Haringtons and Hornby

Hi, Hilary –

I thought it wasn’t certain that Richard was personally present at those executions. Can you give me some idea what the evidence is that Richard (and/or Edward) were there?

I suppose you are right about Richard not likely making great changes in the practice of executions. After all, I guess he was responsible for the execution of Colyngborne, which somehow has always seemed particularly . . . petty, and therefore distasteful to me, as I am a great supporter of freedom of thought and speech. My belief of Richard’s character, however, is that he was inclined toward idealism and nobility but was unable to completely surmount the disagreeable aspects of his cultural milieu. Still, I think he would have been more sparing of punishments and merciful than the Tudors proved to be. It wouldn’t have taken much!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Henry's campaign against traitors was Henry led. Those who were captured by his 'deputies' tended just to get hung, probably too many of them for the full works. To be fair, I don't think there's anything to indicate that Richard would have reformed this law, after all he presided over the trials of Courtenay and Hungerford in 1469 and he and Edward personally attended their HDQ. He was of his age.

BTW, with regard to the other bit of my former post, Mountford was also a friend of the Catesbys - his family married twice into theirs. It's interesting how the unhappiness of familys such as the Catesbys (and Throckmortons) rumbles on through the sixteenth century and surfaces in the Gunpowder Plot. H

Hi, Hilary 

I thought it wasn't certain that Richard was personally present at those executions. Can you give me some idea what the evidence is that Richard (and/or Edward) were there?

I suppose you are right about Richard not likely making great changes in the practice of executions. After all, I guess he was responsible for the execution of Colyngborne, which somehow has always seemed particularly . . . petty, and therefore distasteful to me, as I am a great supporter of freedom of thought and speech. My belief of Richard's character, however, is that he was inclined toward idealism and nobility but was unable to completely surmount the disagreeable aspects of his cultural milieu. Still, I think he would have been more sparing of punishments and merciful than the Tudors proved to be. It wouldn't have taken much!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:17 AM
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Henry's campaign against traitors was Henry led. Those who were captured by his 'deputies' tended just to get hung, probably too many of them for the full works. To be fair, I don't think there's anything to indicate that Richard would have reformed this law, after all he presided over the trials of Courtenay and Hungerford in 1469 and he and Edward personally attended their HDQ. He was of his age.

BTW, with regard to the other bit of my former post, Mountford was also a friend of the Catesbys - his family married twice into theirs. It's interesting how the unhappiness of familys such as the Catesbys (and Throckmortons) rumbles on through the sixteenth century and surfaces in the Gunpowder Plot. H

I'm afraid I don't have any detail on Hungerford's execution, but when you say Wilkinson "quoted" the grisly details of the method of execution, do you know what she was quoting? HDQ was the standard puinishment for treason, and if Wilkinson was looking at the oyer and terminer records she would have seen the record of the sentence meted out by the justices if this is on file (in many cases we're missing the sentence), and this would have been a very detailed and grisly description of HDQ - I've seen it myself in oyer & terminer records.

Also the names of commissioners were always listed in order of social precedence, so it can't be assumed from the fact that young Richard's name came first that he actually led proceedings. O&t commissions always included professional lawyers (usually a justice or two) and I'm sure they would have guided Richard and the other lay members of the panel regarding the legalities of the case. If the condemned traitor were to be given a more merciful form of execution (beaheading or plain hanging), or even receive a pardon, that was for the King to decide in the window between sentencing an execution.

I wouldn't give you tuppence for Michael Hicks' theories about how Richard connived at getting Hungerford's lands, by the by.

Colyngbourne and Turberville were also tried by an oyer & terminer commission, but the responsibility for the fact that they suffered the full HDQ lies with Richard. Does anyone know of any more examples of HDQ during Richard's reign?

Hi, Hilary 

Thanks for providing the details. I have Wilkinson's book on my kindle, and I found the passage by searching for Hungerford (it's at location 3793 and following  the kindle doesn't have page numbers). And I note that Courtenay is spelled Courtney according to Wilkinson, not what I would have thought.

So I had the dubious pleasure of being able to read the gory details of the execution. BTW, my understanding is that if you were a noble, you got to be executed by the more merciful (relatively that is) simple beheading as punishment for treason, rather than the agonizing hanging, drawing and quartering.

I have read Marie's interesting follow-up to your email, talking about how the fact that Richard's name came first does not necessarily mean he led the proceedings. But in addition, it occurs to me that, in the same fashion that Skidmore's actual  article only raises the *possibility* that the provision for the chantry may give an indication as to Richard's intention for his interment, the material you quote does not actually say that *Richard* was present for the carrying-out of the sentences, only that Edward *was* personally present. It is possible that Richard did not attend the execution.

It should be pointed out that in many if not most cases, Edward only executed someone for treason if they committed a new act of treason after having been pardoned once. So he was relatively merciful, I guess you could say, but don't cross him twice!

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Hi Johanne. I'm defending Richard now - Colyingbourne was actually executed for sending messages to Henry Tudor, not for the rhyme, so it was indeed for treasonable plotting

The reference to Richard's attendance is in Wilkinson (page 160) 'Since returning from Middleham, Duke Richard had accompanied Edward at the trial, held at Salisbury in February 1469 of the two alleged traitors Henry Courtenay and Thomas Hungerford. The record of the hearings shows that Richard had served as the leading member of the oyer and terminer that had condemned the men to death. Also included in the commission were the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Clarence. Both conspicuously failed to attend.' ...... Details of the verdict and method of execution is quoted in gruesome detail.

'The executions took place on 18 January 1469 (I think she means February) in the presence of the King; such was Edward's interest in the case.'

There follows a big discussion on how Richard's detractors have said he used his influence to get his hands on Hungerford's lands.

Hope this helps. H

On Friday, 27 June 2014, 10:43, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, Hilary 

I thought it wasn't certain that Richard was personally present at those executions. Can you give me some idea what the evidence is that Richard (and/or Edward) were there?

I suppose you are right about Richard not likely making great changes in the practice of executions. After all, I guess he was responsible for the execution of Colyngborne, which somehow has always seemed particularly . . . petty, and therefore distasteful to me, as I am a great supporter of freedom of thought and speech. My belief of Richard's character, however, is that he was inclined toward idealism and nobility but was unable to completely surmount the disagreeable aspects of his cultural milieu. Still, I think he would have been more sparing of punishments and merciful than the Tudors proved to be. It wouldn't have taken much!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Henry's campaign against traitors was Henry led. Those who were captured by his 'deputies' tended just to get hung, probably too many of them for the full works. To be fair, I don't think there's anything to indicate that Richard would have reformed this law, after all he presided over the trials of Courtenay and Hungerford in 1469 and he and Edward personally attended their HDQ. He was of his age.

BTW, with regard to the other bit of my former post, Mountford was also a friend of the Catesbys - his family married twice into theirs. It's interesting how the unhappiness of familys such as the Catesbys (and Throckmortons) rumbles on through the sixteenth century and surfaces in the Gunpowder Plot. H

Hi Johanne, see my reply to Marie. As for spellings, there is no right way because names varied with whoever was writing them down. So my Haringtons are Harringtons, my D'Aubeneys, Daubenys are Daubeneys. I couldn't possible keep track of thousands of names if I spelled them all differently, it's bad enough second-guessing when you're researching them. So you're right, yes Wilkinson wrote that and I changed it because I'm used to using Courtenay for whatever. H

On Friday, 27 June 2014, 15:04, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:


Hi, Hilary  Thanks for providing the details. I have Wilkinson's book on my kindle, and I found the passage by searching for Hungerford (it's at location 3793 and following  the kindle doesn't have page numbers). And I note that Courtenay is spelled Courtney according to Wilkinson, not what I would have thought. So I had the dubious pleasure of being able to read the gory details of the execution. BTW, my understanding is that if you were a noble, you got to be executed by the more merciful (relatively that is) simple beheading as punishment for treason, rather than the agonizing hanging, drawing and quartering. I have read Marie's interesting follow-up to your email, talking about how the fact that Richard's name came first does not necessarily mean he led the proceedings. But in addition, it occurs to me that, in the same fashion that Skidmore's actual article only raises the *possibility* that the provision for the chantry may give an indication as to Richard's intention for his interment, the material you quote does not actually say that *Richard* was present for the carrying-out of the sentences, only that Edward *was* personally present. It is possible that Richard did not attend the execution. It should be pointed out that in many if not most cases, Edward only executed someone for treason if they committed a new act of treason after having been pardoned once. So he was relatively merciful, I guess you could say, but don't cross him twice! Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Haringtons and Hornby Hi Johanne. I'm defending Richard now - Colyingbourne was actually executed for sending messages to Henry Tudor, not for the rhyme, so it was indeed for treasonable plotting The reference to Richard's attendance is in Wilkinson (page 160) 'Since returning from Middleham, Duke Richard had accompanied Edward at the trial, held at Salisbury in February 1469 of the two alleged traitors Henry Courtenay and Thomas Hungerford. The record of the hearings shows that Richard had served as the leading member of the oyer and terminer that had condemned the men to death. Also included in the commission were the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Clarence. Both conspicuously failed to attend.' ...... Details of the verdict and method of execution is quoted in gruesome detail. 'The executions took place on 18 January 1469 (I think she means February) in the presence of the King; such was Edward's interest in the case.' There follows a big discussion on how Richard's detractors have said he used his influence to get his hands on Hungerford's lands. Hope this helps. H On Friday, 27 June 2014, 10:43, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote: Hi, Hilary  I thought it wasn't certain that Richard was personally present at those executions. Can you give me some idea what the evidence is that Richard (and/or Edward) were there? I suppose you are right about Richard not likely making great changes in the practice of executions. After all, I guess he was responsible for the execution of Colyngborne, which somehow has always seemed particularly . . . petty, and therefore distasteful to me, as I am a great supporter of freedom of thought and speech. My belief of Richard's character, however, is that he was inclined toward idealism and nobility but was unable to completely surmount the disagreeable aspects of his cultural milieu. Still, I think he would have been more sparing of punishments and merciful than the Tudors proved to be. It wouldn't have taken much! Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Haringtons and Hornby Henry's campaign against traitors was Henry led. Those who were captured by his 'deputies' tended just to get hung, probably too many of them for the full works. To be fair, I don't think there's anything to indicate that Richard would have reformed this law, after all he presided over the trials of Courtenay and Hungerford in 1469 and he and Edward personally attended their HDQ. He was of his age. BTW, with regard to the other bit of my former post, Mountford was also a friend of the Catesbys - his family married twice into theirs. It's interesting how the unhappiness of familys such as the Catesbys (and Throckmortons) rumbles on through the sixteenth century and surfaces in the Gunpowder Plot. H

Thanks, Hilary,

The CPR reference is just the appointment of the o&t commission.

Unfortunately, the KB 9s are not yet available online but I'll make a note of the reference as some day I'd like to sort out all the claims made about the Hungerford business and I've already got copies of some of the relevant documents.

My understanding is that you would have the sentence to HDQ in the records of the commission anyway because that was the statutory penalty for treason, but what manner of execution was actually carried out (or whether, indeed, execution was carried out) would depend on the King's decision, but from what you say Wilkinson is treating the sentencing clause in the KB 9 file as proof of what actually happened. Mostly noblemen got beheaded and lesser mortals may or may not have been hanged until dead.

To illustrate what I'm saying, in the records of the trials of Burdet, Stacy and Blake you find the guilty verdict followed by the grisly sentence to HDQ described in the standard graphic wording, but none of them actually suffered HDQ. Burdet and Stacy were dragged on the hurdle to Tyburn and there simply hanged. Blake got a last-minute pardon, which reached him just as he was about to be strapped to the hurdle.

So you'd need to look to see if Hungerford's execution is described in any chronicles, etc.

Intend to enjoy the holiday, thanks, but I'll probably suffer 15th-century withdrawal. I've got four days left but I've not even made a packing list yet.

Marie

Sandra wrote :

Thanks Marie. I think her referencing is vague at times to say the least. I notice our Henry pardoned two blokes at the last minute 'because they were young'. I wonder how much money crossed palms behind closed doors on these occasions, particularly if Mr Empson was involved? H

Hi, Hilary 

OK, I re-read your reply to Marie, but I am not 100% sure how that relates to my post. I stand by my statement that the passage does not mention Richard's presence at the *execution,* just Edward's, and the fact that Richard may have been personally present at the trial does not necessarily mean that he was present at the execution. If he was present, that loyalty toward Edward that Wilkinson specifically mentioned may have been his primary motivation. I think Richard's possible (likely?) involvement in the death of Henry VI would also be ascribed to the same motivation, loyalty toward Edward first, not to mention all the bother Henry had become. Realistically was there any other solution to the problem of two extant monarchs than arranging for Henry's demise? It certainly did help to bring an extended period of peace to the realm.

Anyway, as far as the spelling of the name Courtenay/Courtney is concerned, the only reason I brought it up is that I searched on my kindle first for Courtenay Hungerford and got no result. Fortunately I next decided to search just for Hungerford, and that worked. It appears that though prior centuries may have readily accepted alternate spellings, the kindle is more demanding of a perhaps-unrealistic exactitude.

TTFN J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Hi Johanne, see my reply to Marie. As for spellings, there is no right way because names varied with whoever was writing them down. So my Haringtons are Harringtons, my D'Aubeneys, Daubenys are Daubeneys. I couldn't possible keep track of thousands of names if I spelled them all differently, it's bad enough second-guessing when you're researching them. So you're right, yes Wilkinson wrote that and I changed it because I'm used to using Courtenay for whatever. H

On Friday, 27 June 2014, 15:04, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, Hilary 

Thanks for providing the details. I have Wilkinson's book on my kindle, and I found the passage by searching for Hungerford (it's at location 3793 and following  the kindle doesn't have page numbers). And I note that Courtenay is spelled Courtney according to Wilkinson, not what I would have thought.

