clearly intended to improve matters."

Marie replied::

"Do you mean the Hannay article? It absolutely isn't well researched"

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. I recommended that David read a different article, a rebuttal by Susan Troxell of arguments against Richard's legislation. Here's the link again: http://www.r3.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Rebuttal-Richard_s-Parliament-Laws.pdf

If I'm not mistaken, it appeared recently in the Ricardian Bulletin.

Carol

Hmmm . . .

I'm no expert on Richard III's legislation, but at the least, objectively, it seems to have been relatively progressive.

I have a gut feeling that, despite Richard's inherently more legitimate claim to the throne (than HT in particular)  it can be argued otherwise with his nephews  a major problem was lack of the imposing physical presence and charisma which was possessed by Edward IV. I have a feeling that many of the magnates felt that they were more suitable to be king than was the relatively unprepossessing Richard. He seems to have been generous to many of them, but that generosity wasn't enough to truly win them over. And with his legislation, he was aiming at increasing fairness and justice for all of the subjects of the realm. That in itself would have been off-putting to many of the aristocrats. Unfortunately I don't think the commoners sufficiently appreciated his efforts on their behalf. I am thinking in part of the Pastons, who apparently in the end supported HT and not Richard  at least so I have read.

Regarding lawyers . . . hmm . . . writing as a retired member (25 years) of the legal profession, I can say that the common law (can't speak for the civil law regimes in Quebec, France and other places) is not based on the lawyers on a case impartially seeking to present the truth. Rather, in adversarial cases  the criminal law and civil proceedings  the various sides (i.e. points of view) are represented by lawyers who are advocates for their side. There are rules set up to keep the parties within bounds. I can say truthfully that I never took a case to court unless I believed in the rightness of my client's case  or at least that there was something I could accomplish for him by representing him. But  there are always at least two sides to every story, and in many cases the judge would find for the other side. This was especially true in criminal cases, where I was a criminal defence lawyer and not a prosecutor. The odds greatly favour conviction of the people charged with crimes (at least up here in Canada). Anyway, there are rules to prevent abuses by the parties, but I found that even in a criminal case where I believed my client was probably guilty (perhaps he refused to admit guilt), I would often legitimately be able to perform a service for the client, the court, and the process by negotiating a plea bargain  saving the stress and expense of a trial and getting a better deal for my client than he/she likely would have gotten had he/she been found guilty at trial.

What does this have to do with the question of the merits of Richard's legislation? Are you saying that lawyers who were his contemporaries in the 15th. c. , or who are our contemporaries today, were or are unfairly critical of Richard's legislative program? Those are other issues and deal more with whose ox is perceived as being gored by a particular piece of legislation, I think.

Sorry to run on!

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 1:27 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Carol, it looks like that between you and Marie this issue is pretty much settled. Thinking about legal matters, it does often seem to me that when I see lawyers arguing an issue, the goal for either side is not to Find The Truth but to Win The Case. This mindset carries over to arguing things besides matters of law: The goal seems not to uncover the truth whatever it may be, but to use one's words and actions to "win", often by hiding things damaging to their claims behind walls of clever and seductive verbiage. Tamara

Hi Carol,

Thanks for putting me straight. I've not had time to visit the forum much lately so missed your post to David, but the article is familiar.

Still, glad my confusion gave me the opportunity to address that claim about Richard kidnapping his mother-in-law.

Marie

Johanne -- no apologies needed for "running on"! Thank you for you input and insight!

I've dealt mostly with American lawyers and ALJs, both professionally and otherwise, so that's my main frame of reference. From what you have described, you are definitely not the sort of attorney that would "pound the table", to use an American term.

Tamara

Hi, Tamara!

Thank you for understanding.

I'm from the US originally (I'm a dual Canadian-US citizen), and I tend to agree with you. Although no system devised by mortal man (and woman) is perfect, I think the accepted conventions that govern legal practice in Canada and the UK tend to discourage most abuses. As a well-respected judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court once advised a gathering of lawyers at a conference on legal ethics: Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. That is the way I tried to practice law  not holding things against other lawyers personally and being personally courteous even when one is engaged in an intensely contested case.

TTFN J

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 10:00 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Johanne -- no apologies needed for "running on"! Thank you for you input and insight!

I've dealt mostly with American lawyers and ALJs, both professionally and otherwise, so that's my main frame of reference. From what you have described, you are definitely not the sort of attorney that would "pound the table", to use an American term.

Tamara

Johanne, I too have been busy at the moment but I would wish to say how much I agree with both your points. I'm not a lawyer but have spent a fair time in the courts and tribunals (not in the dock I might add) and the Law is about precedent and procedure - get the procedure wrong and you lose the case, regardless of whether that was the just verdict. I think our emotional Richard might have found that hard to swallow some of the time. Secondly, whilst you were away I've been looking at the upper and middle classes and their longstanding connections; this started with looking at those who supported HT from 1483/5. Not surprisingly, connections emerged between the Cornish and Welsh contingent (Morton himself was a Turbeville) and there was almost certainly some longstanding French manipulation but I reckon there was more than just that. As Marie touched on, power bases had been changing since the mid -fourteenth century. It's then that the great Norman baronial families fizzle out, mainly because they fail to produce sufficient male heirs. So we lose the de Burghs, the de Lacys, Marshals, de Somerys, de Claverings, deToenis and the Beauchamps will soon follow them. William had built his strong governance around these people; he couldn't have done it without them and they knew it. The de Burghs' achievements make Richard Nevill's attempts to marry off Isabel and Anne look pathetic. They became Justiciars of Ireland and married there, Elizabeth married the King of Scotland and became ancestor to another. And they married into the English royal family too. Any king did well to keep those sort of barons onside. They also, of course, pre-dated the Plantagenets. So their place begins to be taken by people we know well in the Richard story - the Nevilles, the Talbots, the Stanleys (social mobility definitely didn't start with HT) and one can imagine how those who had travelled the long journey since 1066 and survived - the de Veres, the Staffords, the Courtenays must have felt. It's epitomised by John Rous's elogy on the Beauchamps. On top of this, there's a new social strata of High Sheriffs which actually wield immense power. It's a Crown appointment but it had actually almost become hereditary through inter-marriage. So dabble at your peril - both Richard and HT did; and both came unstuck. Why did this underlying discontent surface under Richard? Well I reckon it was diverted for a hundred years by the French wars which actually gave some of the upstarts a way to make their fortune. Then there were just five years until Edward took the throne and as you say Johanne he was popular and he brough peace (for a while). Like William's four hundred years' before his administration was good - he held London (a quarter of the population), little brother held the North East, Clarence and Hastings held the Midlands. It's interesting that the areas in which Edward held less sway, such as the SW and the NW were some of the first to declare against Richard. Tactically, the execution of Hastings was a disaster - did someone make sure it happened? So my feeling is, and has always been, that HT's success is nothing to do with dislike of Richard, usurpations, dead princes etc. It's the culmination of the coming together of a number of factors at a particular point in time, probably manipulated by outsiders for their own ends. In fact HT in the early years of his reign experienced the same sorts of problems from, ironically, the same people. What I'd also add is that Edward undoubtedly died young; it caught the plotters and the key players on the hop and that confusion also worked against Richard. I've now got about 40,000 records and they indicate that average age of death for men in the fifteenth century was akin to that of the ensuing centuries up until the twentieth; ie a normal lifespan was sixties to mid seventies. Women, not surprisingly, are a different story but I'll not go into that here. Apologies for such a long post and I'd add that these are just my views. H

On Tuesday, 10 June 2014, 2:00, "khafara@... []" <> wrote:


Johanne -- no apologies needed for "running on"! Thank you for you input and insight!

I've dealt mostly with American lawyers and ALJs, both professionally and otherwise, so that's my main frame of reference. From what you have described, you are definitely not the sort of attorney that would "pound the table", to use an American term.

Tamara

Hi, Tamara!

Thank you for understanding.