So I had the dubious pleasure of being able to read the gory details of the execution. BTW, my understanding is that if you were a noble, you got to be executed by the more merciful (relatively that is) simple beheading as punishment for treason, rather than the agonizing hanging, drawing and quartering.

I have read Marie's interesting follow-up to your email, talking about how the fact that Richard's name came first does not necessarily mean he led the proceedings. But in addition, it occurs to me that, in the same fashion that Skidmore's actual article only raises the *possibility* that the provision for the chantry may give an indication as to Richard's intention for his interment, the material you quote does not actually say that *Richard* was present for the carrying-out of the sentences, only that Edward *was* personally present. It is possible that Richard did not attend the execution.

It should be pointed out that in many if not most cases, Edward only executed someone for treason if they committed a new act of treason after having been pardoned once. So he was relatively merciful, I guess you could say, but don't cross him twice!

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Hi Johanne. I'm defending Richard now - Colyingbourne was actually executed for sending messages to Henry Tudor, not for the rhyme, so it was indeed for treasonable plotting

The reference to Richard's attendance is in Wilkinson (page 160) 'Since returning from Middleham, Duke Richard had accompanied Edward at the trial, held at Salisbury in February 1469 of the two alleged traitors Henry Courtenay and Thomas Hungerford. The record of the hearings shows that Richard had served as the leading member of the oyer and terminer that had condemned the men to death. Also included in the commission were the Earl of Warwick and the Duke of Clarence. Both conspicuously failed to attend.' ...... Details of the verdict and method of execution is quoted in gruesome detail.

'The executions took place on 18 January 1469 (I think she means February) in the presence of the King; such was Edward's interest in the case.'

There follows a big discussion on how Richard's detractors have said he used his influence to get his hands on Hungerford's lands.

Hope this helps. H

On Friday, 27 June 2014, 10:43, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, Hilary 

I thought it wasn't certain that Richard was personally present at those executions. Can you give me some idea what the evidence is that Richard (and/or Edward) were there?

I suppose you are right about Richard not likely making great changes in the practice of executions. After all, I guess he was responsible for the execution of Colyngborne, which somehow has always seemed particularly . . . petty, and therefore distasteful to me, as I am a great supporter of freedom of thought and speech. My belief of Richard's character, however, is that he was inclined toward idealism and nobility but was unable to completely surmount the disagreeable aspects of his cultural milieu. Still, I think he would have been more sparing of punishments and merciful than the Tudors proved to be. It wouldn't have taken much!

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 6:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Henry's campaign against traitors was Henry led. Those who were captured by his 'deputies' tended just to get hung, probably too many of them for the full works. To be fair, I don't think there's anything to indicate that Richard would have reformed this law, after all he presided over the trials of Courtenay and Hungerford in 1469 and he and Edward personally attended their HDQ. He was of his age.

BTW, with regard to the other bit of my former post, Mountford was also a friend of the Catesbys - his family married twice into theirs. It's interesting how the unhappiness of familys such as the Catesbys (and Throckmortons) rumbles on through the sixteenth century and surfaces in the Gunpowder Plot. H

David to Carol:

I think it is misleading to say that Collingbourne was NOT executed for his rhyme and was executed for his letter to Henry. It is true that the indictment was for treason, but the treason quoted was BOTH writing to encourage Henry to land in England and for writing seditious poems.

So, the writing of the Cat and the Rat was part of the offence with which he was charged.

Now, looking at the different treatment of this in Gairdner and Kendall, Gairdner is incorrect to say that Henry was in France by 1484 - he was still in Brittany in mid-September 1484 in Tréguier on pilgrimage praying to Saint Yves - the patron saint of Brittany. There is circumstantial evidence indicating that this was immediately before his flight to France, since two younger sons of families with preeminences in the cathedral at Tréguier joined HT in England.

However, while Kendall is strictly correct that the mention of Brittany and Poole is not completely conclusive - it is certainly very strongly indicative that the letter was a year old at the time of the trial, and dated from the Buckingham Rebellion. While a second invasion was planned by Francis in 1484 it never really got underway. It really only demonstrated that Henry's fortunes were at a low and that Brittany did not have the resources to support an effective invasion.

I think Gairdner's implication was that an old letter was used to support a charge of treason later at the time of the publishing of the poem, in 1484."

Marie:

Hi David, I've had a look at Kendall, and I see from his notes that the source used for the indictment is Holinshed, so I have looked that up. What Holinshed does is to recount the story of his having been condemned for the rhyme, which goes all the way back to Fabyan, but then adds:

"Here is to be noted, that beside the rime which is reported by some to be the only cause for which this gentleman suffred, I finde in a regyster booke of Inditements concerning felonyes and treasons by sundrie persons committed, that the sayde Collingborne by the name of Willyam Collyngborne late of Lidyarde in the Countie of Wilkshire esquier and other his associates were indited in London for that that they about the tenth day of Julie, in this econd yeare of King Richardes raigne in the Parishe of Saint Botulphes in Portsoken warde had solicited and requested one Thomas Yate, offring to him for his paynes eyght pounde, to goe over into Brytayne unto Henrie Erle of Richmond, Thomas Marques Dorset, John Cheyney Esquier, and others (whiche in the last Parliament holden at Westminster had beene attainted of sundrie high treasons by them practised wythin the kings dominion) to declare unto them that they shoulde doe verie well to returne into Englande with all such power as they might get before the feast of Saint Luke the Evangelist [i.e. 18 October] next ensuing, for so they might receyve all the whole revuenues of the realme due at the feast of Saint Michaell nexte before the sayde feast of Saint Luke, and that if that sayde Earle of Richmonde and his partakers, following the counsaile of the sayde Collingborne, would arrive at the haven of Pole in Dorcetshire, he the sayd Collingborne and other his associates, woulde cause the people to rise in armes, and to levie warre agaynst king Richarde, taking part wyth the sayde Earle and his friendes, so that all things shoulde be at theyr commaundements."

So Holinshed does not question that Colyngbourne was at least partly condemned for the rhyme, but it doesn't actually look as though that was mentioned in the indictment that Holinshed saw. It's interesting that Colyngbourne is said to have advised Henry to land at Poole, because although Crowland tells us that in 1483 he had tried to land at Plymouth, Vergil says it was Poole. Perhaps this letter influenced Richard in 1485 in his misidentification of the Milford where Henry planned to land as the little port of Milford between Poole and Southampton.

The oyer and terminer commission to try Colyngbourne and Turbervile was appointed on 29th November 1484.

In view of Marie's information on the sentencing, it would seem to indicate that, although the King was not present at the trial, he would be effectively in charge of the sentence that was actually carried out.

Marie:

Yes, indeed. The oyer and terminer commission was to sit in London, and Richard was at Westminster from 28th November right up till the end of the year; there is no way that the HDQs happened without his personal sanction. It was a very fraught time, with Tudor escaping to the French court, the escape of the Earl of Oxford and a number of other defections to Tudor's cause including the entire garrison of Hammes. So this was Richard's response. He may have been advised to show no mercy given the circumstances, but the final decision rested with him.

Mary wrote:

"In view of Marie's information on the sentencing, it would seem to indicate that, although the King was not present at the trial, he would be effectively in charge of the sentence that was actually carried out."

Marie responded:

"Yes, indeed. The oyer and terminer commission was to sit in London, and Richard was at Westminster from 28th November right up till the end of the year; there is no way that the HDQs happened without his personal sanction. It was a very fraught time, with Tudor escaping to the French court, the escape of the Earl of Oxford and a number of other defections to Tudor's cause including the entire garrison of Hammes. So this was Richard's response. He may have been advised to show no mercy given the circumstances, but the final decision rested with him."

Carol responds:

Okay, I concede that point (though the very prestigious oyer and terminer commission clearly had no qualms about assigning that punishment or about his guilt). But as we both have said, the execution was for very real and dangerous treason, not for the rhyme. HDQ was the standard, legal punishment for treason, and, as you say, it was a very fraught time.

Does Fabyan quote the poem, Marie? It isn't specifically mentioned in the indictment, apparently. And have you found any other examples of HDQ in Richard's reign? Colyngbourne's is the only one we ever hear of.

Carol

Carol wrote:

On a side note, and I am only speculating here, I wonder if it, like "Oh, Lord Jesus, yet more trouble" and the River Soar incident, the rhyme as usually quoted was invented by Stow. Just a thought.

Marie:

Carol, can I come in here in Stow's defence? He was a careful antiquarian who may at times have repeated inaccurate tales he'd heard but was not in the business of making things up. It was Fabyan, a couple of generations earlier, who first recored the Cat rhyme and Colyngbourne's last words, and the story about the bones being thrown in the Soar was invented long after Stow was dead. We actually have Stow to thank for the information that old men who remembered Richard said he was not deformed but "comely enough, though of short stature."

Hi, Tamara, Marie, Carol, et al 

I agree with you, Tamara. It is wonderful to get the exact info from an early source. Thank you, Marie! Unlike Tamara, I had previously heard mention made of treasonable communications between Colyngborne and HT, but I had never read the details. From the info provided, it is much more damning than I realized.

My recollection (I've never read him) is that Holinshed is not supposed to be accurate in many instances, but one may be inclined to believe something he notes that might be considered to be helpful to Richard's reputation.

I also think it is surprising and somewhat dismaying that I can't remember reading any discussion at any length about Holinshed's report. Can anyone recall any in-depth discussion of the charges against Colyngborne?

TTFN J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 1:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

This entire conversation is revelatory to me, as every source I can remember seeing until now flatly states that Colyngbourne was executed for the CatRatDog rhyme, and no mention is made of his treasonous communications with the Tydder. I'd always wondered about the Colyngbourne business. It seemed so out of character for Richard - after all, he once had the City of York release a man whose only "crime" was saying not very nice things about Richard. Now that I know Colyngbourne was actively conniving with Earl Henry (and probably Henry's mommy, Maggie Buford) , it puts a whole new light on things. Tamara

Carol wrote;

Okay, I concede that point (though the very prestigious oyer and terminer commission clearly had no qualms about assigning that punishment or about his guilt).

Marie replies:

If the letter had been produced in court there could have been no doubt about the verdict, and the court would have handed out the prescribed penalty. Commuting the sentence to simple hanging would have been for Richard to decide, not the court.

Carol wrote:

Does Fabyan quote the poem, Marie? It isn't specifically mentioned in the indictment, apparently. And have you found any other examples of HDQ in Richard's reign? Colyngbourne's is the only one we ever hear of.

Marie:

Fabyan does quote the poem. What he says is (and I have modernised the spelling to speed up typing):

"While the foresaid gentlemen of diverse coasts of England escaped as is abovesaid over the sea, of that affinity was one named William Colyngbourne taken, and after he had been holden a season in prison, he, with another gentleman named Turbyrvyle, were brought unto Guildhall and there arraigned; but the said Turbyrvyle were 'repryed' to prison, and that other was cast for sundry treasons, and for a rhyme which was laid to his charge that he should make [i.e. that he had made] in derision of the King and his council, as followeth:

The cat, the rat and Lovell our dog

Ruleth all England under a hog.

The which was meant that Catesby, Ratclyffe and the Lord Lovell ruled the land under the King, which bare the white boar for his cognizance. For the which and other upon the [blank] day of [blank] he was put to the most cruel death at the Tower Hill, where for him were made a new pair of gallows, upon the which after he had hanged a short season, he was cut down being alive, and his bowels ripped out of his belly and cast into the fire there by him; and lived till the butcher put his hand into the bulk of his body, insomuch that he said in the same instant: 'O Lord Jesu, yet more trouble!' and so died, to the great compassion of much people."

I don't know whether there were other examples of HDQ. It's easier to get information about London executions than those in the provinces, obviously. According to Stow, the men taken for attempting to spring the Princes from the Tower with the aid of diversionary fires in the city were beheaded - these executions aren't mentioned by the London chroniclers. Buckingham and Sir Thomas St Leger and the two others condemned with him at Exeter were also beheaded. Fabyan tells us that two other rebels taken in Kent were beheaded at Tower Hill, and four other men hanged at Tyburn. And that's it. I don't think there are any other examples of HDQ in Richard's reign have been identified but I may be wrong.

The interesting thing is that Colyngbourne's execution is not even mentioned in the main part of the earlier London Chronicle, Vitellius A XVI (1490s); it is mentioned in an list of people executed in London over the years attached to that chronicle, but this just says that during Richard's reign "was beheaded Sir George Broune of Kent, and Colyngbourne and many other gentlemen were put to execution...." So it's twenty years before any commentator singles out Colyngbourne's execution for special comment and by that time the genuine details of the charges had been forgotten, so what else in Fabyan's account might have grown in the telling? Who knows?

What we could also do with is a comparison with other reigns for rates of execution, HDQ, etc.

Hi, Carol 

Look again  I don't say I believe that Richard likely killed Henry; however, I do believe it is *possible,* shading over to likely. That's why I put a question mark after likely, to indicate my view that it's somewhere in between possible and likely.

We had a long, detailed discussion of the matter some time ago, and as I recollect, the evidence (from Marie, I think) was that it was ambiguous as to whether Edward and Richard (I think it was both) had departed London before Henry was killed.

My belief is this: that the Plantagenets tended to be merciful, but Henry had already been given more chances than most, and he kept being snatched by the other side and used against Edward. I don't think he ever had the cojones to be a real armed threat, but as a symbol he was a rallying point for the Lancastrians. There was the period of the Readeption, during which time Edward and Richard became refugees again from their own country.