I'm from the US originally (I'm a dual Canadian-US citizen), and I tend to agree with you. Although no system devised by mortal man (and woman) is perfect, I think the accepted conventions that govern legal practice in Canada and the UK tend to discourage most abuses. As a well-respected judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court once advised a gathering of lawyers at a conference on legal ethics: Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. That is the way I tried to practice law  not holding things against other lawyers personally and being personally courteous even when one is engaged in an intensely contested case.

TTFN J

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 10:00 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Johanne -- no apologies needed for "running on"! Thank you for you input and insight!

I've dealt mostly with American lawyers and ALJs, both professionally and otherwise, so that's my main frame of reference. From what you have described, you are definitely not the sort of attorney that would "pound the table", to use an American term.

Tamara

Hi, Tamara!

Thank you for understanding.

I'm from the US originally (I'm a dual Canadian-US citizen), and I tend to agree with you. Although no system devised by mortal man (and woman) is perfect, I think the accepted conventions that govern legal practice in Canada and the UK tend to discourage most abuses. As a well-respected judge of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court once advised a gathering of lawyers at a conference on legal ethics: Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. That is the way I tried to practice law  not holding things against other lawyers personally and being personally courteous even when one is engaged in an intensely contested case.

TTFN J

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 10:00 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Johanne -- no apologies needed for "running on"! Thank you for you input and insight!

I've dealt mostly with American lawyers and ALJs, both professionally and otherwise, so that's my main frame of reference. From what you have described, you are definitely not the sort of attorney that would "pound the table", to use an American term.

Tamara

Sandra asked 'anyone else have a favourite'....yeah....Man makes plans and the Gods laugh...:0/

Sandra asked 'anyone else have a favourite'....yeah....Man makes plans and the Gods laugh...:0/ seconded by ...don't trouble trouble till trouble troubles you....Eileen

Hilary....spot on good post...especially liked the part re Henry's success was nothing to do with dislike for Richard...I find it oddly comforting...thanks...Eileen

Don't worry about what might happen. Something you don't even think about will be happens. And you cannot make the river flow back, after it has gone under the bridge.
On Jun 10, 2014, at 3:53 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

Sandra asked 'anyone else have a favourite'....yeah....Man makes plans and the Gods laugh...:0/

Sandra wrote:

How right, Pamela. You can have your eye on one thing, but it's the one creeping up behind that'll get you!

Marie:

Ah! That's how Henry Tudor survived, then - eyes pointing in different directions.

"Hi Carol, Thanks for putting me straight. I've not had time to visit the forum much lately so missed your post to David, but the article is familiar.

Still, glad my confusion gave me the opportunity to address that claim about Richard kidnapping his mother-in-law."

Carol responds:

You're welcome. I'm glad, too. Your posts are always interesting and well-informed even when they result from confusion!

By the way, I've been doing some personal genealogy lately, and it turns out that I have ancestors from Yorkshire. Hope they were loyal to Richard!

How is the feigned boys project coming? I'm really looking forward to reading it.

Carol

Hi Carol,

Thanks. Feigned boys are still awaiting the end of Henry's wedding and a book review, unfortunately. These two not far from completion now; then a holiday, and then back to the feigned boys.

By the way, I was really excited to see Anne Sutton's article with the payments for cloths for what may have been Katherine's wedding, and that they included costly fabric for Edward Earl of Warwick. I bet it won't stop careless pseudo-historians claiming that Richard locked him up though.

Best,

Marie

Sandra wrote:

Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. I really like that, Johanne. It's something we should all bear in mind. My father's favourite quote was This above all: to thine own self be true. It's now my favourite too. Anyone else have a favourite?

------

I tend to find myself coming out with:

'Sufficient unto the day be the cares thereof'

'Nothing learned is ever wasted'

'Do as you would be done by'

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'

'If you want something doing, ask a busy person'.

Not great literature, any of them, but I find they have constant practical application.

And I impressed on my children when they were kids that The Emperor's New Clothes really is about the way that grown-up society works.

Marie

Sandra wrote:

Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends. I really like that, Johanne. It's something we should all bear in mind. My father's favourite quote was This above all: to thine own self be true. It's now my favourite too. Anyone else have a favourite?

------

I tend to find myself coming out with:

'Sufficient unto the day be the cares thereof'

'Nothing learned is ever wasted'

'Do as you would be done by'

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'

'If you want something doing, ask a busy person'.

Not great literature, any of them, but I find they have constant practical application.

And I impressed on my children when they were kids that The Emperor's New Clothes really is about the way that grown-up society works.

Marie

Hi Carol, Thanks. Feigned boys are still awaiting the end of Henry's wedding and a book review, unfortunately. These two not far from completion now; then a holiday, and then back to the feigned boys. By the way, I was really excited to see Anne Sutton's article with the payments for cloths for what may have been Katherine's wedding, and that they included costly fabric for Edward Earl of Warwick. I bet it won't stop careless pseudo-historians claiming that Richard locked him up though."

Carol responds:

Great. Will the feigned boys be a book or an article? I haven't seen Anne Sutton's article. Is it in the latest issue of the Ricardian? We Americans always receive our Ricardians late.

I thought it was well known that Richard knighted Edward of Warwick at Edward of Middleham's investiture in York and that little Warwick was with John, Earl of Lincoln at Sheriff Hutton.

Carol

Hi Carol,

Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers:

1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt)

2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead.

At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton; thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign.

Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case.

The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question.

Marie

PS Tracked down the source for Warwick having been knighted by Richard at York - it is the Rous Roll. I'd thought it was Rous, but all his other refs are in his Historia Regum Anglie so I was initially stumped when I didn't see it there.

Marie

Hi Carol,

Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers:

1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt)

2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead.

At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton;  thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is  specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign.

Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case.

The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question.

Marie

Here is the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661573/Revealed-King-Richard-III-planned-buried-York-not-Leicester-according-extraordinary-529-year-old-letter.html
and it seems the debate may continue ... http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11290756.529_year_old_letter_says_Richard_III__planned_York_mausoleum___/
I wonder what impact this may have for the Plantagenet Alliance? Also, since Chris Skidmore must have found this letter before the decision about judicial review; shouldn't he have come forward about it earlier? He says he supports Leicester's claim, but if he thinks it represented Richard's intentions, surely it should have been worthy of consideration.
Also, I wonder where he found it.

Nico






On Friday, 20 June 2014, 12:02, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:


Marie,

I think that the provision of fine clothing does not imply that Warwick was not being held in some form of custody - only that he was well dressed. There must be many examples in this era in which individuals are being kept in households without actually being behind bars, where they were generally well treated but not free to leave.

Many wards would be held in this way and there are two examples from HT's own life. When he spoke to Commynes he said he had spent his whole life in custody. But some of the evidence from the accounts of Duke Francis shows that HT was clothed in fine material by the Duke.

There would have been little point in attempting to escape because there would be enough armed retainers to ensure neither could get away.

There is no doubt that when HT sent for Warwick and his future wife after Bosworth, he knew exactly where they would be.

On a separate topic, has anyone else seen the newly discovered letter by Richard that has been found by Chris Skidmore. There is an article about it in the Mail online.

Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 8:25:00 PM

Hi Carol,
Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers: 1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt) 2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead. At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton; thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign. Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case. The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question. Marie

[The entire original message is not included.]

Hi, Nico 

Reading the two articles, it doesn't appear that there is anything new here. It isn't like Richard wrote, I wish to be interred in the Catheral in York, along with my wife and son, and therefore I establish a chantry for 100 priests to pray that our souls may become more acceptable to heaven. Or words to that effect.

I believe I am correct in saying that of the number of endowments that Richard and his family made to various institutions, this was proposed to be the largest (maybe guilt was a heavy burden on Richard's spirit, though I don't believe that includes guilt for executing his nephews). But I believe there were many established in places where the individuals did not intend to be interred, Cambridge and perhaps also Oxford springing to mind.