If Henry VI was killed on Edward's direction  and I think it fair to say that most scholars believe he was  then who would Edward have been most likely to delegate the disagreeable task to? I believe it would have most likely been his worshipful, intelligent, capable little brother  the one on whose discretion he could completely rely (unlike George). Whatever the truth was, the facts support Edward's rounding up and dealing with the last of the vigorous opposition in a very thorough way, and I believe the death of Henry served to give Edward undisputed rulership of the Kingdom till his death.

That's the gist of it. We will never know for sure. But I think it likely arose somewhat like HII saying, Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 3:22 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Haringtons and Hornby

Johanne wrote :

" I think Richard's possible (likely?) involvement in the death of Henry VI would also be ascribed to the same motivation, loyalty toward Edward first, not to mention all the bother Henry had become. Realistically was there any other solution to the problem of two extant monarchs than arranging for Henry's demise? It certainly did help to bring an extended period of peace to the realm."

Carol responds:

Just wondering why you think Richard's involvement in the death of Henry VI is "likely." The only reference we have is the statement made after Richard's death that he was at the Tower that day with many others. He could have been at the Tower for many reasons--staying in the royal apartments, attending a council meeting--without having anything to do with the execution (if it occurred). Even More states that Edward was unlikely to assign that bloody office to his own brother. (More implies that Richard did it on his own.) It's possible, as Kend all suggests, that as Constable of England, Richard may have delivered the orders to the constable of the Tower, who would then have delivered them to his own men, but even Ross and other traditionalists place the responsibility for the decision to kill Henry squarely on Edward. (It benefited him, not Richard.)

But the date of Henry's death may not be the one given in the chronicle that says he was at the Tower that day (May 21). His servants were paid until May 23, on which date Richard was not in London. If Henry died on May 23, Richard could have had nothing to do with it.

The statement in the official Yorkist record that Henry died of pure displeasure and melancholy has generally been regarded as a cover up (by Edward--again, Richard had nothing to do with it), propaganda exonerating Edward and providing an excuse for Henry's death. But given Henry's health, mental and physical, it's possible that the statement is true. The Croyland Chronicler (who refers to the person responsible as a "tyrant" but doesn't name him) believes that he was executed, but he is merely echoing common belief. It's much the same as what would have happened had Richard's nephews died of the sweating sickness. The assumption among many people would have been that he had killed them.

Richard's enemies have attributed his moving Henry's body to guilt to a more appropriate tomb to guilt for his involvement (or to a desire to prevent Henry from being venerated as a saint or even to a propaganda move to make himself more popular), but to me it seems more likely that he was moved by the same desire as Edward had been to give his father and Edmund a more suitable resting place. Henry, despite having been declared a traitor and usurper by Edward's Parliament, was an anointed king, and Richard would have respected that status. He also, as you probably know, arranged for a chapel to be built at Towton (fought when he was a child) and for those who died in that bloody battle, Lancastrians as well as Yorkists, to be transferred to consecrated ground.

I'm not stating as a fact that Richard wasn't involved, but I wouldn't characterize his involvement as likely, only possible, and only as Edward's lieutenant performing the unpleasant duty of delivering the orders (not, of course, executing Henry with his own hand as the Tudor chroniclers suggest). But I would hope that Edward would exempt his brother from the duty of delivering those orders just as he later appointed Buckingham temporary constable so Richard wouldn't have to be involved in George's treason trial. And Richard's presence elsewhere on May 23, the apparent death date based on the record of payment to Henry's servants, is a strong indication that Richard wasn't involved at all.

Carol

Hi, Sandra 

Thanks for posting this! Dr. Turi King is the *Canadian* member of the ULAS team who was responsible for the DNA analysis on Richard. I loved watching her interviews in the documentaries, because she has a great upbeat manner and sense of humour, but still respectful to Richard. I am sure the lecture will be well worth taking in.

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

                              - Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 5:33 AM
To:
Subject: Lecture on Richard's DNA

FYI. A free lecture by Dr Turi King. http://www.sal.org.uk/events/2014/09/public-lecture-dna-analysis-of-richard-iii/

Sandra

=^..^=

Doug and Tamara,
I am a little worried by the nature of the books that you have been reading if they do not mention Collingbourne's writing to Henry in Brittany. I can find only one of my own that does not mention it and that is 'the strife of the roses and the days of the Tudors in the west' - which is a very engaging book that outlines the importance of the West Country in the opposition to Richard. I am not even sure if this is meant as a serious history or a travel guide.

It could be that the books are setting up a Straw Man by claiming that historians are ignoring or never mentioning the letters and by so doing putting Richard in a poor light.

This is far from the truth, Hicks examines the trial of Collingbourne and speculates as to why he seemed to be singled out for the most cruel and painful punishment.

Far from being the trigger for a chain reaction, Collingbourne's trial was fairly late on in a wave of activity across the south and west of the country. People were communicating with Henry and other exiles and sending them money. Many of those found guilty had sentence commuted to beheading - Collingbourne seems to have been made an example.

This is not an imaginary insurrection, because the commissions to try the traitors are still available. It is interesting to note - further to the notion of a divided land - Richard never had control of the south and many of the men named in the commissions were northerners.

Some have already been named in this thread, but you can add Ralph Assheton and John le Scrope of Bolton (Yorkshire). Both men were pardoned by HT after Bosworth - Scrope, I think again after Stoke.

The troubles in the South were such that Richard passed a law that no ships could leave southern ports without surety.

The other thing about the Collingbourne case is that he exemplifies the class of Southern and western gentry who never accepted Richard's seizure of power.

Kind regards
David



From: 'Douglas Eugene Stamate' destama@... [] ;
To: ;
Cc: Doug Stamate ;
Subject: Haringtons and Hornby
Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 2:51:26 PM

Tamara wrote:
"This entire conversation is revelatory to me, as every source I can remember seeing until now flatly states that Colyngbourne was executed for the CatRatDog rhyme, and no mention is made of his treasonous communications with the Tydder."
//snip//

Doug here;
Misdirection amounting to lying by omission. Colyngbourne *was* executed for his "writings"; ie, his treasonous correspondence with HT, but by focusing on the rhyme, which was only part (and the least, at that) of those "writings," one is left with impression of a unpopular tyrant unable to stomach even a minor case of lese majestie (sp?) lest it set off a chain reaction of oppposition.
More Tudor projection, methinks.
Doug


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Re your last sentence David I would say that it wasn't just Richard that southern and western gentry hadn't accepted - think of how MOA rallied her troups there because of loyalties to the Beauforts. It was just that Edward's unexpected death gave that rare window of opportunity to take advantage of a breakdown in the Yorkist ranks, egged on, no doubt by Louis XI. The Hungerfords, for example, had no reason to love Edward as we've seen - he'd stuck Clarence in their property.

I would agree with what you say about Colyngbourne and that he was part of a level of activity going on for decades under the surface - look at the early years of Edward's reign when he is forever tracking down trouble-makers, many of them in religious orders. This was the age of the double, triple, agent and Colyngbourne had been in important households since 1464. Later, Taylor and Hayes, Yorkist agents would go back and forth with impunity under the guise of working for the Staple.

Incidentally does anyone know if John Kendal the leader of the Hospitallers and rebel against HT in the Warbeck case is any relation to Richard's John Kendal who died at Bosworth? H

David wrote:

Hicks examines the trial of Collingbourne and speculates as to why he seemed to be singled out for the most cruel and painful punishment.

Marie:

What book of Hicks have you been reading, David? Looking up the references to Colyngbourne in his 'Richard III', I can find only:-

p. 165 - After Buckingham's Rebellion: "Less than two years were to pass before he lost his throne. Meanwhile the continuous haemorrhage of new defections forced him to place less emphasis on mercy than on deterrence. Whereas earlier executions had been commuted to mere beheading, William Collingbourne and others were, hanged, drawn and disembowelled as prescribed by law."

p. 173 - Talking about the blackening of Richard's name: "We cannot attribute roles to Pembroke and Oxford, to Margaret Beaufort and John Morton, to Bray, Urswick, Collingbourne or the others whose names we know. Most probably it originated in London rather than abroad. We possess only Collingbourne's rhyme:

The Cat, the Rat and Lovell the Dog

Rule all England under a Hog."

So actually no mention of C's writing letters to Tudor advising him to invade.

Sandra: Ha! David: I can't vouch for Doug, whose comment as far as I can see didn't evince ignorance but rather a righteous and justfied disgust with the trick of "lying by omission". As for me and my actual ignorance, I freely confess to being a newbie to all of this. Yet the information to which you refer is not quite the common knowledge you seem to think it is - and I do agree with you that it should be common knowledge. Here is an example of a reference that the typical interested layperson is likely to find trustworthy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A42168116 You will note that the writer of this entry makes no mention whatsoever of the "sundry treasons" Colyngbourne was charged with, much less that these treasons included repeated communications with the Earl of Richmond with a view to aiding him in his plans for overthrowing Richard. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier this morning (it still being morning where I am), it seems that Fabyan, whose writings have been used for over half a millennium as references by the most prominent and best-known historians writing about Richard, chose to dispose of the treasonous communications Colyngbourne had with Henry Tudor with the two words "sundry treasons", preferring instead to focus on the CatRatDog rhyme. As I also mentioned, the casual/lazy reader (and the harried historian working perhaps to a deadline) would be likely to miss the "sundry treasons" part and thus not bother to dig deeper and find out what those "sundry treasons" were. Tamara

David --

No worries! As I said earlier, I freely admit to being a newcomer to the field.

And as Marie's already shown with her quoting of Fabyan and one of Hicks' books, it's hard for people who are newbies to know certain things, such as that Richard didn't execute Colyngbourne just for calling him names, but for "sundry treasons" that included corresponding with the Earl of Richmond with a view to facilitating his planned overthrow of Richard and assuming the throne. (The BBC's H2G2 site that I cited as an example of what the average modern net surfer might consider "authoritative", if for no other reason than it turns up near the top of a Google search, merely states that C. wrote the rhyme as part of C.'s plan to entice Henry Tudor into moving against Richard, and doesn't mention that C. had already been in communication with Richard.)

It's rather like how many of the fellow Americans I know, thanks to clever merchandizing, think that Rolex is a premium watch brand and have no concept of Patek Philippe or Breguet.

Tamara

David --

No worries! As I said earlier, I freely admit to being a newcomer to the field.

And as Marie's already shown with her quoting of Fabyan and one of Hicks' books, it's hard for people who are newbies to know certain things, such as that Richard didn't execute Colyngbourne just for calling him names, but for "sundry treasons" that included corresponding with the Earl of Richmond with a view to facilitating his planned overthrow of Richard and assuming the throne. (The BBC's H2G2 site that I cited as an example of what the average modern net surfer might consider "authoritative", if for no other reason than it turns up near the top of a Google search, merely states that C. wrote the rhyme as part of C.'s plan to entice Henry Tudor into moving against Richard, and doesn't mention that C. had already been in communication with Richard.)

It's rather like how many of the fellow Americans I know, thanks to clever merchandizing, think that Rolex is a premium watch brand and have no concept of Patek Philippe or Breguet.

Tamara

“Tudor” was attainted with his “grandfather” and uncle at the time of Barnet. I suspect the Earldom was merged into the Crown so the challenger at Bosworth had no genetic claim to the throne, no claim to the Earldom and (thanks to JA-H, Cliff Davies et al) no surname either.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 05 July 2014 11:03
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Richard held the title of Earl of Richmond for a while. It was given to Clarence to bring him back on side for Barnet, then taken away from him and given back to Richard after George's execution. This meant he was Earl of Richmond at the time of his accession. Did he hold onto it? If so Tudor had no right to call himself Earl of Richmond, let alone king!
Paul


On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:22 AM, "khafara@... []" <> wrote:

David --

No worries! As I said earlier, I freely admit to being a newcomer to the field.

And as Marie's already shown with her quoting of Fabyan and one of Hicks' books, it's hard for people who are newbies to know certain things, such as that Richard didn't execute Colyngbourne just for calling him names, but for "sundry treasons" that included corresponding with the Earl of Richmond with a view to facilitating his planned overthrow of Richard and assuming the throne. (The BBC's H2G2 site that I cited as an example of what the average modern net surfer might consider "authoritative", if for no other reason than it turns up near the top of a Google search, merely states that C. wrote the rhyme as part of C.'s plan to entice Henry Tudor into moving against Richard, and doesn't mention that C. had already been in communication with Richard.)

It's rather like how many of the fellow Americans I know, thanks to clever merchandizing, think that Rolex is a premium watch brand and have no concept of Patek Philippe or Breguet.

Tamara

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

If the letter had been produced in court there could have been no doubt about the verdict, and the court would have handed out the prescribed penalty. Commuting the sentence to simple hanging would have been for Richard to decide, not the court.

Carol responds:

Exactly. Guilty as charged and standard penalty. Richard would have had no reason to show unusual mercy. Or maybe he did and the details are embroidered by Fabyan based on the portion of your post that I snipped. (My apologies to Stow for thinking he was responsible.)

Carol earlier:

Does Fabyan quote the poem, Marie? It isn't specifically mentioned in the indictment, apparently. And have you found any other examples of HDQ in Richard's reign? Colyngbourne's is the only one we ever hear of.

Eva wrote:

"Hi, Carol  Look again  I don't say I believe that Richard likely killed Henry; however, I do believe it is *possible,* shading over to likely. That's why I put a question mark after likely, to indicate my view that it's somewhere in between possible and likely."

Parliament gave Henry “Tudor” his authority – he had no more by conquest than a stooge of Napoleon or Hitler would have done.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 06 July 2014 15:27
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

But if he was the bastard son of John the Miller it wouldn't matter - he was king by right of conquest. So arguing whether he had any hereditary right or not is irrelevant. It mattered not to the Conqueror from whence the rest sprang . Sorry JAH! H

On Saturday, 5 July 2014, 11:56, "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" < > wrote:

“Tudor” was attainted with his “grandfather” and uncle at the time of Barnet. I suspect the Earldom was merged into the Crown so the challenger at Bosworth had no genetic claim to the throne, no claim to the Earldom and (thanks to JA-H, Cliff Davies et al) no surname either.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 05 July 2014 11:03
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Richard held the title of Earl of Richmond for a while. It was given to Clarence to bring him back on side for Barnet, then taken away from him and given back to Richard after George's execution. This meant he was Earl of Richmond at the time of his accession. Did he hold onto it? If so Tudor had no right to call himself Earl of Richmond, let alone king!
Paul


On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:22 AM, "khafara@... []" <> wrote:

David --

No worries! As I said earlier, I freely admit to being a newcomer to the field.

And as Marie's already shown with her quoting of Fabyan and one of Hicks' books, it's hard for people who are newbies to know certain things, such as that Richard didn't execute Colyngbourne just for calling him names, but for "sundry treasons" that included corresponding with the Earl of Richmond with a view to facilitating his planned overthrow of Richard and assuming the throne. (The BBC's H2G2 site that I cited as an example of what the average modern net surfer might consider "authoritative", if for no other reason than it turns up near the top of a Google search, merely states that C. wrote the rhyme as part of C.'s plan to entice Henry Tudor into moving against Richard, and doesn't mention that C. had already been in communication with Richard.)

It's rather like how many of the fellow Americans I know, thanks to clever merchandizing, think that Rolex is a premium watch brand and have no concept of Patek Philippe or Breguet.

Tamara

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Tudor was attainted with his grandfather and uncle at the time of Barnet. I suspect the Earldom was merged into the Crown so the challenger at Bosworth had no genetic claim to the throne, no claim to the Earldom and (thanks to JA-H, Cliff Davies et al) no surname either.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 05 July 2014 11:03
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Richard held the title of Earl of Richmond for a while. It was given to Clarence to bring him back on side for Barnet, then taken away from him and given back to Richard after George's execution. This meant he was Earl of Richmond at the time of his accession. Did he hold onto it? If so Tudor had no right to call himself Earl of Richmond, let alone king!
Paul

Wow, that's rough. No wonder he and his minions worked so hard to invent his genealogy, titles, heraldry, mythology back to King Arthur, and plant his miserable rose on everything.

I brought back a few 25p coins from England years ago. They resurfaced this past week. I hissed -- actually hissed like a cat -- to discover the ubiquitous Tudor rose on the back of it.

But heigh ho, at least the white rose tops the red. *meow*

I recently read (really need to reference these findings) that Cecily of York sued to get back Middleham from Henry. The courts awarded it to her, but Henry ignored it. Eh, she couldn't support the castle and its environs anyway, so what was the point of trying to score off of King Avarice? Also... how could the court award Middleham to her when it had reverted in Richard's lifetime to the other line of Nevilles? I know that after Anne died, he stopped trying to buy it back from them. What am I missing, that Cecily would be entitled to own it?

~Weds

Tudor was attainted with his grandfather and uncle at the time of Barnet. I suspect the Earldom was merged into the Crown so the challenger at Bosworth had no genetic claim to the throne, no claim to the Earldom and (thanks to JA-H, Cliff Davies et al) no surname either.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 05 July 2014 11:03
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Richard held the title of Earl of Richmond for a while. It was given to Clarence to bring him back on side for Barnet, then taken away from him and given back to Richard after George's execution. This meant he was Earl of Richmond at the time of his accession. Did he hold onto it? If so Tudor had no right to call himself Earl of Richmond, let alone king!
Paul

Do you have a link to that ancestry chart?

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 7:14 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Richmond

Weds,
Whatever Henry's minions were doing, it wasn't inventing a genealogy. They might have been researching it.

It is true that they failed to find King Arthur, but nobody ever really has found him.

Although Owen Tudor is described as a servant, he had noble ancestry. He was descended from Llewelyn the Great and King John and of course, William the Conqueror.

His family tree can be seen quite easily using modern technology. It has been assembled on a database that I mentioned a few months ago.

Kind regards
David



Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

From: wednesday.mac@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Richmond
Sent: Sun, Jul 6, 2014 5:12:58 PM

Wow, that's rough. No wonder he and his minions worked so hard to invent his genealogy, titles, heraldry, mythology back to King Arthur, and plant his miserable rose on everything.

I brought back a few 25p coins from England years ago. They resurfaced this past week. I hissed -- actually hissed like a cat -- to discover the ubiquitous Tudor rose on the back of it.

But heigh ho, at least the white rose tops the red. *meow*

I recently read (really need to reference these findings) that Cecily of York sued to get back Middleham from Henry. The courts awarded it to her, but Henry ignored it. Eh, she couldn't support the castle and its environs anyway, so what was the point of trying to score off of King Avarice? Also... how could the court award Middleham to her when it had reverted in Richard's lifetime to the other line of Nevilles? I know that after Anne died, he stopped trying to buy it back from them. What am I missing, that Cecily would be entitled to own it?

~Weds

---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote :

Tudor was attainted with his grandfather and uncle at the time of Barnet. I suspect the Earldom was merged into the Crown so the challenger at Bosworth had no genetic claim to the throne, no claim to the Earldom and (thanks to JA-H, Cliff Davies et al) no surname either.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 05 July 2014 11:03
To:
Subject: Re: Richmond

Richard held the title of Earl of Richmond for a while. It was given to Clarence to bring him back on side for Barnet, then taken away from him and given back to Richard after George's execution. This meant he was Earl of Richmond at the time of his accession. Did he hold onto it? If so Tudor had no right to call himself Earl of Richmond, let alone king!
Paul

Then there is the added complication of Edmund’s paternity.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 08 July 2014 16:09
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

I am sorry David but I have to disagree with you, Owain Tudor was not descended from Llewellynap Iorwerth also known as the Great. He was descended from one of his servants Ednyfed Fychan.

So there we have it.

Henry was not descended from the Dukes of Lancaster in suo jure.

He probably wasn’t descended from Owen Tudor – cf JA-H, Cliff Davies and the ironically-named Colin Richmond.

Owen was descended not from Llewellyn but his steward.

Owen was attainted so Henry couldn’t have been Earl of Richmond either way.

He was thus a commoner without even a guaranteed surname.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 08 July 2014 22:02
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Hilary wrote:

//snip//

"I'm sorry but you can't blame Henry because he was the lucky one. There was one person who gave Henry the crown and that ws Richard. As long as he lived Henry was a usurper. He could have lost Bosworth, fled abroad, regrouped just like his brother. That charge down the hillside was a monumental (if valiant) catastrophe; a bit like the equally valiant and misjudged charge of the Light Brigrade. For once I'm with Starkey - Richard's greatest crime was that he died."

Doug here:

Sorry to have to disagree with you. Any "luck" Henry had was due to the treason of William Stanley and, quite probably, that of Northumberland.

In every account of Bosworth that I've come across, Tudor's troops under Oxford 's command had been fought to a standstill *until* the death of Norfolk ; at which time the Yorkist began slowly to give way. Not "scatter, nor "run," and not really even "retreat." In military terms it would best be termed a "withdrawal," which is a movement of troops to the rear while still in formation, and still capable of fighting. All that Richard did was to provide the leadership and the margin of troops needed to overcome Oxford 's troops and defeat Henry Tudor.

Historians seem to only wish to focus on Richard and Henry; a battle between the two representatives of Lancaster and York, so to speak. Unfortunately they don't alway mention Stanley 's treason and completely forget about Northumberland. Even should Northumberland have been located too far away to intervene, what is the explanation for Stanley 's quiescence until *after* Richard entered the battle? What prevented Stanley from attacking Richard wherever Richard was?

As I've said several times: it doesn't add up. If the goal was to defeat and kill Richard, and Northumberland too far away to intervene, Stanley, with his 1-2 thousand men, could easily have done so any time *after* Norfolk attacked Oxford. Stanley didn't. Why not?

I maintain Stanley didn't because Northumberland's troops were in such close proximity to Richard that all Richard need do was fall back, with his household troops, to where Northumberland was stationed, thus requiring Stanley to attack a force equal to or greater than his own and, most importantly,*force* Northumberland, or rather his troops, to fight.

However, once Richard entered the battle and was separated from Northumberland (and those troops), Stanley was free to intervene. Thus leaving to Northumberland to later claim, because his men weren't mounted, there was nothing he could do.

To which I reply - Faugh! Stanley couldn't know, just as Richard didn't, just how long it would take for his troops to reach the fighting *and make a difference.* During that period Northumberland could have led his men into the battle and do to Stanley's troops what Stanley did to Richard's - attack them from the flank and rear.

Soldiers, especially mounted troops, don't like being attacked from the flank and rear. Trying to wheel around disorganizes the trooper doing the wheeling *and* those in his proximity. Even if Northumberland's troops could only arrive *after* those of Stanley, the result would still be sthe same - Stanley would have to fight on two, or more, fronts or else risk what happened to Richard happening to *him*.

To call Richard's entering into the fighting as a "live or die" effort is to view Bosworth as those who betrayed him wanted their contemporaried to view it - a useless effort by a usurping tyrant, unable to resist the conqering hero that was HT!

//snip//

Doug

(who gagged a bit typing that last line)

Hi, Doug –

Since I’m the one who has written on more than one occasion about Richard’s desperate charge, I just wanted to say that 1) I’m definitely not an expert on Bosworth; 2) what I’ve said is what I’ve gathered from reading varied, mostly pro-Ricardian, sources; 3) if I understand you correctly, you are saying that claiming that Richard made a desperate charge toward HT is the same as portraying him as a usurper, rather than HT. Well, I certainly don’t feel that way.

Again, not being expert . . . it seems to me that a big part of Richard’s problem was that he didn’t have another commander he could count on, especially after Norfolk was killed. It was different in the good ol’ days, when he was lieutenant for Edward and Edward also had Hastings – though I recall that Hastings had probs on at least one occasion. But Hastings was a doughty old warhorse who would undoubtedly have strengthened the Richard’s side had he been available.

I also recall in one of the more recent sources I have read (J A-H?) it was said that Richard had not encountered a pike wall in his previous battles, and that may have presented him with a dilemma. In addition, his physical condition may have been causing him much distress – they say he had the type of scoliosis that develops in adolescence, and I think it is likely it was progressive (like my aunt’s scoliosis). Then there are the deaths of his wife and son. All of these things may have been seen by Richard as omens or as punishments from God. I think before he made the last charge, he determined to do something which would bring the matter to a head. Either he would smash Henry or die trying. We don’t have details of Richard’s fighting technique, but we know he favoured the battleaxe, a weapon which I understand is most effective when used in an all-out frontal assault. I think the factors I have mentioned briefly are reasons he couldn’t be persuaded to flee and fight again another day, which many people have suggested would have been a viable option for him. But, I don’t think any of Richard’s actions imply that he was acting as a usurper rather than the lawful King of England. Rather the reverse – he wore his crown on his helm for all to see, and no doubt his coat of arms and his banner, so his identity and his claim was pretty obvious. I think he probably hoped to win it all by a bold stroke and was willing to take his chances, so I don’t think it was suicidal. I think he had a real prospect of success. And his dramatic charge certainly captures the imagination – it has an almost magnetic appeal. Not the action of a usurper at all. Rather, good ol’ HT – hiding behind his pikemen – that’s the action of a usurper, and maybe a coward, to boot! Those are my thoughts – off the top of my head!

TTFN J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 6:02 PM
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: Richmond

Hilary wrote:

//snip//

"I'm sorry but you can't blame Henry because he was the lucky one. There was one person who gave Henry the crown and that ws Richard. As long as he lived Henry was a usurper. He could have lost Bosworth, fled abroad, regrouped just like his brother. That charge down the hillside was a monumental (if valiant) catastrophe; a bit like the equally valiant and misjudged charge of the Light Brigrade. For once I'm with Starkey - Richard's greatest crime was that he died."

Doug here:

Sorry to have to disagree with you. Any "luck" Henry had was due to the treason of William Stanley and, quite probably, that of Northumberland.

In every account of Bosworth that I've come across, Tudor's troops under Oxford's command had been fought to a standstill *until* the death of Norfolk; at which time the Yorkist began slowly to give way. Not "scatter, nor "run," and not really even "retreat." In military terms it would best be termed a "withdrawal," which is a movement of troops to the rear while still in formation, and still capable of fighting. All that Richard did was to provide the leadership and the margin of troops needed to overcome Oxford's troops and defeat Henry Tudor.

Historians seem to only wish to focus on Richard and Henry; a battle between the two representatives of Lancaster and York, so to speak. Unfortunately they don't alway mention Stanley's treason and completely forget about Northumberland. Even should Northumberland have been located too far away to intervene, what is the explanation for Stanley's quiescence until *after* Richard entered the battle? What prevented Stanley from attacking Richard wherever Richard was?

As I've said several times: it doesn't add up. If the goal was to defeat and kill Richard, and Northumberland too far away to intervene, Stanley, with his 1-2 thousand men, could easily have done so any time *after* Norfolk attacked Oxford. Stanley didn't. Why not?

I maintain Stanley didn't because Northumberland's troops were in such close proximity to Richard that all Richard need do was fall back, with his household troops, to where Northumberland was stationed, thus requiring Stanley to attack a force equal to or greater than his own and, most importantly,*force* Northumberland, or rather his troops, to fight.