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 9:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Here is the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661573/Revealed-King-Richard-III-planned-buried-York-not-Leicester-according-extraordinary-529-year-old-letter.html

and it seems the debate may continue ...

http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11290756.529_year_old_letter_says_Richard_III__planned_York_mausoleum___/

I wonder what impact this may have for the Plantagenet Alliance? Also, since Chris Skidmore must have found this letter before the decision about judicial review; shouldn't he have come forward about it earlier? He says he supports Leicester's claim, but if he thinks it represented Richard's intentions, surely it should have been worthy of consideration.

Also, I wonder where he found it.

Nico

On Friday, 20 June 2014, 12:02, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

Marie,

I think that the provision of fine clothing does not imply that Warwick was not being held in some form of custody - only that he was well dressed. There must be many examples in this era in which individuals are being kept in households without actually being behind bars, where they were generally well treated but not free to leave.

Many wards would be held in this way and there are two examples from HT's own life. When he spoke to Commynes he said he had spent his whole life in custody. But some of the evidence from the accounts of Duke Francis shows that HT was clothed in fine material by the Duke.

There would have been little point in attempting to escape because there would be enough armed retainers to ensure neither could get away.

There is no doubt that when HT sent for Warwick and his future wife after Bosworth, he knew exactly where they would be.

On a separate topic, has anyone else seen the newly discovered letter by Richard that has been found by Chris Skidmore. There is an article about it in the Mail online.

Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 8:25:00 PM

Hi Carol,

Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers:

1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt)

2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead.

At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton; thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign.

Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case.

The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question.

Marie

This bothers me a little. I really don't think we need to re-open this can of worms as far as Richard's burial is concerned.
Some of us could see a case for Leicester and some of us for York but now is the time to bury the hatchet and re-inter Richard with respect and dignity.
More argument and Richard staying in a cardboard box at Leicester University is not a price worth paying.

Jess From: mailto:
Sent: 20/06/2014 13:07
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Here is the article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661573/Revealed-King-Richard-III-planned-buried-York-not-Leicester-according-extraordinary-529-year-old-letter.html
and it seems the debate may continue ... http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11290756.529_year_old_letter_says_Richard_III__planned_York_mausoleum___/ I wonder what impact this may have for the Plantagenet Alliance? Also, since Chris Skidmore must have found this letter before the decision about judicial review; shouldn't he have come forward about it earlier? He says he supports Leicester's claim, but if he thinks it represented Richard's intentions, surely it should have been worthy of consideration. Also, I wonder where he found it.
Nico






On Friday, 20 June 2014, 12:02, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:


Marie,

I think that the provision of fine clothing does not imply that Warwick was not being held in some form of custody - only that he was well dressed. There must be many examples in this era in which individuals are being kept in households without actually being behind bars, where they were generally well treated but not free to leave.

Many wards would be held in this way and there are two examples from HT's own life. When he spoke to Commynes he said he had spent his whole life in custody. But some of the evidence from the accounts of Duke Francis shows that HT was clothed in fine material by the Duke.

There would have been little point in attempting to escape because there would be enough armed retainers to ensure neither could get away.

There is no doubt that when HT sent for Warwick and his future wife after Bosworth, he knew exactly where they would be.

On a separate topic, has anyone else seen the newly discovered letter by Richard that has been found by Chris Skidmore. There is an article about it in the Mail online.

Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 8:25:00 PM

Hi Carol, Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers: 1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt) 2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead. At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton; thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign. Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case. The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question. Marie

Wow, back to litigation!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 7:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Here is the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661573/Revealed-King-Richard-III-planned-buried-York-not-Leicester-according-extraordinary-529-year-old-letter.html

and it seems the debate may continue ...

http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11290756.529_year_old_letter_says_Richard_III__planned_York_mausoleum___/

I wonder what impact this may have for the Plantagenet Alliance? Also, since Chris Skidmore must have found this letter before the decision about judicial review; shouldn't he have come forward about it earlier? He says he supports Leicester's claim, but if he thinks it represented Richard's intentions, surely it should have been worthy of consideration.

Also, I wonder where he found it.

Nico

On Friday, 20 June 2014, 12:02, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

Marie,

I think that the provision of fine clothing does not imply that Warwick was not being held in some form of custody - only that he was well dressed. There must be many examples in this era in which individuals are being kept in households without actually being behind bars, where they were generally well treated but not free to leave.

Many wards would be held in this way and there are two examples from HT's own life. When he spoke to Commynes he said he had spent his whole life in custody. But some of the evidence from the accounts of Duke Francis shows that HT was clothed in fine material by the Duke.

There would have been little point in attempting to escape because there would be enough armed retainers to ensure neither could get away.

There is no doubt that when HT sent for Warwick and his future wife after Bosworth, he knew exactly where they would be.

On a separate topic, has anyone else seen the newly discovered letter by Richard that has been found by Chris Skidmore. There is an article about it in the Mail online.

Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 8:25:00 PM

Hi Carol,

Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers:

1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt)

2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead.

At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton; thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign.

Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case.

The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question.

Marie

Wow, back to litigation!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 7:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Here is the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661573/Revealed-King-Richard-III-planned-buried-York-not-Leicester-according-extraordinary-529-year-old-letter.html

and it seems the debate may continue ...

http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11290756.529_year_old_letter_says_Richard_III__planned_York_mausoleum___/

I wonder what impact this may have for the Plantagenet Alliance? Also, since Chris Skidmore must have found this letter before the decision about judicial review; shouldn't he have come forward about it earlier? He says he supports Leicester's claim, but if he thinks it represented Richard's intentions, surely it should have been worthy of consideration.

Also, I wonder where he found it.

Nico

On Friday, 20 June 2014, 12:02, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

Marie,

I think that the provision of fine clothing does not imply that Warwick was not being held in some form of custody - only that he was well dressed. There must be many examples in this era in which individuals are being kept in households without actually being behind bars, where they were generally well treated but not free to leave.

Many wards would be held in this way and there are two examples from HT's own life. When he spoke to Commynes he said he had spent his whole life in custody. But some of the evidence from the accounts of Duke Francis shows that HT was clothed in fine material by the Duke.

There would have been little point in attempting to escape because there would be enough armed retainers to ensure neither could get away.

There is no doubt that when HT sent for Warwick and his future wife after Bosworth, he knew exactly where they would be.

On a separate topic, has anyone else seen the newly discovered letter by Richard that has been found by Chris Skidmore. There is an article about it in the Mail online.

Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 8:25:00 PM

Hi Carol,

Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers:

1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt)

2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead.

At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton; thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign.

Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case.

The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question.

Marie

No kidding&.I hope cool heads like Johanne will prevail, and Leicester will be able to move ahead. Enormous amount of money, time and energy have been spent, and almost a year later, it is time!

I did not know that the letter had been seen before. If so, perhaps that was the basis of big fight! As teens say, whatever!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 8:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Deep joy and rapture. MORE waiting around for a decision. I don't know about poor Richard being dead and gone, but we will be too at this rate.

From: mailto:

Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 2:07 PM

To:

Subject: RE: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Wow, back to litigation!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 7:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Here is the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661573/Revealed-King-Richard-III-planned-buried-York-not-Leicester-according-extraordinary-529-year-old-letter.html

and it seems the debate may continue ...

http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11290756.529_year_old_letter_says_Richard_III__planned_York_mausoleum___/

I wonder what impact this may have for the Plantagenet Alliance? Also, since Chris Skidmore must have found this letter before the decision about judicial review; shouldn't he have come forward about it earlier? He says he supports Leicester's claim, but if he thinks it represented Richard's intentions, surely it should have been worthy of consideration.

Also, I wonder where he found it.

Nico

On Friday, 20 June 2014, 12:02, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

Marie,

I think that the provision of fine clothing does not imply that Warwick was not being held in some form of custody - only that he was well dressed. There must be many examples in this era in which individuals are being kept in households without actually being behind bars, where they were generally well treated but not free to leave.

Many wards would be held in this way and there are two examples from HT's own life. When he spoke to Commynes he said he had spent his whole life in custody. But some of the evidence from the accounts of Duke Francis shows that HT was clothed in fine material by the Duke.