However, once Richard entered the battle and was separated from Northumberland (and those troops), Stanley was free to intervene. Thus leaving to Northumberland to later claim, because his men weren't mounted, there was nothing he could do.

To which I reply - Faugh! Stanley couldn't know, just as Richard didn't, just how long it would take for his troops to reach the fighting *and make a difference.* During that period Northumberland could have led his men into the battle and do to Stanley's troops what Stanley did to Richard's - attack them from the flank and rear.

Soldiers, especially mounted troops, don't like being attacked from the flank and rear. Trying to wheel around disorganizes the trooper doing the wheeling *and* those in his proximity. Even if Northumberland's troops could only arrive *after* those of Stanley, the result would still be sthe same - Stanley would have to fight on two, or more, fronts or else risk what happened to Richard happening to *him*.

To call Richard's entering into the fighting as a "live or die" effort is to view Bosworth as those who betrayed him wanted their contemporaried to view it - a useless effort by a usurping tyrant, unable to resist the conqering hero that was HT!

//snip//

Doug

(who gagged a bit typing that last line)

So there we have it.

Henry was not descended from the Dukes of Lancaster in suo jure.

He probably wasn't descended from Owen Tudor  cf JA-H, Cliff Davies and the ironically-named Colin Richmond.

Owen was descended not from Llewellyn but his steward.

Owen was attainted so Henry couldn't have been Earl of Richmond either way.

He was thus a commoner without even a guaranteed surname.

Yes I've read that too Pamela; that it was definitely planned. Let me tell you (not you personally) why I feel so strongly about this. A couple of months' ago I was in St Valery sur Somme, about an hour from Calais, from whence Duke William's fleet set sail in 1066. We discussed the logistics - all those horses and armour - but the one thing that was very clear was that William was with a group of his own, finely trained men, who were joining the adventure to find that bit of land for their holiday cottage in England. The cottage became the castle of course, to keep out the locals, and they had to call William king. But he made them barons and gave them vast tracts of land to patrol. He relied on them, they on him. And they could put up two fingers to their elder brothers back in Normandy who'd mopped up all the family lands. In a couple of generations, they married the local lass, discovered her rellies weren't that bad, and made England their permanent home. And that relationship with the king continued. Now take Henry in 1485. He has an army of mainly mercenaries, who will win or lose, and move on to the next job. With the exception of de Vere he has a group of twitchy gents who've already fallen out with the powers that be at home and just want to get back to put their feet on their hearths. They will get no great baronies, no rewards (W Stanley didn't even get a thanks) because anything that is worth anything has been subsumed through the generations into the Crown and our Henry's not parting with that. What's left is being quickly swept up by Reggie and Empson to help mummy's sheepfarming ventures in Northants. Had Richard lost but lived how long do you think Henry would have survived? In fact it's probably only due to Bray, Empson, Dudley and his many spies that he actuallly did. Richard would have had Maximilien,the Low Countries and Portugal behind him, he would have had Ireland and possibly Scotland behind him. And more importantly, he could have stroked the Hansa and re-assured the Staple as well as using them for his own spying activities. Remember the City of London's reaction to Warwick during the readeption. I rest my case, the charge was a wrong decision - Oh Richard! H

On Wednesday, 9 July 2014, 8:59, "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <> wrote:


Many people interpret Richard's charge at Bosworth as an impulsive decision. However, I was at a talk recently by a Medieval War expert from the Royal Armories who said that this tactic was one which must have been discussed prior to the battle. He said that it would be almost impossible, in the heat of battle. to organise such a charge involving the commander and his troop of household knights. Thus it is likely that Richard and his commanders discussed this option, and perhaps the Stanleys were privy to that discussion. From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July 2014, 8:41
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richmond
I don't dispute anything you say, Doug, but kings (particularly kings without brothers or heirs) shouldn't put themselves at risk at all - they should linger 'on the back row' and be ready to make that nifty exit. They always did hereafter of course (except when George II's horse bolted!). It was Richard's political judgement that was noble but totally wrong. Forget chivalry, we're in the age of Machiavelli. Death should not have been an option, and it clearly is if you're leading a charge. As for Sir William, it would be worth having a whole book devoted to him, he's a fascinating character. H

Working down from Edward III, with male-preference representative primogeniture – which existed until 2012/3:

Eldest son: Black Prince, then Richard II (dead end).

Second son: Lionel of Antwerp , then Phillippa of Ulster, Roger Mortimer, Anne Mortimer (heiress), Richard of York leaving options

By the morning of 22 August 1485, the options were:

Edward of Warwick and Margaret of Salisbury (both under attainder),

Richard III (about to d.s.p.) – hence no more legitimate, available children of Richard of York’s sons.

His daughters: Anne of Exeter (dead but her daughter Anne St. Leger was nine), Elizabeth of Suffolk (her eldest son was the adult John of Lincoln but he had brothers)

Edward III’s Y-chromosome is (presumably) represented by the Dukes of Beaufort, thanks to a further illegitimacy through a Duke of Somerset.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 10 July 2014 14:34
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

David, I will indeed have a look. But it doesn't matter; in every respect Henry's claim was via the illegitimate route and that, unlike primogeniture, had never ever been revoked. If you say that illegitimate children should inherit then there were an awful lot down the ages, going back to Henry II's Longspees and probably beyond. And the kings of England were kings of Wales - had been since Edward 1 - right of conquest can't have it both ways - so that's out of the water.

Being an idiot I set myself the exercise of seeing who were the real heirs through direct primogeniture (ie father to father since Henry II) at the time of Richard's death there was only one - Edward Earl of Warwick (attainted but not illegitimate). Now I could be wrong, I haven't got to the 'end' of Richard of Cornwall, brother of Henry III, but no doubt he too will fizzle out. Looking at the heirs through legitimate daughters of kings (which would have required reversal of primogenture which did happen between Edward I and Edward III) is a big task and will lead us abroad as well, but believe me there are many who are much closer to the throne than illegitimate Henry - who has no claim whatsoever. I'm sure JAH will have done this Stephen?

Henry invoked all this to legitimise his reign. His twitchy gentry were starting to twitch again. He had killed an annointed King. One day he was going to meet his Maker and he would come up with two excuses:

1. Richard was a tyrant who needed removing for the good of the land (that would come later)

2. He had a superior almost heroic claim which Richard rejected so they had a trial by combat and he won.

I can see him now in God's waiting room going through the notes he had made with the help of mummy. I wonder if he got in? No, Henry was a delusionist singled out for this task by the French to cause a bit of trouble in England and unfortunately for them it all got out of hand. H (And before someone says the Beauforts were legitimised, yes they were, but barred from the throne)

On Wednesday, 9 July 2014, 21:58, "'Douglas Eugene Stamate' destama@... []" < > wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"I don't dispute anything you say, Doug, but kings (particularly kings without brothers or heirs) shouldn't put themselves in at risk at all - they should linger 'on the back row' and be ready to make that nifty exit. They always did hereafter of course (except when George II's horse bolted).

Doug here:

But Richard *had* an heir - his nephew John. That the Yorkists, after Bosworth, failed to rally behind the Earl of Lincoln can't be blamed on Richard.

Hilary wrote:

"It was Richard's political judgement that noble but totally wrong. Forget chivalry, we're in the age of Machiavelli. Death should not have been an option, and it clearly is if leading a charge."

Doug here:

If my view of what actually happened at Bosworth is correct (*I* think it is, anyway), then Richard's entering the battle was no more dangerous than his going hunting. His troops, under Norfolk , had been in the process of defeating the French when Norfolk was killed. All that those troops needed to complete the defeat of the French was someone to lead them - and risky or not, out-dated or not, that *was* Richard's job - and especially as there was noone else there.

Now, *had* there been someone else, and Richard *still* entered the fighting, then I'd completely agree with you.

Hilary wrote:

"As for Sir William, it would worth having a whole bok devoted to him, he's a fascinating character."

Doug here:

No doubt. I'll go so far as to say Sir William may have *thought* what he did was for the best.but, as of now anyway, I can't go any further.

Doug

David, I will indeed have a look. But it doesn't matter; in every respect Henry's claim was via the illegitimate route and that, unlike primogeniture, had never ever been revoked. If you say that illegitimate children should inherit then there were an awful lot down the ages, going back to Henry II's Longspees and probably beyond. And the kings of England were kings of Wales - had been since Edward 1 - right of conquest can't have it both ways -  so that's out of the water. Being an idiot I set myself the exercise of seeing who were the real heirs through direct primogeniture (ie father to father since Henry II) at the time of Richard's death there was only one - Edward Earl of Warwick (attainted but not illegitimate). Now I could be wrong, I haven't got to the 'end' of Richard of Cornwall, brother of Henry III, but no doubt he too will fizzle out. Looking at the heirs through legitimate daughters of kings (which would have required reversal of primogenture which did happen between Edward I and Edward III) is a big task and will lead us abroad as well, but believe me there are many who are much closer to the throne than illegitimate Henry - who has no claim whatsoever. I'm sure JAH will have done this Stephen?    Henry invoked all this to legitimise his reign. His twitchy gentry were starting to twitch again. He had killed an annointed King. One day he was going to meet his Maker and he would come up with two excuses: 1. Richard was a tyrant who needed removing for the good of the land (that would come later) 2. He had a superior almost heroic claim which Richard rejected so they had a trial by combat and he won. I can see him now in God's waiting room going through the notes he had made with the help of mummy. I wonder if he got in? No, Henry was a delusionist singled out for this task by the French to cause a bit of trouble in England and unfortunately for them it all got out of hand. H  (And before someone says the Beauforts were legitimised, yes they were, but barred from the throne) 

On Wednesday, 9 July 2014, 21:58, "'Douglas Eugene Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:


  Hilary wrote: "I don't dispute anything you say, Doug, but kings (particularly kings without brothers or heirs) shouldn't put themselves in at risk at all - they should linger 'on the back row' and be ready to make that nifty exit. They always did hereafter of course (except when George II's horse bolted).   Doug here: But Richard *had* an heir - his nephew John. That the Yorkists, after Bosworth, failed to rally behind the Earl of Lincoln can't be blamed on Richard.   Hilary wrote: "It was Richard's political judgement that noble but totally wrong. Forget chivalry, we're in the age of Machiavelli. Death should not have been an option, and it clearly is if leading a charge."   Doug here: If my view of what actually happened at Bosworth is correct (*I* think it is, anyway), then Richard's entering the battle was no more dangerous than his going hunting. His troops, under Norfolk, had been in the process of defeating the French when Norfolk was killed. All that those troops needed to complete the defeat of the French was someone to lead them - and risky or not, out-dated or not, that *was* Richard's job - and especially as there was noone else there. Now, *had* there been someone else, and Richard *still* entered the fighting, then I'd completely agree with you.   Hilary wrote: "As for Sir William, it would worth having a whole bok devoted to him, he's a fascinating character."   Doug here: No doubt. I'll go so far as to say Sir William may have *thought* what he did was for the best.but, as of now anyway, I can't go any further. Doug

So there we have it.

Henry was not descended from the Dukes of Lancaster in suo jure.

He probably wasn't descended from Owen Tudor  cf JA-H, Cliff Davies and the ironically-named Colin Richmond.

Owen was descended not from Llewellyn but his steward.

Owen was attainted so Henry couldn't have been Earl of Richmond either way.

He was thus a commoner without even a guaranteed surname.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 08 July 2014 22:02
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Hilary wrote:

//snip//

"I'm sorry but you can't blame Henry because he was the lucky one. There was one person who gave Henry the crown and that ws Richard. As long as he lived Henry was a usurper. He could have lost Bosworth, fled abroad, regrouped just like his brother. That charge down the hillside was a monumental (if valiant) catastrophe; a bit like the equally valiant and misjudged charge of the Light Brigrade. For once I'm with Starkey - Richard's greatest crime was that he died."

Doug here:

Sorry to have to disagree with you. Any "luck" Henry had was due to the treason of William Stanley and, quite probably, that of Northumberland.

In every account of Bosworth that I've come across, Tudor's troops under Oxford 's command had been fought to a standstill *until* the death of Norfolk ; at which time the Yorkist began slowly to give way. Not "scatter, nor "run," and not really even "retreat." In military terms it would best be termed a "withdrawal," which is a movement of troops to the rear while still in formation, and still capable of fighting. All that Richard did was to provide the leadership and the margin of troops needed to overcome Oxford 's troops and defeat Henry Tudor.

Historians seem to only wish to focus on Richard and Henry; a battle between the two representatives of Lancaster and York, so to speak. Unfortunately they don't alway mention Stanley 's treason and completely forget about Northumberland. Even should Northumberland have been located too far away to intervene, what is the explanation for Stanley 's quiescence until *after* Richard entered the battle? What prevented Stanley from attacking Richard wherever Richard was?

As I've said several times: it doesn't add up. If the goal was to defeat and kill Richard, and Northumberland too far away to intervene, Stanley, with his 1-2 thousand men, could easily have done so any time *after* Norfolk attacked Oxford. Stanley didn't. Why not?

I maintain Stanley didn't because Northumberland's troops were in such close proximity to Richard that all Richard need do was fall back, with his household troops, to where Northumberland was stationed, thus requiring Stanley to attack a force equal to or greater than his own and, most importantly,*force* Northumberland, or rather his troops, to fight.

However, once Richard entered the battle and was separated from Northumberland (and those troops), Stanley was free to intervene. Thus leaving to Northumberland to later claim, because his men weren't mounted, there was nothing he could do.

To which I reply - Faugh! Stanley couldn't know, just as Richard didn't, just how long it would take for his troops to reach the fighting *and make a difference.* During that period Northumberland could have led his men into the battle and do to Stanley's troops what Stanley did to Richard's - attack them from the flank and rear.

Soldiers, especially mounted troops, don't like being attacked from the flank and rear. Trying to wheel around disorganizes the trooper doing the wheeling *and* those in his proximity. Even if Northumberland's troops could only arrive *after* those of Stanley, the result would still be sthe same - Stanley would have to fight on two, or more, fronts or else risk what happened to Richard happening to *him*.

To call Richard's entering into the fighting as a "live or die" effort is to view Bosworth as those who betrayed him wanted their contemporaried to view it - a useless effort by a usurping tyrant, unable to resist the conqering hero that was HT!

//snip//

Doug

(who gagged a bit typing that last line)

David  I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying Henry or Richard was descended from Llewellyn's son Gruffydd? In an earlier post you said that Owain was descended from Llewellyn and Joanna. Gruffydd was descended from one of Llewellyn's lovers. It has been generally accepted that Gruffydd, Marged and Gwladys were illegimate, however, under Welsh law of the time Gruffydd was not disinherited. Llewellyn named Daffydd as his heir and after his death Llewellyn, son of Gruffydd became Prince of Gwynedd. I have to say I have never heard anyone say that Owain was descended from Llewellyn. Richard and all his siblings are descended from Gwladys' Mortimer marriage. 

"Edward III's Y-chromosome is (presumably) represented by the Dukes of Beaufort, thanks to a further illegitimacy through a Duke of Somerset."

Carol responds:

Which means that *if* Henry Tudor was really a Beaufort on both sides without knowing it, he would have shared a Y chromosome with Richard. How ironic!

Anyone for digging up Henry and grinding up one of his teeth to find out? Not that it would matter to his poor excuse for a claim, which was not through his father whoever that father was.

Carol

Correct …….. unless they are Swynfords.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 July 2014 02:52
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Stephen wrote :

"Edward III’s Y-chromosome is (presumably) represented by the Dukes of Beaufort, thanks to a further illegitimacy through a Duke of Somerset."

Carol responds:

Which means that *if* Henry Tudor was really a Beaufort on both sides without knowing it, he would have shared a Y chromosome with Richard. How ironic!

Anyone for digging up Henry and grinding up one of his teeth to find out? Not that it would matter to his poor excuse for a claim, which was not through his father whoever that father was.

Carol

“…..I think there is no proof that she actually remarried …..” – and it would have been illegal anyway.

The problem with the ODNB articles on Catherine de Valois and Edmund of Somerset is that they strongly hint at his paternity (of Edmund and Jasper) but fail to follow through on their own logic.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 July 2014 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

I agree with Mary's interpretation but I'm getting mighty confused with the gist of all this David. What are you trying to prove - that Henry was descended from one of the 'Dreadful Deadmen' there were loads over Europe at this time; every country had its legends and people claiming to be descended from them? Even Penn his very good biographer says that he was descended from a bastard line and makes no mention whatsoever of any high Welsh connections other than from a 'fast-talking chamber servant'. As for the mists around Queen Catherine, read JAH; I think there is no proof that she actually remarried (and that's not just JAH).

I'm also wary of old French lineage documents (I love the French by the way). A couple of decades ago a guy appeared in a programme saying he was the heir of, I think, the Merovingian kings. He had this marvellous roll proving he went all the way back to Clovis(?) and from this sprang the Da Vinci Code and all the other stories that the French kings were descended from Mary Magdalen and probably Christ who had married her. And so we went on to the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail, you name it and people made fortunes. Not long ago it was revealed that it was all an absolute fake - the guy was just short of money.

And the ancestral charts on the internet are sometimes the same. People believe what they want to believe. There's a guy in my tree who was born in Oxfordshire - I know he was I've got the parish register entry for him and his whole family. But half the US (he went to Accomack) insists he was born in Staffordshire because one person at some time concluded that he was and it went viral. And that's just an ordinary individual. Imagine the 'wish' to prove that a well-known person has 'connections'. So really beware. H

On Thursday, 10 July 2014, 21:54, "maryfriend@... []" < > wrote:

David I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying Henry or Richard was descended from Llewellyn's son Gruffydd? In an earlier post you said that Owain was descended from Llewellyn and Joanna. Gruffydd was descended from one of Llewellyn's lovers. It has been generally accepted that Gruffydd, Marged and Gwladys were illegimate, however, under Welsh law of the time Gruffydd was not disinherited. Llewellyn named Daffydd as his heir and after his death Llewellyn, son of Gruffydd became Prince of Gwynedd. I have to say I have never heard anyone say that Owain was descended from Llewellyn. Richard and all his siblings are descended from Gwladys' Mortimer marriage.

Mary

&..I think there is no proof that she actually remarried &..  and it would have been illegal anyway.

The problem with the ODNB articles on Catherine de Valois and Edmund of Somerset is that they strongly hint at his paternity (of Edmund and Jasper) but fail to follow through on their own logic.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 July 2014 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

I agree with Mary's interpretation but I'm getting mighty confused with the gist of all this David. What are you trying to prove - that Henry was descended from one of the 'Dreadful Deadmen' there were loads over Europe at this time; every country had its legends and people claiming to be descended from them? Even Penn his very good biographer says that he was descended from a bastard line and makes no mention whatsoever of any high Welsh connections other than from a 'fast-talking chamber servant'. As for the mists around Queen Catherine, read JAH; I think there is no proof that she actually remarried (and that's not just JAH).

I'm also wary of old French lineage documents (I love the French by the way). A couple of decades ago a guy appeared in a programme saying he was the heir of, I think, the Merovingian kings. He had this marvellous roll proving he went all the way back to Clovis(?) and from this sprang the Da Vinci Code and all the other stories that the French kings were descended from Mary Magdalen and probably Christ who had married her. And so we went on to the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail, you name it and people made fortunes. Not long ago it was revealed that it was all an absolute fake - the guy was just short of money.

And the ancestral charts on the internet are sometimes the same. People believe what they want to believe. There's a guy in my tree who was born in Oxfordshire - I know he was I've got the parish register entry for him and his whole family. But half the US (he went to Accomack) insists he was born in Staffordshire because one person at some time concluded that he was and it went viral. And that's just an ordinary individual. Imagine the 'wish' to prove that a well-known person has 'connections'. So really beware. H  

On Thursday, 10 July 2014, 21:54, "maryfriend@... []" < > wrote:

David  I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying Henry or Richard was descended from Llewellyn's son Gruffydd? In an earlier post you said that Owain was descended from Llewellyn and Joanna. Gruffydd was descended from one of Llewellyn's lovers. It has been generally accepted that Gruffydd, Marged and Gwladys were illegimate, however, under Welsh law of the time Gruffydd was not disinherited. Llewellyn named Daffydd as his heir and after his death Llewellyn, son of Gruffydd became Prince of Gwynedd. I have to say I have never heard anyone say that Owain was descended from Llewellyn. Richard and all his siblings are descended from Gwladys' Mortimer marriage. 

Mary

That is what I meant – they lay out evidence strongly pointing to Somerset ’s paternity but then deny the conclusion.

We have shown already that the legislation banned Dowager Queens from remarrying until the monarch reached their majority. Henry VI reached his majority after his mother died so she could never have legally remarried and there is no evidence she even tried. Edmund, Jasper and whichever of their siblings existed - save for Henry VI himself- were illegitimate whoever their father was.

As for Owen’s “royal” descent, I have seen some real howlers on genealogy websites in my time.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 July 2014 15:38
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Stephen,

"Oh no they don't"
We must be reading different articles. Both articles refer to the work of others. Richmond explicitly quoting Harriss in line, within the text of the article. Both express the view that the speculation is very unlikely to be true.

I think the Catherine article is Michael K Jones.

I am certain also that parliament could not rule on the legality or otherwise of a marriage. That was the domain of the church. This was why they limited themselves to specifying a punishment for the husband.

I note that none of the articles mention the similarity of the coats-of-arms of the individuals.

Kind regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] < >;
To: < >;
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond
Sent: Fri, Jul 11, 2014 10:00:55 AM

“…..I think there is no proof that she actually remarried …..” – and it would have been illegal anyway.

The problem with the ODNB articles on Catherine de Valois and Edmund of Somerset is that they strongly hint at his paternity (of Edmund and Jasper) but fail to follow through on their own logic.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 July 2014 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

I agree with Mary's interpretation but I'm getting mighty confused with the gist of all this David. What are you trying to prove - that Henry was descended from one of the 'Dreadful Deadmen' there were loads over Europe at this time; every country had its legends and people claiming to be descended from them? Even Penn his very good biographer says that he was descended from a bastard line and makes no mention whatsoever of any high Welsh connections other than from a 'fast-talking chamber servant'. As for the mists around Queen Catherine, read JAH; I think there is no proof that she actually remarried (and that's not just JAH).

I'm also wary of old French lineage documents (I love the French by the way). A couple of decades ago a guy appeared in a programme saying he was the heir of, I think, the Merovingian kings. He had this marvellous roll proving he went all the way back to Clovis(?) and from this sprang the Da Vinci Code and all the other stories that the French kings were descended from Mary Magdalen and probably Christ who had married her. And so we went on to the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail, you name it and people made fortunes. Not long ago it was revealed that it was all an absolute fake - the guy was just short of money.

And the ancestral charts on the internet are sometimes the same. People believe what they want to believe. There's a guy in my tree who was born in Oxfordshire - I know he was I've got the parish register entry for him and his whole family. But half the US (he went to Accomack) insists he was born in Staffordshire because one person at some time concluded that he was and it went viral. And that's just an ordinary individual. Imagine the 'wish' to prove that a well-known person has 'connections'. So really beware. H

On Thursday, 10 July 2014, 21:54, "maryfriend@... []" < > wrote:

David I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying Henry or Richard was descended from Llewellyn's son Gruffydd? In an earlier post you said that Owain was descended from Llewellyn and Joanna. Gruffydd was descended from one of Llewellyn's lovers. It has been generally accepted that Gruffydd, Marged and Gwladys were illegimate, however, under Welsh law of the time Gruffydd was not disinherited. Llewellyn named Daffydd as his heir and after his death Llewellyn, son of Gruffydd became Prince of Gwynedd. I have to say I have never heard anyone say that Owain was descended from Llewellyn. Richard and all his siblings are descended from Gwladys' Mortimer marriage.

Mary

I think Owen just Anglicised his name. Tudor/ Twdwr is “Theodore”, as a book published last year states.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 11 July 2014 21:59
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Hilary wrote :

"David (and all), I've actually spent all day on this. My, it was tedious but useful. The only link I can find between any children of Llywelyn ap Iorweth and someone named Tudor is an illegitimate daughter called Anghared (whom some don't even acknowledge!) and her marriage to Maelgwyn Fychan who is descended from Rhys ap Tewdwr. I haven't yet linked him downwards with our Owen though and as I've said before, is it really relevant?"

Carol responds:

As I said earlier, the Welsh of Richard's time (unless they were anglicized like Morgan Kidwelly) did not generally use surnames.

Even if Llewellyn did have an illegitimate daughter named Angharad and her husband was descended from a Rhys ap Tewdwr, that really tells us nothing. The name Rhys ap Tewdwr simply indicates that Rhys's father's *first* name was Tewdwr. (It's like calling our Richard "Richard ap Richard" or "Richard Richard's son.") Owain ap Maredudd ap Tewdwr (Owen Tudor) was the grandson of a different man whose first name was also Tewdwr--no necessary connection whatever. (Maybe David can explain to us why he was known as Owen Tudor rather than Owen Meredith.)

At any rate, it's like trying to trace the ancestry of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (aka Lenin) by looking at his patronymic, Ilyich. All that tells us is that his father's first name was Ilya.

Carol

I think Owen just Anglicised his name. Tudor/ Twdwr is Theodore, as a book published last year states.

Carol responds:

Apparently, he anglicized his *grandfather's* first name to sound like a last name, which still doesn't explain why he didn't use his *father's* last name (anglicized to Meredith). So he was Owen son of Meredith son of Theodore, which doesn't help much when you're trying to search for his ancestors.

My own ancestor, Thomas Carrier (possible executioner of Charles I and husband of the Salem "witch," Martha Allen Carrier) was born Thomas ap Morgan, but I don't know who his father's father was, so that line is lost thanks to the Welsh patronymics.

Carol

Carol to Marie 2 weeks ago:

"Re your other post, I could have sworn that Stow was responsible for the River Soar myth. Didn't he go looking for Richard's tomb at Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars?"

Marie responds:

Sorry for delay responding - just back from holiday this morning. The confused cartographer was John Speed.

"Re your other post, I could have sworn that Stow was responsible for the River Soar myth. Didn't he go looking for Richard's tomb at Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars?"

Marie responded:

"Sorry for delay responding - just back from holiday this morning. The confused cartographer was John Speed."

Carol again:

Thanks. My apologies to Stow!

Glad you're back.