There would have been little point in attempting to escape because there would be enough armed retainers to ensure neither could get away.

There is no doubt that when HT sent for Warwick and his future wife after Bosworth, he knew exactly where they would be.

On a separate topic, has anyone else seen the newly discovered letter by Richard that has been found by Chris Skidmore. There is an article about it in the Mail online.

Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 8:25:00 PM

Hi Carol,

Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now), but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers:

1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt)

2) Rous' claim that, after initially making a big fuss of Warwick and recognising him as his heir after Prince Edward's death, Richard changed his mind, locked him up and chose Lincoln as his heir instead.

At one time historians almost always claimed that that Richard had kept Warwick imprisoned at Sheriff Hutton; thankfully that is getting rather less common, although I see that the Wikipedia article on Warwick quotes that damned Armstrong mistranslation. References to Warwick during Richard's reign have been very thin on the ground up till now, though. Rous tells us he was with Richard at Warwick Castle in August 1483, and then has all this stuff about him becoming first the new heir to the throne then a prisoner, and it's hard to know how much of that to take seriously. There is just one other reference, but it's almost always overlooked, and that is a letter from the city of York written about May 1485 to Richard's council at Sheriff Hutton - that letter is specifically addressed to the earls of Warwick and Lincoln and so gives the lie to the idea that Warwick was a prisoner even at a late stage in Richard's reign.

Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case.

The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question.

Marie

"Yes I know Warwick was knighted by Richard early in his reign (or at least I've read that he was - struggling to recall the ultimate source now),"

Carol responds:

I could have sworn it was Rous, but I don't know of any translation of his work to check--only bits and pieces quoted by other people. Maybe I can find the reference in Dockray or one of the other source books. Bad as Rous is, we need a translation of his Historia Regem Angliae for comparison with Mancini and Croyland. But we would need an objective translator with an awareness of Rous's tendency to exaggerate and the possible reasons for his volte face.

Marie continued:

"but two things have cast a shadow over the minds of traditionalist writers:

1) Armstrong's mistranslation of Mancini, according to which Warwick "was kept in confinement in the household of his wife....." (all Mancini's Latin actually means is that he was placed in the custody of Richard's wife, she being the boy's aunt)"

Carol responds:

As I'm sure you'll agree, we also need a new translation of Mancini, one that doesn't include "Usurpation" in the title! Armstrong's assumptions about Richard appear to have influenced his translation in several places.

Marie again:

"Anyway, that is all we've had, so the reference to fine clothing provided for him in 1484 is a bit of a godsend (or an Anne Sutton send). She only discovered it mentioned in a later court case.

"The feigned boys thing is actually going to be a book about Edward of Warwick, concentrating on what brought down his father Clarence, what happened to Warwick after Bosworth, the Lambert Simnel business, and W's trial and execution, but mainly the Lambert Simnel question."

Carol responds:

Sorry for snipping up your interesting post, but I wanted to keep most of it and respond to certain parts individually. Yes, thank goodness for Anne Sutton's discovery. I'm really looking forward to your book, which I hope will address all these points in detail. Any idea when it will be ready for publication?

Carol

PS Tracked down the source for Warwick having been knighted by Richard at York - it is the Rous Roll. I'd thought it was Rous, but all his other refs are in his Historia Regum Anglie so I was initially stumped when I didn't see it there.

Marie

Carol responds:

Thanks. I hadn't realized that the Rous Roll went into such detail. C.

Hi David,

Only just picked this up. Carol has given a very good response to this already. Also this order for cloth wasn't solely for Warwick, as it would have been if he were imprisoned, it wasn't normal fine cloth either but top-flight stuff that was hugely expensive (hence the later court case over payment) such as would be used for a great state occasion. Indeed, the timing of the order and the persons named in it suggest the stuff was to make garments for the wedding of Richard's daughter Katherine to William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon. Basically:-

3 March 1484 - Richard granted an annuity of 100 marks to his illegitimate daughter Katherine and William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon

At about the very same time (no later than 7 March, when Richard left London) - From London, Richard issued the keeper of the Wardrobe with a warrant to purchase the following:

a piece of crimson cloth of gold

a piece of blue cloth of gold

a piece of tawny cloth of gold

a piece of crimson velvet

a piece of bloody velvet

a piece of crimson satin

a piece of black satin, and

a piece of black damask,

"for the apparel of the then lord of Warwick, the lady his sister, the lady Katherine, the lord of Huntingdon and other ladies and gentlewomen."

The later court case which gives this reference doesn't state the amount of each type of cloth that was to have been bought, but the entire order cost £240 8s 7d to procure.

Katherine and Huntingdon could legally have married any time after Easter (Lent was a prohibited season for marriages), which in 1484 fell on 18 March, but the cloth wasn't purchased until 30 March. A grant dating from early March 1485 to "the king's kinsman William Earl of Huntingdon and Katharine his wife" shows that they had married by that time.

So it's not just that Warwick was well clothed; he was also guest of honour at great occasions such as royal weddings.

Marie

Hi, Nico 

Perhaps I am being picky but the links you provided are really just the third-hand opinion of the authors of the articles. They don't quote Skidmore directly except for The connection between Richard's establishment of the foundation at York and the salvation of his own soul could hardly be any clearer.'

While that may be undoubtedly true, it is also true, as was mentioned earlier, that a chantry set up to pray for the souls of the founder and his family was not necessarily intended to be also the place for their interment.

I think the important point to keep in mind is that Skidmore's alleged statement, that it may be real evidence that Richard intended the chantry to ultimately be his mausoleum may be true, but it's equally true that one cannot know for sure but only *suggest* that that may be the case.

(Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661573/Revealed-King-Richard-III-planned-buried-York-not-Leicester-according-extraordinary-529-year-old-letter.html#ixzz35SolUvKw
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook )

Also, as someone said earlier in this thread, I'm almost positive that information about this letter and the connection with Chris Skidmore, was publicized months ago, so in that sense it's nothing new.

I just tend to think of these sorts of endowments as a kind of Medieval make-work scheme. Richard may have been intending it to help consolidate his power base in the North. Perhaps there were fewer such chantries at York than there were in London and other sites further South, and Richard wanted to spread such goodies around his kingdom. But as King of England, I would be very surprised if he actually wanted to be buried in York. That would have been unprecedented, wouldn't it? I mean, were any kings buried any further North than Edward's, who was interred at Windsor? Regardless, I think it is to Richard's benefit (and ours as potential pilgrims) to be located anywhere away from Westminster Abbey.

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 7:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Sorry I wasn't able to follow up with what I posted on Friday earlier. I agree that the wording is rather vague and doesn't suggest a clear intention of being buried at York, but it seems to be what Chris Skidmore thinks. Personally, I hope it doesn't reopen any arguments with the Plantagenet Alliance, and Richard can be buried at Leicester as planned. Anyway, Skidmore discusses the letter among other things in a feature on Richard III in the current edition of BBC History Magazine.

Nico

On Sunday, 22 June 2014, 19:41, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Carol earlier:

"After that, following his knighthood at Edward of Middleham's [word} as Prince of Wales, he was with his older cousin, the Earl of Lincoln, at Sheriff Hutton."

Carol again:

Erg. The word I couldn't think of was, of course, "investiture," which I meant to look up before I hit Send but forgot. Of course, I remembered it almost immediately after I had sent the message. Not sure why my brain works in such an inconvenient fashion.

Carol

Hi Hilary,

Re your "half and half" - one of the problems in interpretation of Warwick's situation is of course the fact that he was a child. 8-to-10-year-old children are not let wander the country at will by any responsible adult. Adults have "custody" and "wardship" of them and are called their "guardians": we still use those terms. So Richard would have kept Warwick safe even if he were not a prisoner, just as he would have kept his own children safe. That may have necessitated some bodyguard presence given his status and the times, but the question is did he lock Warwick up as Rous claims he did after changing his decision about his heir, and the Tudor writers claim he did all along, or was he a normal part of the Queen's juvenile household as Mancini suggests (notwithstanding Armstrong's naughty translation), and later at Sheriff Hutton?

It's certainly important that Richard kept Warwick alive as it show up the idea that he had had Edward IV's sons murdered as inconsistent - a job only half done. But whether he looked after him well and included him in the life of the royal household is also important for our assessment of Richard's character and Edward of Warwick's life experience.

Perhaps if Richard had had Warwick better guarded Henry VII wouldn't have succeeded in getting hold of him so easily after Bosworth. Same goes for John of Gloucester.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Yes, this clarifies what you mean, but dungeons hadn't been under discussion. Margaret was placed in Alice Chaucer's custody, I think, because Alice Chaucer was constable of Wallingford Castle where Margaret was to be kept. Margaret was, I'm sure, well housed and well clothed and allowed supervised exercise. But she wasn't a normal member of Alice Chaucer's itinerant household or participating in the social lives of the de la Poles. She certainly did not get asked to royal christenings and weddings. She had a very sort of imprisonment to the one which those of the 'he was imprisoned' persuasion envisage for Warwick at Sheriff Hutton.

My argument is that this new piece of evidence corroborates others which indicate that Warwick was being treated like a high-ranking young ward and not as a special prisoner.

Sorry, that should read "a very similar sort of imprisonment".

Of course, I concede that there must be historians who have imagined Warwick thrown into a dungeon by Richard, but even the modified version of the imprisonment story doesn't fit the few facts we now have.

I do agree with you about the status thing. I think Alice was chosen because she had also once been a friend of Margaret - another reason for my doubts that Lincoln was ever the long-term heir, the de la Poles went back a long way with Lancaster. All this has made me reflect on the nature of freedom in the fifteenth century, something I've not given much thought to before. It would seem that the higher up the social scale you went, the more your freedom was curtailed. If you were a woman you were confined from birth to one of two routes - marriage, endless confinements and a probable early death, or confinement of a different sort in a religious house. Not a good time to be a women - no feisty ladies dressing up as men and defending their battlements as in the English Civil War (though I seem to recall one did defend her place - was it at Corfe?). And for men the prison was obligation - to obey, to recruit, to fight, to defend what was theirs and add to it. I doubt Richard did much cavorting in Middleham taverns (as you know, the Prince Hal story was yet another Shekespeare myth). And as well as all this you have the Church waiving its banner of eternal damnation. In fact the only real exercise of freedom as we know it I can think of is George and Buckingham's wine tour! This must have been a gift to our chroniclers. They could say people were 'confined' and skew any story which way they wanted. If they'd been pro-Richard and anti-Wariwck they'd no doubt have said that he was confined by Warwick at Middleham. Take Anne Beauchamp after her husband's death. After Edward robbed her of her lands (and I believe he did) there were only three options; another marriage, living with a child (quite normal for widows for centuries) or a religious house. All these could be interpreted as confinement one way of the other - think of Stanley being told to look to his wife MB. So they said that Richard confined her, presumably in the same way as he did Warwick? If you think about it it wasn't until people had independent means of transport and independent income that they became really free and that was a long way ahead. So the chroniclers were always going to win. H

On Monday, 23 June 2014, 19:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Sorry, that should read "a very similar sort of imprisonment". Of course, I concede that there must be historians who have imagined Warwick thrown into a dungeon by Richard, but even the modified version of the imprisonment story doesn't fit the few facts we now have.

Oh the good old days.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I do agree with you about the status thing. I think Alice was chosen because she had also once been a friend of Margaret - another reason for my doubts that Lincoln was ever the long-term heir, the de la Poles went back a long way with Lancaster.    All this has made me reflect on the nature of freedom in the fifteenth century, something I've not given much thought to before. It would seem that the higher up the social scale you went, the more your freedom was curtailed. If you were a woman you were confined from birth to one of two routes - marriage, endless confinements and a probable early death, or confinement of a different sort in a religious house. Not a good time to be a women - no feisty ladies dressing up as men and defending their battlements as in the English Civil War (though I seem to recall one did defend her place - was it at Corfe?). And for men the prison was obligation - to obey, to recruit, to fight, to defend what was theirs and add to it. I doubt Richard did much cavorting in Middleham taverns (as you know, the Prince Hal story was yet another Shekespeare myth). And as well as all this you have the Church waiving its banner of eternal damnation. In fact the only real exercise of freedom as we know it I can think of is George and Buckingham's wine tour!   This must have been a gift to our chroniclers. They could say people were 'confined' and skew any story which way they wanted. If they'd been pro-Richard and anti-Wariwck they'd no doubt have said that he was confined by Warwick at Middleham. Take Anne Beauchamp after her husband's death. After Edward robbed her of her lands (and I believe he did) there were only three options; another marriage, living with a child (quite normal for widows for centuries) or a religious house. All these could be interpreted as confinement one way of the other - think of Stanley being told to look to his wife MB. So they said that Richard confined her, presumably in the same way as he did Warwick? If you think about it it wasn't until people had independent means of transport and independent income that they became really free and that was a long way ahead. So the chroniclers were always going to win. H   

On Monday, 23 June 2014, 19:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


  Sorry, that should read "a very similar sort of imprisonment". Of course, I concede that there must be historians who have imagined Warwick thrown into a dungeon by Richard, but even the modified version of the imprisonment story doesn't fit the few facts we now have.

Hi Hilary,

I do agree that Alice Chaucer having been Margaret's friend and attendant would have had some bearing on the decision to send her to Wallingford under Alice's rule, although Wallingford had been used to house noble prisoners in the past. But on it's own that would have been a bad reason for Edward to choose her - he needed a warden he could trust, after all. The fact that Alice's own bloodline was now part of the House of York must have made her seem a safe bet, but I wonder if she possibly petitioned the King for Margaret to be moved from the Tower into her keeping.

I think that, despite the limitations of the age, many 15th century women behaved quite independently when circumstances permitted. Alice Chaucer herself was a terror to her locality in her widowhood, and of course Queen Margaret did her own thing with armies behind her after her husband became unfit to rule. The case you're thinking of is, I think, Margaret Paston's defence of Caister Castle. But what a widow needed in order to live an independent life was financial means, and of course Edward had deprived the Countess of Warwick of those. Nunneries may also have been used by Edward, and perhaps by other kings, as covert forms of imprisonment for ladies of the opposing party. In other words, some women may have been represented by the chroniclers as imprisoned when they weren't, whilst others maybe got shoehorned into nunneries against their will but nobody noticed.

Yes, I agree about chroniclers, but it is specifically Rous we have to thank for the idea that Richard imprisoned Warwick and the Countess - he was the inventor of both those tales. As you say, it's so difficult with women and children to prove that they weren't being held in confinement. Enough little details have been gathered about Warwick's life under Richard now to prove that he was moving about, attending state functions and being accorded his full status, but we don't have the same sort of evidence for the Countess, although we do know that she had her own servants. My suspicion is that Edward had forbidden Richard to allow her to come and bother either him or Clarence, so there probably were some restrictions built into her release from Beaulieu (where she definitely was imprisoned). The Countess doesn't seem to have been an out-and-about person anyway, certainly not in dangerous times. In 1460 whilst she and her husband were holding out at Calais, someone remarked that she almost never left the castle. In 1471 she bolted into sanctuary as soon as she found out her husband had been killed. There is that tantalising letter Tony Pollard claimed to have found and then lost. And then it's interesting, isn't it, that when writing version 1 of his Roll during Richard's reign, the politically cautious Rous thought it was the right thing to do to heap praise the Countess (Isabel, on the other hand, got nothing but the bare bones of her birth, death and children with no comment whatsoever on her appearance or character).

Marie

Agreed, Nico. I wish the article were available on the BBC History website, but unfortunately it is not.  If the report that Skidmore opines that the letter may provide real evidence that Richard wanted to be interred at York Minster, it seems to me that it's sort of rubbing salt in the wound, given that its publication after the rendering of the High Court decision seems to have been planned. And Skidmore is the MP for the Leicester area, as I recall.

I hope the article will be made available at some point. (BTW, Richard featured prominently on the cover of the magazine is an indication of his appeal, in my view.)

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Hi, Nico 

Perhaps I am being picky but the links you provided are really just the third-hand opinion of the authors of the articles. They don't quote Skidmore directly except for The connection between Richard's establishment of the foundation at York and the salvation of his own soul could hardly be any clearer.'

Hi Joanne,

I agree with you on that - and one of the articles is from the Daily Mail, not exactly the most reliable website. The quote itself, of course doesn't say anything about where Richard wanted to be buried. It is the article that starts with the misleading sentence: "King Richard III did plan to be buried in York, not Leicester, a new letter unearthed in the National Archives suggests."

Nico

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 11:45, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

Great points Hillary. Life certainly was not easy for anyone!

On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:21 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

I do agree with you about the status thing. I think Alice was chosen because she had also once been a friend of Margaret - another reason for my doubts that Lincoln was ever the long-term heir, the de la Poles went back a long way with Lancaster.

All this has made me reflect on the nature of freedom in the fifteenth century, something I've not given much thought to before. It would seem that the higher up the social scale you went, the more your freedom was curtailed. If you were a woman you were confined from birth to one of two routes - marriage, endless confinements and a probable early death, or confinement of a different sort in a religious house. Not a good time to be a women - no feisty ladies dressing up as men and defending their battlements as in the English Civil War (though I seem to recall one did defend her place - was it at Corfe?). And for men the prison was obligation - to obey, to recruit, to fight, to defend what was theirs and add to it. I doubt Richard did much cavorting in Middleham taverns (as you know, the Prince Hal story was yet another Shekespeare myth). And as well as all this you have the Church waiving its banner of eternal damnation. In fact the only real exercise of freedom as we know it I can think of is George and Buckingham's wine tour!

This must have been a gift to our chroniclers. They could say people were 'confined' and skew any story which way they wanted. If they'd been pro-Richard and anti-Wariwck they'd no doubt have said that he was confined by Warwick at Middleham. Take Anne Beauchamp after her husband's death. After Edward robbed her of her lands (and I believe he did) there were only three options; another marriage, living with a child (quite normal for widows for centuries) or a religious house. All these could be interpreted as confinement one way of the other - think of Stanley being told to look to his wife MB. So they said that Richard confined her, presumably in the same way as he did Warwick? If you think about it it wasn't until people had independent means of transport and independent income that they became really free and that was a long way ahead. So the chroniclers were always going to win. H

On Monday, 23 June 2014, 19:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, that should read "a very similar sort of imprisonment".

Of course, I concede that there must be historians who have imagined Warwick thrown into a dungeon by Richard, but even the modified version of the imprisonment story doesn't fit the few facts we now have.

Hi, Nico  Perhaps I am being picky but the links you provided are really just the third-hand opinion of the authors of the articles. They don't quote Skidmore directly except for The connection between Richard's establishment of the foundation at York and the salvation of his own soul could hardly be any clearer.'
Hi Joanne,

I agree with you on that - and one of the articles is from the Daily Mail, not exactly the most reliable website. The quote itself, of course doesn't say anything about where Richard wanted to be buried. It is the article that starts with the misleading sentence: "King Richard III did plan to be buried in York, not Leicester, a new letter unearthed in the National Archives suggests."
Nico






On Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 11:45, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:


Great points Hillary. Life certainly was not easy for anyone!
On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:21 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

I do agree with you about the status thing. I think Alice was chosen because she had also once been a friend of Margaret - another reason for my doubts that Lincoln was ever the long-term heir, the de la Poles went back a long way with Lancaster. All this has made me reflect on the nature of freedom in the fifteenth century, something I've not given much thought to before. It would seem that the higher up the social scale you went, the more your freedom was curtailed. If you were a woman you were confined from birth to one of two routes - marriage, endless confinements and a probable early death, or confinement of a different sort in a religious house. Not a good time to be a women - no feisty ladies dressing up as men and defending their battlements as in the English Civil War (though I seem to recall one did defend her place - was it at Corfe?). And for men the prison was obligation - to obey, to recruit, to fight, to defend what was theirs and add to it. I doubt Richard did much cavorting in Middleham taverns (as you know, the Prince Hal story was yet another Shekespeare myth). And as well as all this you have the Church waiving its banner of eternal damnation. In fact the only real exercise of freedom as we know it I can think of is George and Buckingham's wine tour! This must have been a gift to our chroniclers. They could say people were 'confined' and skew any story which way they wanted. If they'd been pro-Richard and anti-Wariwck they'd no doubt have said that he was confined by Warwick at Middleham. Take Anne Beauchamp after her husband's death. After Edward robbed her of her lands (and I believe he did) there were only three options; another marriage, living with a child (quite normal for widows for centuries) or a religious house. All these could be interpreted as confinement one way of the other - think of Stanley being told to look to his wife MB. So they said that Richard confined her, presumably in the same way as he did Warwick? If you think about it it wasn't until people had independent means of transport and independent income that they became really free and that was a long way ahead. So the chroniclers were always going to win. H

On Monday, 23 June 2014, 19:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Sorry, that should read "a very similar sort of imprisonment". Of course, I concede that there must be historians who have imagined Warwick thrown into a dungeon by Richard, but even the modified version of the imprisonment story doesn't fit the few facts we now have.

Hi, Sandra 

I think that Richard chose Leicester as the spot from which to make his stand against Henry  as almost the exact center of his realm and also the former home base of Simon de Montfort, an early democrat. After all, there are many other locations from which he could have attacked Henry, all the way over to Wales. He also could have made a strategic retreat to the North, on the theory of he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. I think Richard's feelings were fatalistic on that day, given that it seems to me that there were many omens that the tide may have been going against him, including the deaths of Anne and his son. Therefore I think there's more than a touch of desperation in his great charge against Henry  a gamble; I think he knew the odds were against it succeeding, but probably counted on the enemy being hesitant to attack an anointed king  which perhaps the sizable number of Welsh and French in Henry's entourage didn't share to the degree that the English did. And also I think Richard probably counted on a determined and fierce style of attack to put those who were probably much larger than he on the defensive.

Yes, I agree that Richard would have chosen to lie next to Anne, although he could easily have had her body removed to wherever site he chose, as he had escorted his father's remains from . . . where were they? Sandal? York? To Fotheringhay during Edward's reign. Apparently this reinterment practice was quite common in those days, and of course Richard did that for Henry VI to provide him with a more august resting place  in St. George's Chapel with Edward, as I recall!

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 9:40 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

I am convinced that if, on the very eve of Bosworth, Richard made his wishes known in the event of his death, he would have chosen to lie beside Anne, whom he had so recently lost. Just my opinion. And he would have been pretty sure this wish---whatever it was---wouldn't be granted by Henry Tudor and the Lancastrians. In fact, he'd guess that if anywhere, Tudor would see him hastily disposed of in Leicester. But then again, he'd also have been pretty sure he was going to kick Tudor ass and continue his reign. Fate just wasn't with him that terrible day. One wonders what would have happened if Tudor lost, and Richard had the body to deal with. What would he have done with it? Given it to Margaret Beaufort? Or, perhaps, buried it at Leicester? But not ignominiously.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:50 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Hi, Nico 

Perhaps I am being picky but the links you provided are really just the third-hand opinion of the authors of the articles. They don't quote Skidmore directly except for The connection between Richard's establishment of the foundation at York and the salvation of his own soul could hardly be any clearer.'

Hi Joanne,

I agree with you on that - and one of the articles is from the Daily Mail, not exactly the most reliable website. The quote itself, of course doesn't say anything about where Richard wanted to be buried. It is the article that starts with the misleading sentence: "King Richard III did plan to be buried in York, not Leicester, a new letter unearthed in the National Archives suggests."

Nico

On Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 11:45, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

Great points Hillary. Life certainly was not easy for anyone!

On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:21 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

I do agree with you about the status thing. I think Alice was chosen because she had also once been a friend of Margaret - another reason for my doubts that Lincoln was ever the long-term heir, the de la Poles went back a long way with Lancaster.

All this has made me reflect on the nature of freedom in the fifteenth century, something I've not given much thought to before. It would seem that the higher up the social scale you went, the more your freedom was curtailed. If you were a woman you were confined from birth to one of two routes - marriage, endless confinements and a probable early death, or confinement of a different sort in a religious house. Not a good time to be a women - no feisty ladies dressing up as men and defending their battlements as in the English Civil War (though I seem to recall one did defend her place - was it at Corfe?). And for men the prison was obligation - to obey, to recruit, to fight, to defend what was theirs and add to it. I doubt Richard did much cavorting in Middleham taverns (as you know, the Prince Hal story was yet another Shekespeare myth). And as well as all this you have the Church waiving its banner of eternal damnation. In fact the only real exercise of freedom as we know it I can think of is George and Buckingham's wine tour!

This must have been a gift to our chroniclers. They could say people were 'confined' and skew any story which way they wanted. If they'd been pro-Richard and anti-Wariwck they'd no doubt have said that he was confined by Warwick at Middleham. Take Anne Beauchamp after her husband's death. After Edward robbed her of her lands (and I believe he did) there were only three options; another marriage, living with a child (quite normal for widows for centuries) or a religious house. All these could be interpreted as confinement one way of the other - think of Stanley being told to look to his wife MB. So they said that Richard confined her, presumably in the same way as he did Warwick? If you think about it it wasn't until people had independent means of transport and independent income that they became really free and that was a long way ahead. So the chroniclers were always going to win. H

On Monday, 23 June 2014, 19:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, that should read "a very similar sort of imprisonment".

Of course, I concede that there must be historians who have imagined Warwick thrown into a dungeon by Richard, but even the modified version of the imprisonment story doesn't fit the few facts we now have.

I am convinced that if, on the very eve of Bosworth, Richard made his wishes known in the event of his death, he would have chosen to lie beside Anne, whom he had so recently lost. Just my opinion. And he would have been pretty sure this wish---whatever it was---wouldn't be granted by Henry Tudor and the Lancastrians. In fact, he'd guess that if anywhere, Tudor would see him hastily disposed of in Leicester. But then again, he'd also have been pretty sure he was going to kick Tudor ass and continue his reign. Fate just wasn't with him that terrible day. One wonders what would have happened if Tudor lost, and Richard had the body to deal with. What would he have done with it? Given it to Margaret Beaufort? Or, perhaps, buried it at Leicester? But not ignominiously. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:50 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Hi, Nico  Perhaps I am being picky but the links you provided are really just the third-hand opinion of the authors of the articles. They don't quote Skidmore directly except for The connection between Richard's establishment of the foundation at York and the salvation of his own soul could hardly be any clearer.'
Hi Joanne,

I agree with you on that - and one of the articles is from the Daily Mail, not exactly the most reliable website. The quote itself, of course doesn't say anything about where Richard wanted to be buried. It is the article that starts with the misleading sentence: "King Richard III did plan to be buried in York, not Leicester, a new letter unearthed in the National Archives suggests."
Nico






On Tuesday, 24 June 2014, 11:45, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:


Great points Hillary. Life certainly was not easy for anyone!
On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:21 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

I do agree with you about the status thing. I think Alice was chosen because she had also once been a friend of Margaret - another reason for my doubts that Lincoln was ever the long-term heir, the de la Poles went back a long way with Lancaster. All this has made me reflect on the nature of freedom in the fifteenth century, something I've not given much thought to before. It would seem that the higher up the social scale you went, the more your freedom was curtailed. If you were a woman you were confined from birth to one of two routes - marriage, endless confinements and a probable early death, or confinement of a different sort in a religious house. Not a good time to be a women - no feisty ladies dressing up as men and defending their battlements as in the English Civil War (though I seem to recall one did defend her place - was it at Corfe?). And for men the prison was obligation - to obey, to recruit, to fight, to defend what was theirs and add to it. I doubt Richard did much cavorting in Middleham taverns (as you know, the Prince Hal story was yet another Shekespeare myth). And as well as all this you have the Church waiving its banner of eternal damnation. In fact the only real exercise of freedom as we know it I can think of is George and Buckingham's wine tour! This must have been a gift to our chroniclers. They could say people were 'confined' and skew any story which way they wanted. If they'd been pro-Richard and anti-Wariwck they'd no doubt have said that he was confined by Warwick at Middleham. Take Anne Beauchamp after her husband's death. After Edward robbed her of her lands (and I believe he did) there were only three options; another marriage, living with a child (quite normal for widows for centuries) or a religious house. All these could be interpreted as confinement one way of the other - think of Stanley being told to look to his wife MB. So they said that Richard confined her, presumably in the same way as he did Warwick? If you think about it it wasn't until people had independent means of transport and independent income that they became really free and that was a long way ahead. So the chroniclers were always going to win. H

On Monday, 23 June 2014, 19:31, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Sorry, that should read "a very similar sort of imprisonment". Of course, I concede that there must be historians who have imagined Warwick thrown into a dungeon by Richard, but even the modified version of the imprisonment story doesn't fit the few facts we now have.

[The entire original message is not included.]

OK, Mary, I stand corrected!

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:23 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Johanne

Chris Skidmore is the MP for a Gloucestershire seat, I think it is Kingswood.

Mary

Part 2...(bear with me...:0)) "Richard now demanded that they be paid from the Duchy of Lancaster. 'We are not willing that our said priests be unpaid for their wage, seeing by their prayers we trust to be made the more acceptable to God and his saints.' The connection between Richard's establishment of the foundation at York and the salvation of his own soul could hardly be clearer. Could this indicate that Richard's real intention in creating this new religious institution was to follow the growing trend for 15c aristocrats to establish their own chantry foundations and ultimately mausoleums? Richard duke of York had done just that at Fotheringay and .Edward IV was to follow suit at Windsor. After Richard's death the archbishop there remembered fondly how 'our most Christian prince, King .Richard lll founded and ordained a most celebrated college of 100 chaplains primarily at his own expense'. The foundation was not to last however. By 1493 'timber from the house constructed by Richard from the establishing of chantry priests' had been broken up and sold.

Hi, Sandra & Eileen 

Yes, it's always good to get it straight from the horse's mouth. In this case, Skidmore only poses a question: *Might* Richard have been intending to be interred there. He isn't actually suggesting that that was the case, or that the letter proves that intent. Which means that the reports of the Fifth Estate, namely the Telegraph and the York Post (or whatever it's name is), are not citing the material accurately. That makes me mad!!!

But  - thanks for copying all that for us, Eileen! It's a big help!!

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

'We are not willing that our said priests be unpaid for their wage, seeing by their prayers we trust to be made the more acceptable to God and his saints.'

Does this really say that Richard intended to be buried there? It doesn't to me, only that he wishes to build in order to be more acceptable to God and his saints. It's what all monarchs did. Any building of this sort, small or large, would be for the same reason, surely? And he would use the same wording if the wages had failed to be made on a chantry in, say, Nottingham or Norwich. He can't have wanted to be buried in all of them. That's not to say Mr. Skidmore is wrong in his assumption, only that I think it is a leap too far to accept it as proof of anything, except Richard's wish to stand in good stead with God and the saints.

Thank you Eileen, for so painstakingly copying it all. Much appreciated.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:22 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

Part 2...(bear with me...:0))

"Richard now demanded that they be paid from the Duchy of Lancaster. 'We are not willing that our said priests be unpaid for their wage, seeing by their prayers we trust to be made the more acceptable to God and his saints.' The connection between Richard's establishment of the foundation at York and the salvation of his own soul could hardly be clearer. Could this indicate that Richard's real intention in creating this new religious institution was to follow the growing trend for 15c aristocrats to establish their own chantry foundations and ultimately mausoleums? Richard duke of York had done just that at Fotheringay and .Edward IV was to follow suit at Windsor.

After Richard's death the archbishop there remembered fondly how 'our most Christian prince, King .Richard lll founded and ordained a most celebrated college of 100 chaplains primarily at his own expense'. The foundation was not to last however. By 1493 'timber from the house constructed by Richard from the establishing of chantry priests' had been broken up and sold.

He also mentions Nicholas von Poppelau's account of his visit, where he mentions that Richard expressed an interest in defeating the Turks and wanted his kingdom to extend as far as Hungary.


Hi Nico,
Thank you for answering my question. I looked up the quote from von Popplau. It reads: " I would like my kingdom and land to lie where the land and kingdom of the king of Hungary lies, on the Turkish frontier itself. Then I would certainly, with my own people alone, without the help of other kings, princes and lords, properly drive away not only the Turks, but all my enemies and opponents." I don't know what to make of this statement, but IMHO it does not mean that Richard wanted to extend his kingdom as far as Hungary. I rather think that von Popplau mentions this quote to inspire enthusiasm for the crusade in his readers in the Holy Roman Empire, which was rather lacking in the princes on the continent at that time. Or, if Richard really is quoted literally
another explanation could be that he was a little drunk to boast so extremely. It would like to know what you and other members of this forum think about this!
Eva

Agreed Eva. My first thought was that he was a little squiffy. I hope it wasn't enough for a morning after the night before'. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:31 PM To: Subject: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

He also mentions Nicholas von Poppelau's account of his visit, where he mentions that Richard expressed an interest in defeating the Turks and wanted his kingdom to extend as far as Hungary.


Hi Nico,
Thank you for answering my question. I looked up the quote from von Popplau. It reads: " I would like my kingdom and land to lie where the land and kingdom of the king of Hungary lies, on the Turkish frontier itself. Then I would certainly, with my own people alone, without the help of other kings, princes and lords, properly drive away not only the Turks, but all my enemies and opponents." I don't know what to make of this statement, but IMHO it does not mean that Richard wanted to extend his kingdom as far as Hungary. I rather think that von Popplau mentions this quote to inspire enthusiasm for the crusade in his readers in the Holy Roman Empire, which was rather lacking in the princes on the continent at that time. Or, if Richard really is quoted literally
another explanation could be that he was a little drunk to boast so extremely. It would like to know what you and other members of this forum think about this!
Eva

Chris Skidmore is both a politician and an historian, so this discussion regarding this letter now, can't possibly be accidental.
The historian's mantra of "Who said it,? Why ? What is in it for him or her? " really holds good here, but unless it is just good publicity for his new book while Richard is so much in the news, I can't actually work it out, at least not yet.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Part 2...(bear with me...:0))

Chris Skidmore is both a politician and an historian, so this discussion regarding this letter now, can't possibly be accidental.
The historian's mantra of "Who said it,? Why ? What is in it for him or her? " really holds good here, but unless it is just good publicity for his new book while Richard is so much in the news, I can't actually work it out, at least not yet.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Part 2...(bear with me...:0))

Chris Skidmore is both a politician and an historian, so this discussion regarding this letter now, can't possibly be accidental.
The historian's mantra of "Who said it,? Why ? What is in it for him or her? " really holds good here, but unless it is just good publicity for his new book while Richard is so much in the news, I can't actually work it out, at least not yet.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Part 2...(bear with me...:0))

Chris Skidmore is both a politician and an historian, so this discussion regarding this letter now, can't possibly be accidental.
The historian's mantra of "Who said it,? Why ? What is in it for him or her? " really holds good here, but unless it is just good publicity for his new book while Richard is so much in the news, I can't actually work it out, at least not yet.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Part 2...(bear with me...:0))

Well I was a bit relieved to tell you the truth as I had gained the impression, rightly or wrongly, that Skidmore had come across as a little anti in the past. More here on the Popplau article.... "Popplau was entertained by the king in his royal tent where he witnessed Richard's bed 'decorated from top to bottom with red Samite (luxurious silk fabric) and a gold piece with a table 'covered all around with silk cloths of gold embroidered with gold. The king set himself at the table and he wore a collar of an order set with many large pearls, almost like strawberries and diamonds. The collar was quite as wide as a man's hand' Popplau noted. Richard....you were such a poser at times,,,,:0)

Richard's meeting with Von Poppelau came very shortly after Edward's death. VP says Richard was so interested in their conversation he scarcely ate a thing (maybe there were other reasons for his loss of appetite, but we can pass that over), so he is unlikely to have been drinking himself silly. I think someone else on this forum once suggested it was just a yearning to be away from the troubles of his real life. Also, facing an external enemy is just so much less complicated than the enemy within. I don't think he boasted that he would definitely have been able to defeat the Turks without any foreign support, only that he would have loved - in the fantasy moment - to have a try. For Turks read Tudor supporters, I think: "to drive away not only the Turks, but all my foes."

Marie

David Durose wrote :

David wrote

I am quite surprised by the reference to Warwick as part of the Council of the North, because I am aware of his age - it does seem very young to be be in such a position. If he is too young to determine his own whereabouts, surely he is too young for that.

Marie replies:

This is the way that people were trained up for jobs. Warwick was turned 10 before the York City Council addressed him and Lincoln jointly. The way things worked is that youngsters destined for powerful roles were added to commissions, councils, etc, when they were still school age, in order to learn from the experience and take increasing amounts of responsibility as the years went on. Although he was rather older, Richard's bastard son John was almost certainly not mature enough to be a real captain of Calais for a few years, and was supposed to act under the guidance of the deputy whilst he matured and learned the ropes.

Yes  Kendall makes much of the appointment of the precocious Richard as a Commissioner of Array at a tender age, noting that brother George did not receive any such appointment  an indication of Edward's recognition of Richard's ability and loyalty. Kendall notes that if Richard had been intended to be commissioner in name only, there would have been co-commissioners appointed to serve with him, as had been the case in 1461. But in fact, on this occasion Richard served as sole commissioner for 9 of 22 counties  more than one-third of Edward's realm!

Kendall writes:

That day in Leicester, when Richard came riding in at the head of his county levies, Edward must have smiled at the sight of his small brother, very serious in his martial harness. But it was a smile of more than amusement. Without George's inches, maturity [George was three years older than Richard], health, or charm, Richard had already won first place in the affections and confidence of King Edward. He was eleven years old. (pg. 52 of the 1972 Sphere Books edition)

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Haringtons and Hornby

David wrote

I am quite surprised by the reference to Warwick as part of the Council of the North, because I am aware of his age - it does seem very young to be be in such a position. If he is too young to determine his own whereabouts, surely he is too young for that.

Marie replies:

This is the way that people were trained up for jobs. Warwick was turned 10 before the York City Council addressed him and Lincoln jointly. The way things worked is that youngsters destined for powerful roles were added to commissions, councils, etc, when they were still school age, in order to learn from the experience and take increasing amounts of responsibility as the years went on. Although he was rather older, Richard's bastard son John was almost certainly not mature enough to be a real captain of Calais for a few years, and was supposed to act under the guidance of the deputy whilst he matured and learned the ropes.

Johanne wrote

Kendall makes much of the appointment of the precocious Richard as a Commissioner of Array at a tender age, noting that brother George did not receive any such appointment  an indication of Edward's recognition of Richard's ability and loyalty. Kendall notes that if Richard had been intended to be commissioner in name only, there would have been co-commissioners appointed to serve with him, as had been the case in 1461. But in fact, on this occasion Richard served as sole commissioner for 9 of 22 counties  more than one-third of Edward's realm!

Marie replies:

There's something very odd about this entry in the Calendar of Patent Rolls. A single commissioner of array would be very unusual under any circumstances, and the nine counties Richard was appointed to raise on this occasion (1464, when he was 11) included Warwickshire, Worcestershire and others in which the Earl of Warwick had the major interest. Warwick himself was up in Northumberland at the time, but surely one 11-year-old couldn't have been expected to raise the levies in so many counties personally and single-handedly, even with unofficial support from military tutors and minders. The Calendar of Patent Rolls is just a calendar, of course, i.e. it's just a summary of the original document, so maybe there are other names in the original or maybe there was something going on that we're missing. Perhaps one day I'll investigate.