Carol

David wrote:

"Mary and Hilary
I have been able to find a genealogy on the internet on a Tudor history site, that was compiled several years ago.
However, my source was the database Roglo. This is a database that is based in France, and so I would say neutral in the debate. It is also open to correction by anyone providing a reference. It is not without errors though - for example, it shows Roland de Velville as Henry's illegitimate son.
You can select English as a language. It allows you to locate a list of an individual's ancestors or do relationship computing. Using this feature to explore the relationship between Owen Tudor and Llewellyn, actually provides two direct lines of descent - one through Angharad, generally accepted as daughter of Joan. The other is through Llewellyn's eldest son Gruffydd. Born before the marriage with Joan.
It could be that this earlier relationship was in fact a marriage - because Llewellyn did everything he could to ensure the younger son with Joan inherited. Although according to Welsh law, the legitimacy of the earlier relationship was irrelevant to inheritance.
If the details are incorrect, I am sure the webmaster would be interested to know.
It is the case that HT was descended from both Llewelyn and his steward - these things are not mutually exclusive.
I have as far as I can checked the information and it seems to be OK.
It just goes to show that there is also Ricardian propaganda.
HT did not invent a family tree and Richard was not more Welsh because he was descended from the prince and not the steward.
On the Charlemagne point - it is probable that every member of the nobility and gentry at that time was descended from him, as most of us will be now."

Marie replies:

The thing is that Henry had his genealogy drawn up after he became king, in order to demonstrate descent from the old British kings so he could claim to have fulfilled the prophecies. Since this is the only ready-made Tudor family tree available it is all too likely the source of the genealogy on the French website you looked at. I have, however, read in modern histories that this official genealogy of Henry's was far from accurate. I've never personally researched the Tudor line so I can't make an informed comment, but it is the case that family trees were used by both sides in the wars as propaganda weapons, and that the compilers of such trees were happy to tweak the facts - or even making things up - as the situation required. Don't forget we also have a formal genealogy of Elizabeth I taking her ancestry back to Adam and Eve.

The only way to know someone's genealogy is to do the work from primary documents, making the link generation by generation. All ready-made genealogy sites for the medieval period are unreliable in my experience. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but that's how I see it.

David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."

Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.

Stephen wrote:

"I think Owen just Anglicised his name. Tudor/ Twdwr is Theodore, as a book published last year states."

Marie:

I think that Hilary's point (a very pertinent one) is that, in providing himself with a surname, Owen used his grandfather's name rather than his father's - ie why did he call himself Owen Tudor/Tydder rather than Owen Meredith? We could so easily have had the Meredith dynasty.

Tudur is actually not a Welsh version of Theodore; it's just that the name was often transliterated as Theodore - in fact, I seem to recall that some of Owen's rellies took the surname Theodore.

Theodore is a name of Greek origin meaning 'Gift of God' whereas Tudur is a native British name meaning 'King of the Tribe'.

Perhaps grandfather Tudur had been a heroic character (wasn't he mixed up with Owain Glyndwr?) , or perhaps the family liked the idea that such a surname might (falsely) insinuate descent from some earlier Tudur with lofty connections.

But, as Hilary says, Queen Catherine's Owen was the first in the family to use a surname, and it's important not to mistake as a surname the Tudur patronymics of earlier Welsh figures whose dads happened to be called Tudur.

She must have done it posthumously, then!

(this Cairo brigade are ludicrous).

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 20 July 2014 14:20
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."

Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.

She must have done it posthumously, then!

(this Cairo brigade are ludicrous).

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 20 July 2014 14:20
To:
Subject: Re: Richmond

David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."

Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.

Hi, Stephen –

Could you please explain what you mean by your “editorial comment,” “this Cairo brigade are ludicrous”. I don’t understand what the “Cairo brigade” is. Thanks for indulging me! J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:29 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Richmond

She must have done it posthumously, then!

(this Cairo brigade are ludicrous).

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 20 July 2014 14:20
To:
Subject: Re: Richmond

David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."

Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.

Those who are a long way “up de Nile” (denial).

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 20 July 2014 16:07
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Hi, Stephen –

Could you please explain what you mean by your “editorial comment,” “this Cairo brigade are ludicrous”. I don’t understand what the “ Cairo brigade” is. Thanks for indulging me! J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:29 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

She must have done it posthumously, then!

(this Cairo brigade are ludicrous).

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 20 July 2014 14:20
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."

Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.

LOL, Stephen! I apologize for being “greater than 90 degrees” (i.e. obtuse). J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:13 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Richmond

Those who are a long way “up de Nile” (denial).

From: [mailto:]
Sent: 20 July 2014 16:07
To:
Subject: RE: Richmond

Hi, Stephen –

Could you please explain what you mean by your “editorial comment,” “this Cairo brigade are ludicrous”. I don’t understand what the “Cairo brigade” is. Thanks for indulging me! J

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:29 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Richmond

She must have done it posthumously, then!

(this Cairo brigade are ludicrous).

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 20 July 2014 14:20
To:
Subject: Re: Richmond

David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."

Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.

"I think that Hilary's point (a very pertinent one) is that, in providing himself with a surname, Owen used his grandfather's name rather than his father's - ie why did he call himself Owen Tudor/Tydder rather than Owen Meredith? We could so easily have had the Meredith dynasty. [snip] But, as Hilary says, Queen Catherine's Owen was the first in the family to use a surname, and it's important not to mistake as a surname the Tudur patronymics of earlier Welsh figures whose dads happened to be called Tudur."

Carol responds:

Actually, that was my post, not Hilary's, but I'm glad you agree with my points. Apologies for the font glitch!

Carol

"I think that Hilary's point (a very pertinent one) is that, in providing himself with a surname, Owen used his grandfather's name rather than his father's - ie why did he call himself Owen Tudor/Tydder rather than Owen Meredith? We could so easily have had the Meredith dynasty. [snip] But, as Hilary says, Queen Catherine's Owen was the first in the family to use a surname, and it's important not to mistake as a surname the Tudur patronymics of earlier Welsh figures whose dads happened to be called Tudur."

2) Carol responds:

Actually, that was my post, not Hilary's, but I'm glad you agree with my points. Apologies for the font glitch!

Carol

3) Marie:

Sorry, Carol. Very good points.

Marie wrote:

"Sorry, Carol. Very good points."

Carol responds:

No problem. I blame Yahoo. And thanks. I don't trust Tudor's genealogy for the reasons you stated as well as the ones I listed. I anyone has tips on tracing Welsh ancestors (for example, how I find the name of Thomas ap Morgan's grandfather--his father was Morgan ap Somebody) I'd be happy to hear them.

Carol

Hilary wrote:

"Marie, I think you asked me for a reference for something but I am all behind and I can't find your request. It's my busy work time so have a job keeping up with this new Yahoo format which superimposes posts over others. Help, please - and many apologies! "

Marie replies:

Umm, I can't remember either - was it very recent? All I can think of offhand is the Stillington genealogy you compiled - I really would like to see that if you can manage it.

Going backwards, Stillington was the son of John Stillington (died 1426) and Katherine Holthorpe, daughter of John Holthorpe. John Holthorpe's mother was Joan de Holme, from whom Robert inhertied property. Joan's brother, John Holme married Johanna Ingleby, daughter of John Ingleby and Ellen Radcliffe and sister to Thomas Ingleby, father of Sir William Ingleby/Joan Stapleton and grandfather to our potential monk :) So Katherine Stillington (niece of Robert) marrying Sir William Ingleby has a logic.

Going forwards we have Stillington's daughter marrying into the Hamptons and ties with the Cheddars, the Chokkes, the Gorges and the (Craddock) Newtons (interesting that the Cradogs appear in connection with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth). His nephews and nieces marry into the Constables, the Wriotheseys, the Hungates and the Vavasours.

Does this help? H

Hilary wrote:

"Going backwards, Stillington was the son of John Stillington (died 1426) and Katherine Holthorpe, daughter of John Holthorpe. John Holthorpe's mother was Joan de Holme, from whom Robert inhertied property. Joan's brother, John Holme married Johanna Ingleby, daughter of John Ingleby and Ellen Radcliffe and sister to Thomas Ingleby, father of Sir William Ingleby/Joan Stapleton and grandfather to our potential monk :) So Katherine Stillington (niece of Robert) marrying Sir William Ingleby has a logic.

Going forwards we have Stillington's daughter marrying into the Hamptons and ties with the Cheddars, the Chokkes, the Gorges and the (Craddock) Newtons (interesting that the Cradogs appear in connection with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth). His nephews and nieces marry into the Constables, the Wriotheseys, the Hungates and the Vavasours."

Marie replies:

Thanks, Hilary. I already had the names of his paretns, but I'm interested in the Holme connection as I've come across people of that name in other contexts. hen you get a minute, could you possible let me have a source for the Holme connection and the properties with which this particular Home family was associated?

I don't think it's entirely clear that Julian Stillington was the Bishop's daughter although she made a marriage in the SW - clearly she was a close relative but that is about all we can say. On the same subject, the assumption that the clerical male Stillingtons who worked for the diocese of Bath and Wells were the Bishop's relatives is even more dubious. That article I was recently reading about medieval bastardy states that the bastard sons of priests were wholly debarred from entering the church (even normal bastards needed a dispensation to become priests); but I need to look up the exact details again. So, anyway, that makes it look as though they were either nephews of the bishop, or sons whom he was passing off as his nephews. We perhaps have Commines to thank for the notion that Stillington was fathering bastards all over the place, but the bastard son of the Bishop to whom he refers was evidently a layman as he alleges that he was put forward as a husband for Elizabeth of York.

If you have your genealogy in a form that you could email, I'd really appreciate it if you can manage - in return, I'll look at that Latin Stillington will you mentioned at one time.

Best,

Marie

Going backwards, Stillington was the son of John Stillington (died 1426) and Katherine Holthorpe, daughter of John Holthorpe. John Holthorpe's mother was Joan de Holme, from whom Robert inhertied property. Joan's brother, John Holme married Johanna Ingleby, daughter of John Ingleby and Ellen Radcliffe and sister to Thomas Ingleby, father of Sir William Ingleby/Joan Stapleton and grandfather to our potential monk :) So Katherine Stillington (niece of Robert) marrying Sir William Ingleby has a logic.

Going forwards we have Stillington's daughter marrying into the Hamptons and ties with the Cheddars, the Chokkes, the Gorges and the (Craddock) Newtons (interesting that the Cradogs appear in connection with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth). His nephews and nieces marry into the Constables, the Wriotheseys, the Hungates and the Vavasours.

Does this help? H

Marie wrote

"On the same subject, the assumption that the clerical male Stillingtons who worked for the diocese of Bath and Wells were the Bishop's relatives is even more dubious."

Correction:

Whoops! I don't doubt they were his rellies. What I meant to write was "sons", not "relatives".

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 23 July 2014 16:42
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Hilary wrote:

"Going backwards, Stillington was the son of John Stillington (died 1426) and Katherine Holthorpe, daughter of John Holthorpe. John Holthorpe's mother was Joan de Holme, from whom Robert inhertied property. Joan's brother, John Holme married Johanna Ingleby, daughter of John Ingleby and Ellen Radcliffe and sister to Thomas Ingleby, father of Sir William Ingleby/Joan Stapleton and grandfather to our potential monk :) So Katherine Stillington (niece of Robert) marrying Sir William Ingleby has a logic.

Going forwards we have Stillington's daughter marrying into the Hamptons and ties with the Cheddars, the Chokkes, the Gorges and the (Craddock) Newtons (interesting that the Cradogs appear in connection with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth). His nephews and nieces marry into the Constables, the Wriotheseys, the Hungates and the Vavasours."

“or sons whom he was passing off as his nephews” – the literal origin of the term *nepotism*.

Marie replies:

Thanks, Hilary. I already had the names of his paretns, but I'm interested in the Holme connection as I've come across people of that name in other contexts. hen you get a minute, could you possible let me have a source for the Holme connection and the properties with which this particular Home family was associated?

I don't think it's entirely clear that Julian Stillington was the Bishop's daughter although she made a marriage in the SW - clearly she was a close relative but that is about all we can say. On the same subject, the assumption that the clerical male Stillingtons who worked for the diocese of Bath and Wells were the Bishop's relatives is even more dubious. That article I was recently reading about medieval bastardy states that the bastard sons of priests were wholly debarred from entering the church (even normal bastards needed a dispensation to become priests); but I need to look up the exact details again. So, anyway, that makes it look as though they were either nephews of the bishop, or sons whom he was passing off as his nephews. We perhaps have Commines to thank for the notion that Stillington was fathering bastards all over the place, but the bastard son of the Bishop to whom he refers was evidently a layman as he alleges that he was put forward as a husband for Elizabeth of York.

If you have your genealogy in a form that you could email, I'd really appreciate it if you can manage - in return, I'll look at that Latin Stillington will you mentioned at one time.

Best,

Marie

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Going backwards, Stillington was the son of John Stillington (died 1426) and Katherine Holthorpe, daughter of John Holthorpe. John Holthorpe's mother was Joan de Holme, from whom Robert inhertied property. Joan's brother, John Holme married Johanna Ingleby, daughter of John Ingleby and Ellen Radcliffe and sister to Thomas Ingleby, father of Sir William Ingleby/Joan Stapleton and grandfather to our potential monk :) So Katherine Stillington (niece of Robert) marrying Sir William Ingleby has a logic.

Going forwards we have Stillington's daughter marrying into the Hamptons and ties with the Cheddars, the Chokkes, the Gorges and the (Craddock) Newtons (interesting that the Cradogs appear in connection with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth). His nephews and nieces marry into the Constables, the Wriotheseys, the Hungates and the Vavasours.

Does this help? H

Hilary wrote:

"The conclusion that Juliana was his daughter was also reached by Hammond in his article for this Society"

Marie replies:

I think you mean Bill Hampton's article? I don't think Peter Hammond has written on the subject of Bishop Stillington. Juliana died before 1483, of course. I'm not saying she wasn't the Bishop's daughter, only that we have no actual proof. Obviously she was too young to be his sister, as used to be claimed, but I don't understand why you say she was not the right age to be a niece. Hampton merely dismisses the claim that she was the Bishop's sister and immediately concludes that she must therefore have been his daughter. The Bishop actually had two brothers, Thomas and John. Also, I'm not quite sure how well documented some of Thomas's offspring are: in the sense of being Thomas' offspring, that is: perhaps you could fill me in. Katherine's connection certainly is well documented but I don't know about the rest. Juliana is documented, but just not in regard to her parentage. My guess is that she was the Bishop's daughter, but I do think it's important to bear in mind the limits of our actual knowledge otherwise when something new turns up which changes the picture its significance is liable to be missed - that's all.

Calling everyone else deliberately deceptive whilst ignoring evidence and repeating the disproved are the last refuges of a troll.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 14 August 2014 12:07
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Stephen,

Replying to posts about John Ashdown Hill's nonsense concerning Edmund Tudor's parentage and Stephen's claim that a number of reputable historians support his contention...

For once you are correct - in the small point that I quoted the wrong event for the publication of Owen's ancestry. It was at his denization, where he was given the rights of an Englishman as seen below, this was in 1432 and prior to the death of his wife.

The dates about which there is no dispute:

1426 - Catherine petitions for permission to marry Edmond Beaufort
1427/8 - Act of Parliament against the marriages of dowager queens
1432 - Owen Tudor's denization
1452 Owen's sons Edmund and Jasper created Earls
1453 Edmund and Jasper Legitimised

Now, many historians believe that the marriage of Owen and Catherine was known at court, but was kept from the king and the general public. So the date of Catherine's wish to marry is not a rumour and pre-dates the approximate dates of birth of the boys.

The reason that parliament legitimised them after they were created earls and the marriage was recognised, was because the marriage was thought to have taken place before denization, and the question had been raised as to whether a Welshman could be married in England.

There is no evidence that Edmund Beaufort and Catherine had any kind of physical relationship.

Now, two reputable historians refer to Harriss's speculation - for that is all it is - and BOTH reject it.
So to quote them in support of JAH is deliberately deceptive.

I reproduce below the Act making Edmund and Jasper earls. As you see it accepts the validity of the their parents marriage and gives them the right to bear coats of arms...



To the most excellent and most Christian prince our lord the king, we the commons of this your realm, most faithful subjects of your royal majesty, in your present parliament assembled; in order that there may be brought before the most perspicacious eyes of royal consideration the memory of the blessed prince, Queen Catherine your mother, by whose most famous memory we confess we are very greatly affected, chiefly because she was worthy to give birth by divine gift to the most handsome form and illustrious royal person of your highness long to reign over us, as we most earnestly hope, in glory and honour in all things; for which it is necessary to acknowledge that we are most effectively bound more fully than can be said not only to celebrate her most noble memory for ever, but also to esteem highly and to honour with all zeal, as much as our insignificance allows, all the fruit which her royal womb produced; considering in the case of the illustrious and magnificent princes, the lords Edmund de Hadham and Jasper de Hatfield, natural and legitimate sons of the same most serene lady the queen, not only that they are descended by right line from her illustrious womb and royal lineage and are your uterine brothers, and also that by their most noble character they are of a most refined nature – their other natural gifts, endowments, excellent and heroic virtues, and other merits of a laudable life and of the best manners and of probity we do not doubt are already sufficiently well known to your serenity – that you deign from the most excellent magnificence of your royal highness to consider most kindly how the aforesaid Edmund and Jasper, your uterine brothers, were begotten and born in lawful matrimony within your realm aforesaid, as is sufficiently well known both to your most serene majesty and to all the lords spiritual and temporal of your realm in the present parliament assembled, and to us; and on this, from the most abundant magnificence of royal generosity, with the advice and assent of the same lords spiritual and temporal, by the authority of the same to decree, ordain, grant and establish that the aforesaid Edmund and Jasper be declared your uterine brothers, conceived and born in a lawful marriage within your aforesaid realm, and denizens of your abovesaid realm, and not yet declared thus . . .

We, who embrace with sincere affection and goodwill all good men, especially the subjects of our power and rule, weighing with due consideration the foregoing and also the noble qualities, the exceptional natural gifts and the honourable reputation and manners and the other laudable merits of the probity and virtues with which we have in many ways perceived, both by our own experience and by the testimony of many faithful men, our sincerely beloved Jasper de Hatfield, our uterine brother, to be distinguished, and among other things [considering] the nobility of birth and proximity in blood by which he is related to us as someone who is descended by right line from the illustrious royal house; and, moved by his foregoing merits, honouring him with singular grace, favour and benevolence, and thinking it right that, as he every day produces better examples of virtue and probity, our affection towards him should at the same time expand and grow according to the increase of his virtues, and that we also should adorn him, whom the nature of virtue and the royal blood have ennobled, with a title of civil nobility, the sign of a special honour, and the emblems of illustrious dignity, we have promoted, and do promote, by our own will, not at the instance of any petition of his or of another’s presented to us in this regard, but simply from our own generosity, the same Jasper, our uterine brother as aforesaid, as earl of Pembroke alias de Pembroke, we have appointed, ordained and created, and do appoint, ordain and create, him earl of Pembroke alias de Pembroke, and by the girding of a sword and of the other appropriate insignia and ornaments in this regard, and by the present handing over to him of these our letters, we have invested and do invest [him] in and with the estate and dignity of such an earl; and we have given and granted, and we give and grant by these present letters to the same Jasper all the earldom, and the name and title of earl of Pembroke alias de Pembroke, each and every kind of style, degree, seat, honour and preeminence pertaining and belonging in any way to the rank and dignity of earl. We have willed and granted in addition, just as we also will and grant by our same letters to the aforesaid Jasper, that he shall have and occupy in every parliament, council, assembly and any other places both in our presence and elsewhere the place, sitting-place and seat immediately after and next to the place, sitting-place and seat of our dearest uterine brother Edmund de Hadham, earl of Richmond, alias de Richmond, his elder brother, and of his male heirs: so that the same Edmund and his male heirs shall be preferred [in front of and before] the other earls and any others below the rank and honour of duke of our realm of England in honour, dignity and preeminence and in place, sitting-place and seat.


Kind regards
David


From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] ;
To: ;
Subject: RE: Richmond
Sent: Sun, Jul 20, 2014 2:28:43 PM

She must have done it posthumously, then!



(this Cairo brigade are ludicrous).



From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 20 July 2014 14:20
To:
Subject: Re: Richmond





David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."



Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.



Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Furthermore, this is a timetable of phony events, written many years later to accompany a phony genealogy for several reasons:

1) Under the Act, whoever “married” a Dowager Queen would have his property confiscated so Somerset is unlikely to go ahead.

2) By the 1460s, the adherents of the Lancastrian cause had written off Henry VI and were less than confident about his son. Even before this, the King’s half-brothers could be useful in keeping his position and were rewarded.

3) After 1471, they settled on Henry “Tudor”, not descended from the Duchess of Lancaster in suo jure (Blanche), and needed to explain away his parents being first cousins without dispensation but his grandparents had had a servant, a by then deceased commoner in both Wales and England, who could be written into the story and given a false pedigree. Given that Somerset ’s father’s father is now also in question, this may have appeared as a better solution.

4) Henry “Tudor” and his descendants had access to the reins of power and could spread his false antecedents. Subsequent historians and writers have sought to justify this post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Now the rumours cited by Harriss et al are contemporary to Catherine de Valois’ life, unlike the spin written thirty or more years later. There is far less true evidence for any “marriage” involving Owen Tudor, surely the last of his line, than there is for Edward IV’s first marriage. We also need to believe that Somerset , who desperately wanted to marry Catherine, completely withdrew from her life under the threat of virtual attainder yet only married someone else after her death?

Spin, spin and more spin – not only am I confident that JA-H is likely to be right about Edmund’s paternity but that more evidence will emerge in due course.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 14 August 2014 12:07
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Richmond

Stephen,

Replying to posts about John Ashdown Hill's nonsense concerning Edmund Tudor's parentage and Stephen's claim that a number of reputable historians support his contention...

For once you are correct - in the small point that I quoted the wrong event for the publication of Owen's ancestry. It was at his denization, where he was given the rights of an Englishman as seen below, this was in 1432 and prior to the death of his wife.

The dates about which there is no dispute:

1426 - Catherine petitions for permission to marry Edmond Beaufort
1427/8 - Act of Parliament against the marriages of dowager queens
1432 - Owen Tudor's denization
1452 Owen's sons Edmund and Jasper created Earls
1453 Edmund and Jasper Legitimised

Now, many historians believe that the marriage of Owen and Catherine was known at court, but was kept from the king and the general public. So the date of Catherine's wish to marry is not a rumour and pre-dates the approximate dates of birth of the boys.

The reason that parliament legitimised them after they were created earls and the marriage was recognised, was because the marriage was thought to have taken place before denization, and the question had been raised as to whether a Welshman could be married in England.

There is no evidence that Edmund Beaufort and Catherine had any kind of physical relationship.

Now, two reputable historians refer to Harriss's speculation - for that is all it is - and BOTH reject it.
So to quote them in support of JAH is deliberately deceptive.

I reproduce below the Act making Edmund and Jasper earls. As you see it accepts the validity of the their parents marriage and gives them the right to bear coats of arms...



To the most excellent and most Christian prince our lord the king, we the commons of this your realm, most faithful subjects of your royal majesty, in your present parliament assembled; in order that there may be brought before the most perspicacious eyes of royal consideration the memory of the blessed prince, Queen Catherine your mother, by whose most famous memory we confess we are very greatly affected, chiefly because she was worthy to give birth by divine gift to the most handsome form and illustrious royal person of your highness long to reign over us, as we most earnestly hope, in glory and honour in all things; for which it is necessary to acknowledge that we are most effectively bound more fully than can be said not only to celebrate her most noble memory for ever, but also to esteem highly and to honour with all zeal, as much as our insignificance allows, all the fruit which her royal womb produced; considering in the case of the illustrious and magnificent princes, the lords Edmund de Hadham and Jasper de Hatfield, natural and legitimate sons of the same most serene lady the queen, not only that they are descended by right line from her illustrious womb and royal lineage and are your uterine brothers, and also that by their most noble character they are of a most refined nature – their other natural gifts, endowments, excellent and heroic virtues, and other merits of a laudable life and of the best manners and of probity we do not doubt are already sufficiently well known to your serenity – that you deign from the most excellent magnificence of your royal highness to consider most kindly how the aforesaid Edmund and Jasper, your uterine brothers, were begotten and born in lawful matrimony within your realm aforesaid, as is sufficiently well known both to your most serene majesty and to all the lords spiritual and temporal of your realm in the present parliament assembled, and to us; and on this, from the most abundant magnificence of royal generosity, with the advice and assent of the same lords spiritual and temporal, by the authority of the same to decree, ordain, grant and establish that the aforesaid Edmund and Jasper be declared your uterine brothers, conceived and born in a lawful marriage within your aforesaid realm, and denizens of your abovesaid realm, and not yet declared thus . . .

We, who embrace with sincere affection and goodwill all good men, especially the subjects of our power and rule, weighing with due consideration the foregoing and also the noble qualities, the exceptional natural gifts and the honourable reputation and manners and the other laudable merits of the probity and virtues with which we have in many ways perceived, both by our own experience and by the testimony of many faithful men, our sincerely beloved Jasper de Hatfield, our uterine brother, to be distinguished, and among other things [considering] the nobility of birth and proximity in blood by which he is related to us as someone who is descended by right line from the illustrious royal house; and, moved by his foregoing merits, honouring him with singular grace, favour and benevolence, and thinking it right that, as he every day produces better examples of virtue and probity, our affection towards him should at the same time expand and grow according to the increase of his virtues, and that we also should adorn him, whom the nature of virtue and the royal blood have ennobled, with a title of civil nobility, the sign of a special honour, and the emblems of illustrious dignity, we have promoted, and do promote, by our own will, not at the instance of any petition of his or of another’s presented to us in this regard, but simply from our own generosity, the same Jasper, our uterine brother as aforesaid, as earl of Pembroke alias de Pembroke, we have appointed, ordained and created, and do appoint, ordain and create, him earl of Pembroke alias de Pembroke, and by the girding of a sword and of the other appropriate insignia and ornaments in this regard, and by the present handing over to him of these our letters, we have invested and do invest [him] in and with the estate and dignity of such an earl; and we have given and granted, and we give and grant by these present letters to the same Jasper all the earldom, and the name and title of earl of Pembroke alias de Pembroke, each and every kind of style, degree, seat, honour and preeminence pertaining and belonging in any way to the rank and dignity of earl. We have willed and granted in addition, just as we also will and grant by our same letters to the aforesaid Jasper, that he shall have and occupy in every parliament, council, assembly and any other places both in our presence and elsewhere the place, sitting-place and seat immediately after and next to the place, sitting-place and seat of our dearest uterine brother Edmund de Hadham, earl of Richmond, alias de Richmond, his elder brother, and of his male heirs: so that the same Edmund and his male heirs shall be preferred [in front of and before] the other earls and any others below the rank and honour of duke of our realm of England in honour, dignity and preeminence and in place, sitting-place and seat.


Kind regards
David


From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] ;
To: ;
Subject: RE: Richmond
Sent: Sun, Jul 20, 2014 2:28:43 PM

She must have done it posthumously, then!



(this Cairo brigade are ludicrous).



From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 20 July 2014 14:20
To:
Subject: Re: Richmond





David wrote:

"In fact, Catherine of Valois had presented Owen Tudor's family tree to the English parliament when their marriage was made public."



Marie responds:

That's odd, because the marriage wasn't announced until after Catherine's death. I've had a quick look at the Parliament rolls but can't see any reference to any consideration of the Tudor marriage. Could you possibly check for us where you read this, and what the source actually is? Would really be grateful.



Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad