Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Very true up to a point but it was an Act – the confusion is sewn intentionally by “Tudor”.
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 15 July 2014 17:38
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Repeal of TR (was Richmond )
Carol wrote:
//snip//
"Warning--very long post coming up!
Very interesting reasoning. What do others think, especially those with a legal background or a special interest in TR/Eleanor Talbot?"
//snip//
Doug here:
Thank you for the url and the portions you copied out. I think what first caused my to wonder about the status of TR, whether an "Act" or something else is in the first sentence of what you very nicely termed the "relevant portion" is the phrase:
"...caused a false and seditious Bille ..."
*That,* I think, is where the problem stems from. If I understand the process, any legislation that passes Parliament is referred to as an "Act" of Parliament. That "Act," prior to its being passed, is referred to as a "bill". An "Act of Parliament" has legal standing and is enforceable in the Courts. OTOH, a "bill" is merely a proposal to do something. TR contains no statements about changing the laws of inheritance or enacting new laws to declare Edward's children illegitimate. So, parliamentarily speaking, just what is TR?
Well, since In Richard's case it's a proposal to recognize that Richard is, according to the well-known laws of inheritance, the heir of his brother Edward IV and therefore legally the King, I view it as something along the lines of "Because of the above-mentioned causes, therefore, let it be resolved that we petition Richard to accept his rightful position as King."
Which is a "resolution, and while such an action may have legal consequences, the resolution itself doesn't change any laws and its repeal won't either.
And, actually, wasn't TR passed only because the first petition to Richard, while it *was* by a fairly representative group of Lords, both Spiritual and Termporal, and Commons, that group *wasn't* a legal Parliament?
Doug
Who apologizes in advance to anyone who may think I'm harping on this, but I did want to show my reasoning (such as it is) so it could be, hopefully, validated.
Doug
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Very true up to a point but it was an Act the confusion is sewn intentionally by Tudor .
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 15 July 2014 17:38
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate
Subject: Repeal
of TR (was Richmond )
Carol wrote:
//snip//
"Warning--very long post coming up!
Very interesting reasoning. What do others think, especially those with a legal background or a special interest in TR/Eleanor Talbot?"
//snip//
Doug here:
Thank you for the url and the portions you copied out. I think what first caused my to wonder about the status of TR, whether an "Act" or something else is in the first sentence of what you very nicely termed the "relevant portion" is the phrase:
"...caused a false and seditious Bille ..."
*That,* I think, is where the problem stems from. If I understand the process, any legislation that passes Parliament is referred to as an "Act" of Parliament. That "Act," prior to its being passed, is referred to as a "bill". An "Act of Parliament" has legal standing and is enforceable in the Courts. OTOH, a "bill" is merely a proposal to do something. TR contains no statements about changing the laws of inheritance or enacting new laws to declare Edward's children illegitimate. So, parliamentarily speaking, just what is TR?
Well, since In Richard's case it's a proposal to recognize that Richard is, according to the well-known laws of inheritance, the heir of his brother Edward IV and therefore legally the King, I view it as something along the lines of "Because of the above-mentioned causes, therefore, let it be resolved that we petition Richard to accept his rightful position as King."
Which is a "resolution, and while such an action may have legal consequences, the resolution itself doesn't change any laws and its repeal won't either.
And, actually, wasn't TR passed only because the first petition to Richard, while it *was* by a fairly representative group of Lords, both Spiritual and Termporal, and Commons, that group *wasn't* a legal Parliament?
Doug
Who apologizes in advance to anyone who may think I'm harping on this, but I did want to show my reasoning (such as it is) so it could be, hopefully, validated.
Doug
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
So Titulus Regius *is* an act of Parliament, which was repealed (unread and unrecorded) by Henry's Parliament. Had it been only the original bill presented to Richard by the Three Estates, it would not have had official status. But Richard's Parliament specifically states,
"¶ Now forasmuch as neither the said three Estats, neither the said personnes, which in thair name presented and delivered, as is abovesaid, the said Rolle unto our said Souverain Lord the King, were assembled in fourme of Parliament; by occasion whereof, diverse doubts, questions and ambiguitees, been moved and engendred in the myndes of diverse personnes, as it is said:
Therefore, to the perpetuall memorie of the trouth, and
declaration of th'same, bee it ordeigned, provided and stablished in
this present Parliament, that the tenour of the said Rolle, with all the
contynue of the same, presented, as is abovesaid, and delivered to oure
before said Souverain Lord the King, in the name and on the behalve of
the said three Estates out of Parliament, now by the same three Estates
assembled in this present Parliament, and by auctorite of the same, bee
ratifyed, enrolled, recorded, approved and auctorized, into removyng the
occasion of doubtes and ambiguitees, and to all other laufull effect
that shall mowe thereof ensue; soo that all things said, affirmed,
specifyed, desired and remembred in the said Rolle, and in the tenour of
the same underwritten, in the name of the said three Estates, to the
effect expressed in the same Rolle, bee of like effect, vertue and
force, as if all the same things had ben soo saide, affirmed, specifyed,
desired and remembred in a full Parliament, and by auctorite of the
same accepted and approved."
Carol again:
In other words, the present Parliament (Richard's) is making TR an official, lawful act of Parliament to preserve "the perpetual memory of the truth." How ironic that *Henry's" Parliament referred to it as a "false and seditious bill," as if it A) had not been passed and B) had not been the truth, as Richard's Parliament clearly believed it was.
As for your original question, I'm not sure whether the Act (no longer just a bill since it passed, apparently unanimously) officially declares the former princes and princesses illegitimate or merely states that fact as a reason (among others) why Richard should be made king. (We tend to forget that the entire bill did not center on that one question.) I hope that Marie or Johanne will chime in here.
The passage in question reads:
"And howe also, that at the tyme of contract of the same pretensed Mariage, and bifore and longe tyme after, the seid King Edward was and stode maryed and trouth plight to oone Dame Elianor Butteler, Doughter of the old Earl of Shrewesbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a precontracte of Matrimonie, longe tyyme bifore he made the said pretensed Mariage with the said Elizabeth Grey, in maner and fourme abovesaid.
Which premisses being true, as in veray trouth they been true, it appearreth and foloweth evidently, that the said King Edward duryng his lif, and the seid Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and dampnably in adultery, against the Lawe of God and of his Church; and therfore noo marvaile that the Souverain Lord and the head of this Land, being of such ungoldy disposicion, and provokyng the ire and indinacion of oure Lord God, such haynous mischieffs and inconvenients, as is above remembred, were used and comitted in the Reame amongs the Subgectts.
Also it appeareth evidently and followeth, that all th'Issue and Children of the seid King Edward, been Bastards, and unable to inherite or to clayme any thing by Inheritance, by the Lawe and Custome of Englond."
Carol
Original Text - Titulus Regius An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Issue, with a recapitulation of his title. View on web.archive.org Preview by Yahoo
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"What I think Carol has given us is something that may have been drawn up, but was put in a drawer an quietly forgotten. Hope this helps H"
Carol responds:
Not sure what you mean by this. What I quoted was the relevant portion of Henry's bill to repeal TR, which deliberately avoided quoting the "false and seditious bill" (really a genuine act of Parliament) which it wanted to suppress forever. It was very important to Henry's Parliament that the details of Richard's claim *not* be known, not only the part about Edward V's illegitimacy (carefully not mentioned) but the whole bill. With the repeal, they could declare Richard a usurper and tyrant and Henry a true king. Without it, Richard was the true king and Henry the usurper. (As of course, was the actual case, but they needed to hide that fact not only from themselves but from posterity.)
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"Carol it's interesting that Ross makes a point similar to Doug - ie that though it was affirmed as an Act by Richard's only Parliament, we don't know the composition of the informal parliament/council that drew it up - ie was it possible to get the Three Estates together in such a short time? You wouldn't normally turn a bill into a statute which hadn't been through a proper process. Ross is not being hostile, by the way, just pointing out that there is an element of challenge - after all Parliament is unlikely to refuse to pass this Act with the King sitting in front of them; they can't undo the fact that he is now King. It's Baldwin (and I'm sure some others whom I've read) who says the Act never formally went through the repeal process. It was too difficult, repeal is as lengthy and contentious as passing an Act and would involve discussion on the status of EOY let alone the view of the Church. Henry's first Parliament did threaten to repeal it and of course said all copies must be destroyed, but thereafter mention was quietly forgotten. This of course does not agree with 'wiki' which says it was repealed and points to the document you have. Cheers H"
Carol responds:
Sorry for removing your paragraph breaks, but it's easier to quote that way. Richard had plenty of time to assemble a full Parliamentary council. He had planned to hold his Parliament earlier, but it was interrupted by Buckingham's rebellion. He then had more than three months to call the Parliament.
As for the Three Estates who petitioned in the first place, I'm sure you'll recall that Richard's coronation was the best attended in history. Almost every peer of the realm was there, as well as many prelates who would have signed the petition as members of the first estate. And, by the way, we have the names of the priests who signed a petition to Richard *during his Parliament,* so we can assume that those same priests were there to testify if needed to the validity of TR. The third estate would have been represented by the people of London and any commoners who had come to attend the Parliament that would have been held after Edward V's coronation. There is no reason (unless you're Ross and determined to undermine Richard) to assume that his Parliament was not equally well attended.
Regarding the act that repealed TR, it may well have been illegal given that you don't repeal an act unread and then destroy the act! Nevertheless, it was highly effective, and within five years of Richard's death or maybe even two (the rebellion at Stoke having failed), many people accepted the Tudor regime (willingly or grudgingly) and the propaganda against Richard would have begun to take effect. His reasons for accepting the crown (changed by propaganda to seizing the crown) would have been forgotten and few people would have dared to risk imprisonment or worse by recording the gist of TR, much less retain a copy. (We're very lucky that one survived or all we would have is the Croyland Chronicler's summary of "a certain parchment roll," the original petition.)
Henry's Parliament did not "threaten to repeal it." They *did* repeal it (read the act I linked to), declaring it null and void and destroying the original, as well as ordering all copies destroyed so that TR would be forgotten. I agree that they didn't want it discussed--what if Stillington could prove that EoY really was illegitimate, or what if her brothers were alive and repealing TR made Edward V the rightful king? The question is not whether TR was a lawful act--it was as lawful as any act of Parliament, many of which (including the repeal of TR) were made to please the king who happened to be on the throne at the time. Nor is it whether TR was repealed. It was.
"[ Annulment of the Previous Act of Richard III. ] . . . . The King [Henry], atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted . . . that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte."
"Void, annulled, repelled, and or no force or effect" amounts to "repealed," reinforced by every synonym in the author's vocabulary.
Oh. I just realized that Henry's Titulus Regius *does* call TR an act. I guess "bill" refers to the original petition.
At any rate, I'm becoming confused as to the point of this discussion, which was originally whether TR declared the "princes" (and their sisters) illegitimate. Henry's act doesn't mention them. It was very careful not to specify the content of TR, only to label it as seditious and false.
Ironic, isn't it, that the Lords spiritual and temporal, along with the commons, supposedly begged Henry to repeal Richard's TR. It was the same Three Estates, perhaps containing some of the same people, though others were certainly dead, that petitioned Richard to take the crown in the first place. I wonder where their hearts were, what their motives were, and how many felt coerced to support Henry after having supported Richard or why, if they sincerely supported Richard to begin with, they changed their minds about him. At least two lords who had at one time supported Richard, Northumberland and Surrey, were in the Tower and could not have been present. So, I think, was Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland. All of them later came to terms with Henry, whose "victory" was a fait accompli, but that tells us nothing of what they felt in their hearts. And if John of Lincoln attended that Parliament and appeared to support Henry, we know what he really intended.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Tamara wrote :
"(Arrgh, hit 'send' too soon)It also occurs to me that Henry's Parliament was filled with persons who were themselves attainted under Richard if not Edward. Of course they weren't exactly inclined to respect the acts passed by the Parliaments of previous (Yorkist) monarchs.As for the whole "speediness" argument against TR, I submit that it didn't take very long for the great ones of England to make their way to Westminster once news of Edward's death had spread.And again, many of them likely stuck around during the interregnum [snip]"
Carol responds:
Exactly. All the people summoned to the Parliament that would have been held for Edward V (except the few who had received notices of cancellation) would have been present when the petition was presented and would have attended Richard's coronation about ten days later. Does anyone have a copy of "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents"? A review of the book states that "3,000 nobles, gentry, knights, and prominent common people [were] in attendance." True, some of them were female, but that's more than enough men for a Parliament.
http://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/book-review-the-coronation-of-richard-iii-the-extant-documents-by-anne-f-sutton-and-p-w-hammond/
The book actually lists the nobles who were there, but I don't own it so I can't quote the list.
At any rate, this one instance in which we don't need to guess. The coronation is well documented, so we know how many people stuck around. Many of these same people would have attended Richard's only Parliament. Whether we have the names of those who were invited, I don't know, only that Catesby was elected speaker to honor Richard. And the attainder passed against Buckingham and others would indicate who *wasn't" there.
Other lists, such as the priests who petitioned Richard (based on his known good character) and perhaps the list of judges for the Colyngbourne trial would give some idea of the members of Richard's Parliament, who seem to have unanimously passed TR. Sadly, they would have included Thomas, Lord Stanley. Whether Northumberland was present or remained in the North, I don't know, but his loyalty at that point was not in question as far as I know.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
If I remember correctly, the *original* petition to Richard was drawn up by those members of Parliament who were in London in June of 1483 and it was on the basis of *that* petition that Richard assumed the throne.However, as the original petition hadn't been presented by a proper Parliament, during Richard's first Parliament TR, which was the original petition just put into Parliamentary format, was introduced and passed.I think.
Carol responds:
Exactly. If anyone has trouble understanding the original TR and is put off by the language, there's a translation into modern English here: Modern and Annotated - Titulus Regius
"Where . . . before the consecration, coronation, and enthronement of our Sovereign Lord the King Richard the Third, a roll of parchment, containing in writing certain articles of the wording underwritten, on the behalf and in the name of the three estates of this realm of England, that is to wit, of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons, by many and diverse persons of the Commons in great multitude was presented and actually delivered unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, to the intent and effect expressed at large in the same Roll; to the which Roll . . . our said Sovereign Lord, for the public well-being and tranquillity of this land, benignly assented
"Now forasmuch as neither the said three Estates, neither the said persons, which in their name presented and delivered, as is above said, the said Roll unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, were assembled in form of Parliament; by occasion whereof, diverse doubts, questions and ambiguities, being moved and engendered in the minds of diverse persons, as it is said:
"Now forasmuch as neither the said three Estates, neither the said persons, which in their name presented and delivered, as is above said, the said Roll unto our said Sovereign Lord the King, were assembled in form of Parliament; by occasion whereof, diverse doubts, questions and ambiguities, being moved and engendered in the minds of diverse persons, as it is said:
"Therefore, to the perpetual memory of the truth, and declaration of the same, be it ordained, provided and established in this present Parliament, that the wording of the said Roll . . . now by the same three Estates assembled in this present Parliament, and by authority of the same, be ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised, into removing the occasion of doubts and ambiguities, and to all other lawful effect that shall and must thereof ensue; so that all things said, affirmed, specified, desired and remembered in the said Roll . . . be of like effect, virtue and force, as if all the same things had been so said, affirmed, specified, desired and remembered in a full Parliament, and by authority of the same accepted and approved."
In other words, although a great multitude of the commons, on behalf of the Three Estates, petitioned Richard to become kind and he benignly assented, the fact that they weren't an official Parliament caused doubts to arise in the minds of certain people. To remove those doubts, the same Three Estates, assembled in an official Parliament, now declare that the petition will have the same effect as if it had been passed in a full Parliament in the first place.
Many people think of TR as *just* the quoted petition to Richard, but the preliminaries, which explain why the Three Estates are officially enacting it, are equally important.
I hope that this quoted passage fully answers this question and removes all doubts that it is an act and that it was assembled in a full Parliament, which, of course, was the whole point of the preamble.
Carol
Modern and Annotated - Titulus Regius An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his descendents, with a restatement of his title. View on web.archive.org Preview by Yahoo
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"Carol,I must sheepishly admit I only skimmed over the contents of the link you provided and completely missed the opening line. Then I missed it again when I viewed the copy I saved quite a while ago!In my defense I can only say that it was because I was so intent on the contents--still, talk of embarrassing...My original thoughts about all of this was based on knowing the difference between a "Bill of Attainder" and an "Act of Attainder", with the former merely being a piece of proposed legislation and the latter the legislation itself. When I saw "bill" being referenced in the repeal, I thought I'd struck the mother lode, but apparently *that* vein is only "fool's gold"...DougWho's sttill trying to worry out what, if any, is the difference between "recognizing" the existence of a legal state (illegitimacy) and enacting legislation that places a person, or persons, in that legal state and just which of the two TR is."
Carol responds:
Hi, Dour, er, Doug. I have a feeling that you're not alone in having just skimmed the contents, which is why I copied the paragraphs in modern spelling. I think we've answered most of the questions that arose during this discussion (which, by the way, reinforces the importance of original documents as opposed to chronicles or modern interpretations of Richard's actions and motives in finding the real Richard III), but I hope that someone else (Marie? Johanne?) will answer that last question. All I can do is quote that particular passage in modern English, bolding key passages, and hope that someone with legal expertise will analyze it:
"And here we consider how that the said feigned marriage between the above named King Edward and Elizabeth Grey (Elizabeth Woodville) was made of great presumption, without the knowing assent of the Lords of this Land, and also by Sorcery and Witchcraft, committed by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta Duchess of Bedford, as the common opinion of the people, and the public voice and same is through all this Land; and hereafter, if and as the case shall require, shall be proved sufficiently in time and place convenient
"And here also we consider how that said feigned marriage was made privately and secretly, without edition of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the Church, after the law of God's Church, but contrary thereunto, and the laudable custom of the Church of England [i.e., the Catholic Church in England].
"And how also, that at the time of contract of the same feigned Marriage, and before and a long time after, the said King Edward was and stayed married and troth plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, Daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a precontract of matrimony, a long time before he made the said feigned Mariage with the said Elizabeth Grey, in manner and form above said."
Oh ho ho! The modern translation, from a Tudor site, omits the key paragraphs, which I'll have to quote from the original:
"Which premisses being true, as in veray trouth they been true, it appearreth and foloweth evidently, that the said King Edward duryng his lif, and the seid Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and dampnably in adultery, against the Lawe of God and of his Church . . . . Also it appeareth evidently and followeth, that all th'Issue and Children of the seid King Edward, been Bastards, and unable to inherite or to clayme any thing by Inheritance, by the Lawe and Custome of Englond."
I'll provide my own "translation":
"Which premises being true, as in very truth they are true, it appears and follows evidently that the said King Edward during his life, and the said Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery against the Law of God and His Church . . . . Also it appears evidently and follows that all the issue and children of the said King Edward were bastards and unable to inherit or to claim anything by inheritance by the law and custom of England."
I leave it to others to determine whether this deduction amounts to a declaration of illegitimacy or the recognition of an existing state (I think the latter) and whether that makes a difference.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Full text of Titulus Regius at http://partyparcel.co.uk/
(I am going to get a proper domain name, but the above will still redirect correctly.)
On 16 July 2014 17:58, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! () Add cleanup rule | More info
Doug wrote :
"Carol,I must sheepishly admit I only skimmed over the contents of the link you provided and completely missed the opening line. Then I missed it again when I viewed the copy I saved quite a while ago!In my defense I can only say that it was because I was so intent on the contents--still, talk of embarrassing...My original thoughts about all of this was based on knowing the difference between a "Bill of Attainder" and an "Act of Attainder", with the former merely being a piece of proposed legislation and the latter the legislation itself. When I saw "bill" being referenced in the repeal, I thought I'd struck the mother lode, but apparently *that* vein is only "fool's gold"...DougWho's sttill trying to worry out what, if any, is the difference between "recognizing" the existence of a legal state (illegitimacy) and enacting legislation that places a person, or persons, in that legal state and just which of the two TR is."
Carol responds:
Hi, Dour, er, Doug. I have a feeling that you're not alone in having just skimmed the contents, which is why I copied the paragraphs in modern spelling. I think we've answered most of the questions that arose during this discussion (which, by the way, reinforces the importance of original documents as opposed to chronicles or modern interpretations of Richard's actions and motives in finding the real Richard III), but I hope that someone else (Marie? Johanne?) will answer that last question. All I can do is quote that particular passage in modern English, bolding key passages, and hope that someone with legal expertise will analyze it:
"And here we consider how that the said feigned marriage between the above named King Edward and Elizabeth Grey (Elizabeth Woodville) was made of great presumption, without the knowing assent of the Lords of this Land, and also by Sorcery and Witchcraft, committed by the said Elizabeth and her mother Jacquetta Duchess of Bedford, as the common opinion of the people, and the public voice and same is through all this Land; and hereafter, if and as the case shall require, shall be proved sufficiently in time and place convenient
"And here also we consider how that said feigned marriage was made privately and secretly, without edition of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly in the face of the Church, after the law of God's Church, but contrary thereunto, and the laudable custom of the Church of England [i.e., the Catholic Church in England].
"And how also, that at the time of contract of the same feigned Marriage, and before and a long time after, the said King Edward was and stayed married and troth plight to one Dame Eleanor Butler, Daughter of the old Earl of Shrewsbury, with whom the same King Edward had made a precontract of matrimony, a long time before he made the said feigned Mariage with the said Elizabeth Grey, in manner and form above said."
Oh ho ho! The modern translation, from a Tudor site, omits the key paragraphs, which I'll have to quote from the original:
"Which premisses being true, as in veray trouth they been true, it appearreth and foloweth evidently, that the said King Edward duryng his lif, and the seid Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and dampnably in adultery, against the Lawe of God and of his Church . . . . Also it appeareth evidently and followeth, that all th'Issue and Children of the seid King Edward, been Bastards, and unable to inherite or to clayme any thing by Inheritance, by the Lawe and Custome of Englond."
I'll provide my own "translation":
"Which premises being true, as in very truth they are true, it appears and follows evidently that the said King Edward during his life, and the said Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and damnably in adultery against the Law of God and His Church . . . . Also it appears evidently and follows that all the issue and children of the said King Edward were bastards and unable to inherit or to claim anything by inheritance by the law and custom of England."
I leave it to others to determine whether this deduction amounts to a declaration of illegitimacy or the recognition of an existing state (I think the latter) and whether that makes a difference.
Carol
--
Alistair Potts
19 Maltings Road
Gretton
Northamptonshire
NN17 3BZ
Tel. No: 01536 772430
Mobile: 07980 667230
www.partyark.co.uk
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Mary
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hilary wrote :
"Baldwin's point is that no proper repeal took place (ie it wasn't discussed and repealed even if the King wished it - a repeal is a formal process which ends with an Act being taken off the Statute Book) because it would raise the whole legitimacy issue, particularly surrounding Henry's wife. "Yes, Richard was offered the Crown by they Three Estates, but were there sufficient of particularly the Third Estate to consititute a proper quorum - you couldn't say 10 bishops, 15 nobles and 3 MPs was legitimate (I'm making these numbers up) for example, and it took quite a bit of time to get MPs from all corners of the realm to Westminster, they couldn't just jump on a train. [snip]" Carol responds:
As I said before, the Three Estates were already in London for Edward V's never-convened Parliament--as Baldwin ought to know. And as TR itself says, a "great multitude" of the Commons offered the crown to Richard, and as "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents" apparently says (I could only quote the review), at least 3,000 knights, nobles, and commons attended the coronation. They would already have been in town when the crown was offered to Richard ten days earlier. That happened, if I recall correctly, on the very day when Edward V's Parliament was supposed to have been held.
I think that Baldwin is raising a non-issue here. But I agree with him that the repeal was invalid and probably illegal, especially the destruction of an act of Parliament read or unread. Unfortunately for Richard's reputation, that made no difference to Henry, his Parliament, or those who dared not keep or publicize their copies of TR. It took Sir George Buck to find and publicize the one known copy, too late for any followers of Richard to clear his name.
But absolutely, neither Henry nor his Parliament wanted the truth about the document they were destroying known. It would undermine Henry's claim (and his wife's legitimacy if, as the former Yorkists wished, he married EoY). Henry didn't want the situation investigated and he prevented Stillington from testifying. Even if the outcome proved favorable for EoY, the investigation would call attention to her brothers, whose fate he never discovered. (On that point, I agree with Baldwin.)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Alistair wrote:
---In , <alistair.potts@...> wrote :
Hi everyone - just to say that the url is working again now, sorry it was down.
Full text of Titulus Regius at http://partyparcel.co.uk/
(I am going to get a proper domain name, but the above will still redirect correctly.)
Carol responds:
Thank you very much. Can you also supply the missing paragraphs in the modern version of Richard's Titulus Regius? Sorry I called it a Tudor site; I thought the omission was intentional! (Only a person familiar with the original would know that those very important words were omitted. Very clever, I thought, but I see now that it must have been an oversight.)
The missing paragraphs, in case you can't find my earlier post thanks to Yahoo's mismanagement, are the ones that read (in the original):
"Which premisses being true, as in veray trouth they been true, it appearreth and foloweth evidently, that the said King Edward duryng his lif, and the seid Elizabeth, lived together sinfully and dampnably in adultery, against the Lawe of God and of his Church; and therfore noo marvaile that the Souverain Lord and the head of this Land, being of such ungoldy disposicion, and provokyng the ire and indinacion of oure Lord God, such haynous mischieffs and inconvenients, as is above remembred, were used and comitted in the Reame amongs the Subgectts.
"Also it appeareth evidently and followeth, that all th'Issue and Children of the seid King Edward, been Bastards, and unable to inherite or to clayme any thing by Inheritance, by the Lawe and Custome of Englond."
You're welcome to use my version (from the previous post) of the modern reading if you like. By the way, you also have a typo ("ungoldy" for "ungodly") in the original version, which I corrected in my quotation.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hilary wrote :
"Baldwin's point is that no proper repeal took place (ie it wasn't
discussed and repealed even if the King wished it - a repeal is a formal process
which ends with an Act being taken off the Statute Book) because it would raise
the whole legitimacy issue, particularly surrounding Henry's wife.
"Yes, Richard was offered the Crown by they Three Estates, but were there
sufficient of particularly the Third Estate to consititute a proper quorum - you
couldn't say 10 bishops, 15 nobles and 3 MPs was legitimate (I'm making these
numbers up) for example, and it took quite a bit of time to get MPs from all
corners of the realm to Westminster, they couldn't just jump on a train.
[snip]"
Carol responds:
As I said before, the Three Estates were
already in London for Edward V's never-convened Parliament--as Baldwin ought to
know. And as TR itself says, a "great multitude" of the Commons offered the
crown to Richard, and as "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents"
apparently says (I could only quote the review), at least 3,000 knights, nobles,
and commons attended the coronation. They would already have been in town when
the crown was offered to Richard ten days earlier. That happened, if I recall
correctly, on the very day when Edward V's Parliament was supposed to have been
held.
I think that Baldwin is raising a non-issue here. But I agree with
him that the repeal was invalid and probably illegal, especially the destruction
of an act of Parliament read or unread. Unfortunately for Richard's reputation,
that made no difference to Henry, his Parliament, or those who dared not keep or
publicize their copies of TR. It took Sir George Buck to find and publicize the
one known copy, too late for any followers of Richard to clear his
name.
But absolutely, neither Henry nor his Parliament wanted the truth
about the document they were destroying known. It would undermine Henry's claim
(and his wife's legitimacy if, as the former Yorkists wished, he married EoY).
Henry didn't want the situation investigated and he prevented Stillington from
testifying. Even if the outcome proved favorable for EoY, the investigation
would call attention to her brothers, whose fate he never discovered. (On that
point, I agree with Baldwin.)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
On Thursday, 17 July 2014, 7:41, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
It always surprises me that Stillington managed to live to 1491. OK, he was imprisoned, but not until after Lambert Simnel. So he was free to roam for two years until then, and must have been perceived as a danger to Henry's peace of mind and EoY's legitimacy. I would have thought that, given what he knew and was likely to say, even in clink, Henry would have seen he met with a mysterious end long before then. Was it simply that Stillington was a man of God? I'm not too sure Henry had that many scruples...yet he left Stillington behind bars. Or maybe Henry had yet to toughen up to become the disagreeable chap we know and don't love. Am I missing something here? Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:23 PM To: Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond) Hilary wrote :
"Baldwin's point is that no proper repeal took place (ie it wasn't discussed and repealed even if the King wished it - a repeal is a formal process which ends with an Act being taken off the Statute Book) because it would raise the whole legitimacy issue, particularly surrounding Henry's wife. "Yes, Richard was offered the Crown by they Three Estates, but were there sufficient of particularly the Third Estate to consititute a proper quorum - you couldn't say 10 bishops, 15 nobles and 3 MPs was legitimate (I'm making these numbers up) for example, and it took quite a bit of time to get MPs from all corners of the realm to Westminster, they couldn't just jump on a train. [snip]" Carol responds:
As I said before, the Three Estates were already in London for Edward V's never-convened Parliament--as Baldwin ought to know. And as TR itself says, a "great multitude" of the Commons offered the crown to Richard, and as "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents" apparently says (I could only quote the review), at least 3,000 knights, nobles, and commons attended the coronation. They would already have been in town when the crown was offered to Richard ten days earlier. That happened, if I recall correctly, on the very day when Edward V's Parliament was supposed to have been held.
I think that Baldwin is raising a non-issue here. But I agree with him that the repeal was invalid and probably illegal, especially the destruction of an act of Parliament read or unread. Unfortunately for Richard's reputation, that made no difference to Henry, his Parliament, or those who dared not keep or publicize their copies of TR. It took Sir George Buck to find and publicize the one known copy, too late for any followers of Richard to clear his name.
But absolutely, neither Henry nor his Parliament wanted the truth about the document they were destroying known. It would undermine Henry's claim (and his wife's legitimacy if, as the former Yorkists wished, he married EoY). Henry didn't want the situation investigated and he prevented Stillington from testifying. Even if the outcome proved favorable for EoY, the investigation would call attention to her brothers, whose fate he never discovered. (On that point, I agree with Baldwin.)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
I am really enjoying this discussion.
Stillington is such an enigma. He drafted TR, and we presume that the basis of it was a true one, in which case he is a completely loose cannon with the knowledge he has, if he is left alive.
Even if one is to take an anti Richard stance and believe that the whole Edward / Eleanor Butler matter was a fabrication, (which of course I don't) then in that case Stillington was in effect plotting against Henry.
Perhaps by just forgetting about TR and not repealing it, and by not drawing any attention to Stillington, Henry hoped the whole matter would go away.
All very curious,
Jess
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
I think your logic is impeccable, Stillington was released by Henry - in my opinion he would have met the same fate as Catesby if he had not been a bishop.
Once released he proceeded to do everything he could do to injure Henry, including supporting an armed rebellion.
If there was any danger to Henry from the 'secret' of TR, Stillington would have used it. The country at that time was awash with people who knew the details of TR, so the idea that it was like some dangerous holy text is ludicrous.
Remember, Richard had TR read out to the garrison of Calais, with the result that they defected to Henry.
Kind regards
David
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 6:41:25 AM
It always surprises me that Stillington managed to live to 1491. OK, he was imprisoned, but not until after Lambert Simnel. So he was free to roam for two years until then, and must have been perceived as a danger to Henry's peace of mind and EoY's legitimacy. I would have thought that, given what he knew and was likely to say, even in clink, Henry would have seen he met with a mysterious end long before then. Was it simply that Stillington was a man of God? I'm not too sure Henry had that many scruples...yet he left Stillington behind bars. Or maybe Henry had yet to toughen up to become the disagreeable chap we know and don't love. Am I missing something here? Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:23 PM To: Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hilary wrote :
"Baldwin's point is that no proper repeal took place (ie it wasn't discussed and repealed even if the King wished it - a repeal is a formal process which ends with an Act being taken off the Statute Book) because it would raise the whole legitimacy issue, particularly surrounding Henry's wife. "Yes, Richard was offered the Crown by they Three Estates, but were there sufficient of particularly the Third Estate to consititute a proper quorum - you couldn't say 10 bishops, 15 nobles and 3 MPs was legitimate (I'm making these numbers up) for example, and it took quite a bit of time to get MPs from all corners of the realm to Westminster, they couldn't just jump on a train. [snip]" Carol responds:
As I said before, the Three Estates were already in London for Edward V's never-convened Parliament--as Baldwin ought to know. And as TR itself says, a "great multitude" of the Commons offered the crown to Richard, and as "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents" apparently says (I could only quote the review), at least 3,000 knights, nobles, and commons attended the coronation. They would already have been in town when the crown was offered to Richard ten days earlier. That happened, if I recall correctly, on the very day when Edward V's Parliament was supposed to have been held.
I think that Baldwin is raising a non-issue here. But I agree with him that the repeal was invalid and probably illegal, especially the destruction of an act of Parliament read or unread. Unfortunately for Richard's reputation, that made no difference to Henry, his Parliament, or those who dared not keep or publicize their copies of TR. It took Sir George Buck to find and publicize the one known copy, too late for any followers of Richard to clear his name.
But absolutely, neither Henry nor his Parliament wanted the truth about the document they were destroying known. It would undermine Henry's claim (and his wife's legitimacy if, as the former Yorkists wished, he married EoY). Henry didn't want the situation investigated and he prevented Stillington from testifying. Even if the outcome proved favorable for EoY, the investigation would call attention to her brothers, whose fate he never discovered. (On that point, I agree with Baldwin.)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sandra wrote :
It always surprises me that Stillington managed to live to 1491. OK, he was imprisoned, but not until after Lambert Simnel. [snip]
Carol responds:
Actually, one of Henry's first actions after Bosworth was to arrest Stillington. He later pardoned him, supposedly because of his great age, but he (or Parliament) made sure that Stillington didn't testify regarding Titulus Regius, which they wanted to suppress rather than disprove.
Carol
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sandra wrote: "It always surprises me that Stillington managed to live to 1481. Ok, he was imprisoned, but not until after Lambert Simnel. So he was free to roam for two years until then and *must* have been perceived as a danger to Henry's peace of mind and EoY's legitimacy. I would have thought that, given what he knew and was likely to say,, even in clink, Henry would have seen he met with a mysterious end long before then. Was it simply that Stillington was a man of God? I'm not too sure Hnery had that many scruples...yet he left Stillington behind bars. Or maybe Henry had yet to toughen up to become the disagreeable chap we know and donn't love. Am I missing something?" Doug here: I have the impression that I read *somewhere* that when Stillington gave his evidence to the Council in May 1483, he also provided "proof(s)" - which would mean, to me anyway, some sort of documentary evidence that Edward *was* married to Eleanor Butler. If the above represents the true state of affairs, perhaps Henry didn't imprison Stillington because the good bishop turned over the documents he'd used at that Council meeting and still held? Then, when the Simnel rebellion broke out, Henry decided that enough people might listen to Stillington, even minus documentary proof, should he speak out on what he knew about Edward and Eleanor's marriage - hence the imprisonment. Once in prison, and guarded by people Henry trusted, what harm could Stillington, without any proof to back up his claims, cause? Doug
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sandra,
I think your logic is impeccable, Stillington
was released by Henry - in my opinion he would have met the same fate as
Catesby if he had not been a bishop.
Once released he proceeded to
do everything he could do to injure Henry, including supporting an armed
rebellion.
If there was any danger to Henry from the 'secret' of
TR, Stillington would have used it. The country at that time was awash
with people who knew the details of TR, so the idea that it was like some
dangerous holy text is ludicrous.
Remember, Richard had TR read out
to the garrison of Calais, with the result that they defected to
Henry.
Kind regards
David
Sent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>;
To:
<>;
Subject: Re:
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sent: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 6:41:25 AM
It always surprises me that Stillington managed to live to 1491. OK,
he was imprisoned, but not until after Lambert Simnel. So he was free to
roam for two years until then, and must have been perceived as a
danger to Henry's peace of mind and EoY's legitimacy. I would have thought
that, given what he knew and was likely to say, even in clink, Henry would
have seen he met with a mysterious end long before then. Was it simply
that Stillington was a man of God? I'm not too sure Henry had that many
scruples...yet he left Stillington behind bars. Or maybe Henry had yet to
toughen up to become the disagreeable chap we know and don't love. Am I
missing something here?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 10:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was
Richmond)
Hilary wrote :
"Baldwin's point is that no proper repeal took place (ie it wasn't
discussed and repealed even if the King wished it - a repeal is a formal
process which ends with an Act being taken off the Statute Book) because
it would raise the whole legitimacy issue, particularly surrounding
Henry's wife.
"Yes, Richard was offered the Crown by they Three Estates, but were
there sufficient of particularly the Third Estate to consititute a proper
quorum - you couldn't say 10 bishops, 15 nobles and 3 MPs was legitimate
(I'm making these numbers up) for example, and it took quite a bit of time
to get MPs from all corners of the realm to Westminster, they couldn't
just jump on a train. [snip]"
Carol responds:
As I said
before, the Three Estates were already in London for Edward V's
never-convened Parliament--as Baldwin ought to know. And as TR itself
says, a "great multitude" of the Commons offered the crown to Richard, and
as "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents" apparently says
(I could only quote the review), at least 3,000 knights, nobles, and
commons attended the coronation. They would already have been in town when
the crown was offered to Richard ten days earlier. That happened, if I
recall correctly, on the very day when Edward V's Parliament was supposed
to have been held.
I think that Baldwin is
raising a non-issue here. But I agree with him that the repeal was invalid
and probably illegal, especially the destruction of an act of Parliament
read or unread. Unfortunately for Richard's reputation, that made no
difference to Henry, his Parliament, or those who dared not keep or
publicize their copies of TR. It took Sir George Buck to find and
publicize the one known copy, too late for any followers of Richard to
clear his name.
But absolutely, neither Henry
nor his Parliament wanted the truth about the document they were
destroying known. It would undermine Henry's claim (and his wife's
legitimacy if, as the former Yorkists wished, he married EoY). Henry
didn't want the situation investigated and he prevented Stillington from
testifying. Even if the outcome proved favorable for EoY, the
investigation would call attention to her brothers, whose fate he never
discovered. (On that point, I agree with Baldwin.)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
October 1484 Richard sent forces to Hammes - Oxford and Sir James Bount escape. There followed a siege and the garrison was allowed to leave and join Henry, by then in France.
Kind regards
David
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'Douglas Eugene Stamate' destama@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>;
Subject: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sent: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 3:57:33 PM
David wrote: //snip// "Remember, Richard had TR read out to the garrison of Calais, with the result that they defected to Henry." Doug here: TR was passed in January of 1484. When did the garrison defect to Henry? Doug
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Yes, the arrest of Stillington was ordered immediately after Bosworth, but this can not be construed or presented as an attempt to suppress TR. It was because he had been involved in many events contrary to the interests of HT and his future wife.
I will bow to Hilary's greater knowledge and concede that Stillington may have not actually travelled to Brittany, but he is named in connection with the 1476 attempt that almost cost Henry his life.
It is also significant that once Richard was dead and it became apparent that there was no obvious remains of the Princes, Yorkist plotting centred on the boys that had been declared illegitimate
- so they (the remaining Yorkists) were not worried about TR either.
Kind regards
David
From: justcarol67@... [] ;
To: ;
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sent: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 2:34:13 AM
Sandra wrote :
It always surprises me that Stillington managed to live to 1491. OK, he was imprisoned, but not until after Lambert Simnel. [snip]
Carol responds:
Actually, one of Henry's first actions after Bosworth was to arrest Stillington. He later pardoned him, supposedly because of his great age, but he (or Parliament) made sure that Stillington didn't testify regarding Titulus Regius, which they wanted to suppress rather than disprove.
Carol
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"Baldwin's point is that no proper repeal took place (ie it wasn't discussed and repealed even if the King wished it - a repeal is a formal process which ends with an Act being taken off the Statute Book) because it would raise the whole legitimacy issue, particularly surrounding Henry's wife." Carol responds:
I've already quoted this bit of Hilary's post in a previous message, but I want to raise a new point. First, as already noted, I agree with Baldwin and Hilary that Henry and his Parliament didn't want to undergo the formal process of repealing TR, including reading it and debating it. But what was suppressed in Henry's bill (sorry, act) was not only the (real or apparent) illegitimacy of Edward's children and their ineligibility to inherit the throne and other objections to the Woodville marriage, or even the additional barring of George's children resulting from their father's attainder (Henry wanted no mention of the boy he held safely in the Tower as a potential claimant to "his" throne), but Richard's own qualifications.
Not reading TR (aloud) to Parliament meant not allowing members who might not have been present to hear anything good about Richard, whom they labeled in their bill "Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId." TR, Richard's claim to the throne, showed that far from being the usurper they wished to depict him as, Richard had been *elected* king in part on the basis of his virtues. So in addition to not hearing the previously quoted passages (and the one barring Edward of Warwick from the throne), the new members of Parliament would not have heard (which, had it not been for primogeniture, would perhaps have been self-evident).
Destroying TR erased, among other things, these passages relating to Richard's right to the crown and his qualifications to be king (skip to the summary if you don't "do" medieval English):
"Over this we considre, howe that Ye be the undoubted Son and Heire of Richard late Duke of Yorke, verray enheritour to the seid Crowne and Dignite Roiall, . . . . and that at ths tyme . . . there is noon other persoune lyvyng but Ye only, that by Right may clayme the said Coroune and Dignite Royall, by way of Enheritaunce, and howe that Ye be born withyn this Lande; by reason wherof, as we deme in oure myndes, Ye be more naturally enclyned to the prosperite and commen wele of the same . . . .
"Wee considre also, the greate Wytte, Prudence, Justice, Princely Courage, and the memorable and laudable Acts in diverse Batalls, whiche as we by experience knowe Ye heretofore have done, for the salvacion and defence of this same Reame; and also the greate noblesse and excellence of your Byrth and Blode, as of hym that is descended of the thre moost Royall houses in Cristendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispanie.
"Wherfore, these premisses by us diligently considred, we
desyryng effectuously the peas, tranquillite, and wele publique of this
Lande, and the reduccion of the same to the auncien honourable estate
and prosperite, and havyng in youre greate Prudence, Justice, Princely
Courage, and excellent Vertue, singuler confidence, have chosen in all
that that in us is, and by this our Wrytyng choise You, high and myghty
Prynce, into oure Kyng and Soveraigne Lorde . . . And
herupon we humbly desire, pray, and require youre seid Noble Grace,
that, accordyng to this Eleccion of us the Thre Estates of this Lande,
as by youre true Enherritaunce, Ye will accepte and take upon You the
said Crown and Royall Dignite, with all thyngs therunto annexed and
apperteynyng, as to You of Right bilongyng, as wele by Enherritaunce as
by lawfull Eleccion; and, in caas Ye so do, we promitte to serve and to
assiste your Highnesse, as true and feithfull Subgietts and Leigemen,
and to lyve and dye with You in this matter, and every other juste
quarrell.. . . .
"Therfore, at the request, and by assent of the Thre Estates of this
Reame, that is to say, the Lordes Spuelx and Temporalx, and Comens of
this Lande, assembled in this present Parliament, by auctorite of the
same, bee it pronounced, decreed, and declared, that oure said Soveraign
Lorde the Kyng was, and is, veray and undoubted Kyng of this Reame of
Englond, with all thyngs therunto withyn the same Reame, and without it,
united, annexed and apperteyning, as well by right of Consanguinite and
Enheritaunce, as by lawefull Elleccion, Consecration, and Coronacion.. . . .[Paragraphs on the right of his heirs to succeed him follow.]"
To summarize, the Three Estates (and by implication, the present Parliament), having already eliminated other potential candidates, list Richard's qualifications: He is the undoubted son of Richard Duke or York (a possible allusion to rumors that Edward IV wasn't) and the only person qualified to claim the right to the crown by right of inheritance. They also mention his having been born in England as a reason why he would be naturally concerned for his country's welfare and prosperity.
They then list Richard's personal virtues (wit [i.e., intelligence], prudence, justice, and princely courage), along with his known actions in defense of the realm, followed by a reiteration of his birth and blood. Desiring peace, tranquility, and the public weal and having confidence in his virtues (again listed), they beg him to accept his *election* and swear to be his faithful followers.
Having asserted that Richard's right and title to the throne is just and lawful, grounded on the laws of God and Nature as well as the laws of the realm, they again assert (in a paragraph probably not present in the original bill) that Richard is the rightful king by virtue of his claim through inheritance, his election by the Three Estates, his consecration, and his coronation.
The effect of the whole is that Richard is the rightful king.
Naturally, Henry and those members of his Parliament (e.g., the Stanleys) who knew the contents of the original act and the grounds (beyond the illegitimacy of his nephews) for Richard's claim would not want these paragraphs read in Parliament.
What? the new members ask each other in astonishment. He was elected by the Three Estates on the basis of his virtues as well as his blood, viewed as the only man who could rescue the country from chaos (stated in paragraphs that I didn't quote) and that election was lawfully approved in Parliament?
Can't have that, say the Stanleys, Morton, et al. It means that Richard's claim was valid and that Henry, with the help of us traitors, overthrew the rightful king, making *him* the usurper. Nope. Let's suppress TR and its listing of Richard's claims and virtues so we can paint *him* as the usurper.
The main point here is that Richard was *elected* king by the Three Estates, his right confirmed by Parliament and by his coronation and anointing. Fighting against him was treason. For that reason, among others, Henry's Parliament chose to paint him as a usurper, making Henry the savior of England and king (having none of Richard's qualifications) by right of conquest.
It wasn't just for EoY's sake (Henry hadn't yet married her) or for fear of Edward V's (or Edward of Warwick's) claim that those in Henry's Parliament who knew the original act chose to suppress it. Every word of the act was in some way injurious to Henry.
It occurs to me that the wily Morton, or perhaps his nephew Robert, advised Henry to have his Parliament repeal TR unread. The fewer people, including (or especially) MPs, who knew the true nature of Richard's claim, the better.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"f there was any danger to Henry from the 'secret' of TR, Stillington would have used it. The country at that time was awash with people who knew the details of TR, so the idea that it was like some dangerous holy text is ludicrous.
Remember, Richard had TR read out to the garrison of Calais, with the result that they defected to Henry."
Carol responds:
Please be so kind as not to label my views, which I've abundantly supported with quotations, as "ludicrous," or to put words in my mouth. "Dangerous" to Henry, yes. "Holy," no.
First, let me correct an error in your post. It was the garrison at Hammes who defected to Henry after James Blount had helped the Earl of Oxford to escape.
The garrison at Calais was under the (nominal) captaincy of Richard's illegitimate son, John of Gloucester, probably supervised by Richard's loyal lieutenant, Sir James Tyrell, governor of Guisnes. Unlike Hammes, Calais remained loyal to Richard.
TR *was* dangerous to Henry, as I've already indicated. If it were not, he would have had no objection to its being read and debated in Parliament and he would have allowed Stillington, its author, to testify, confident that its arguments could be refuted. Instead, not even Parliament was allowed to hear it read before they voted (whether under coercion or for fear of its contents) to burn it unread and punish anyone who dared to preserve a copy or even a summary.
The result of this policy was that (after the chief remaining ex-Ricardians had been killed or defeated at Stoke), nearly everyone in the country believed that Richard was a usurping tyrant and Henry Tudor was the rightful king. They also, for the most part, believed that EoY was legitimate, that her somewhat belated marriage to Henry united the Houses of York and Lancaster (though Henry made sure that his own claim was not through her), and that her brothers were dead. Exactly the state of affairs that Henry wanted, impossible had TR not been suppressed.
S
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
David wrote :
"Yes, the arrest of Stillington was ordered immediately after Bosworth, but this can not be construed or presented as an attempt to suppress TR. It was because he had been involved in many events contrary to the interests of HT and his future wife."
Carol wrote:
And what event other than the writing and passing of TR could that vague description refer to? As I said before, not only was Stillington not allowed to defend TR (you would think, wouldn't you, that the Parliament would want to examine him and disprove his arguments?) but not even Parliament itself was allowed to hear the act read before they destroyed it and, following Henry's own wishes (they would not have dared to do so on their own) made it a crime to own a copy.
David wrote:
"It is also significant that once Richard was dead and it became apparent that there was no obvious remains of the Princes, Yorkist plotting centred on the boys that had been declared illegitimate - so they (the remaining Yorkists) were not worried about TR either."
Carol responds:
I'm not sure what you mean about Yorkist plotting centering on the boys having been declared illegitimate. It centered on an attempt to restore the House of York and unseat the usurping Tudor.
However, it seems significant that, although they may at first have presented Lambert Simnel (too young to represent Edward V) as Richard Duke of York, they settled on presenting him as Edward Earl of Warwick, whose attainder could easily be reversed without any bad reflection on Richard or his supporters. John, Earl of Lincoln, and Margaret of York, dowager duchess of Burgundy, may have believed that Edward's sons were dead, but they could equally well have known their whereabouts but wished to support Warwick instead, in part because he knew Lincoln well and was used to being guided by him and in part because both Lincoln and Margaret had supported Richard and would have great difficulty in overcoming the anger and resentment of Edward ex-V if they presented him as their candidate.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Mary wrote :
"Carol, in his documentary on his book "The Winter King" Thomas Penn showed a genealogical table belonging to John Earl of Lincoln which showed the Kings of England and their heirs. Neither of the Princes were included but Richard and the Edward Earl of Warwick were. Penn felt that it signified that Lincoln believed that the Princes were illegitimate and that he was fighting for Warwick at Stoke."
Carol responds:
I see. Now I understand David's point. I agree that John Earl of Lincoln (and possibly Margaret) would have seen the "princes" as illegitimate. After all, he was a key supporter of Richard. But I also think he would have preferred Edward of Warwick to either of Edward's sons for the reasons I stated, that Edward V would be resentful (possibly out for revenge against Lincoln and other supporters of Richard) whereas little Warwick had been his protegee and would be easy to manage for that reason and because of his age.
I've seen that genealogical table somewhere. Is the documentary online? Do you know of a still image of it? Either way, I'd appreciate a link.
At any rate, had Lincoln won at Stoke and succeeded in deposing Henry, I'm pretty sure he (as regent for Warwick) would have reinstated Titulus Regius, repealing only the portion barring Warwick from the throne. Or he might have tested the waters to see whether the Three Estates preferred him or Warwick as king. Either way, the new king would not have been a son of Edward IV, assuming that one or both were alive.
I wonder if the de la Poles in general (perhaps not the Duke of Suffolk, but Richard's sister, Elizabeth, the duchess, and her sons) believed that Richard, not Edward V, had been the rightful king. Who owned the table after Lincoln died? It would be a significant indication of Elizabeth's views if it belonged to her. And how fortunate that it wasn't destroyed!
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Mary wrote:
"Well said Carol"
Carol responds:
Thanks, but which post are you agreeing with? You didn't quote the message.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Or am *I* parsing it too finely?"
Carol responds:
Thanks for the compliment. As for your question, I'm a bit confused. I only tossed out the idea (not necessarily agreeing with it) that Parliament may have been alluding to rumors that Edward IV (not his sons) was illegitimate. The sons' illegitimacy had been thoroughly covered, but they may have wanted to emphasize that Richard, unlike his elder brother (whose legitimacy had been questioned by George of Clarence and, if I recall correctly, Warwick), was the undoubted son (and heir) of Richard Duke of York. No Blaybourne rumors in his background!
On the other hand, they may have meant nothing at all except the simple fact that as the Duke of York's only remaining son, he was his father's undoubted heir.
I think what happened is that you misunderstood my point. Either that or I mistyped "V" when I meant "IV"!
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
The answer, via a FB post from our Laura Blanchard:
Laura wrote: "Indeed. I've emailed the Rylands Library asking if there's a microfilm or a digitized version. There are two splendid Yorkist genealogies of Edward V here in Philadelphia . Here's a link to one of them; I'll post a link to the other in the next comment. The Richard III Society, American Branch contributed to the conservation of this one. http://libwww.freelibrary.org/medievalman/Detail.cfm?imagetoZoom=mca2010001"
Laura wrote: "Here's the second roll. The American Branch contributed to the online presentation of this manuscript. http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/msroll1066/membrane1.cfm"
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 20 July 2014 15:40
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond )
I also replied to your query about Thomas Penn's documentary but Yahoo appears to have lost it. I have checked out the BBC but they are saying that it is no longer on iplayer. I googled Thomas Penn "The Winter King" but it came up with the book and not the documentary.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi, Mary
For people who get confused easily (like me), it would be helpful if you would make a practice of reproducing the earlier email that you are responding to in your email? If it's long, and you are only responding to a small part of it, I recommend following Carol's practice, as she is consistent in providing the relevant bits that she is referring to, if not the entire previous email. That is considered proper Netiquette.
Thanks for your understanding!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:40 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
I also replied to your query about Thomas Penn's documentary but Yahoo appears to have lost it. I have checked out the BBC but they are saying that it is no longer on iplayer. I googled Thomas Penn "The Winter King" but it came up with the book and not the documentary.
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"Thanks for the compliment. As for your question, I'm a bit confused. I only tossed out the idea (not necessarily agreeing with it) that Parliament may have been alluding to rumors that Edward IV (not his sons) was illegitimate. The sons' illegitimacy had been thoroughly covered, but they may have wanted to emphasize that Richard, unlike his elder brother (whose legitimacy had been questioned by George of Clarence and, if I recall correctly, Warwick), was the undoubted son (and heir) of Richard Duke of York. No Blaybourne rumors in his background!
On the other hand, they may have meant nothing at all except the simple fact that as the Duke of York's only remaining son, he was his father's undoubted heir.
I think what happened is that you misunderstood my point. Either that or I mistyped "V" when I meant "IV"!"
Doug here: Oh no, I wasn't trying to say that *you* necessarily agreed with the idea that the phrase was put in TR as a reference to rumors about Edward IV being illegitimate, rather that I was wondering if even the *idea* of Edward being illegitimate has been given 'way too much attention, based, as far as I can tell, on the fact that the length of Cicely's pregnancy wasn't exactly nine months. Personally (FWTW!), I view the rumors about Edward being illegitimate as just propaganda put out by the Lacanstrians in response to the rumors about *Edward of Lancaster* being illegitimate. I wonder if the phrase "true son and heir," or a close variant, appears in "regular" wills; ie, those not disposing of thrones? Doug
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Mary wrote :
"I was replying to the post where you answer David's post about Yorkist plotting."
Carol responds:
Thanks. I thought it might be that one but since I've posted so many messages lately, I couldn't be sure. Good old Yahoo doesn't let us trace threads and responses easily, so it helps to quote at least a bit of the message you're responding to.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Stephen wrote :
"The answer, via a FB post from our Laura Blanchard:
"Laura wrote: "Indeed. I've emailed the Rylands Library asking if there's a microfilm or a digitized version. There are two splendid Yorkist genealogies of Edward V here in Philadelphia . Here's a link to one of them; I'll post a link to the other in the next comment. The Richard III Society, American Branch contributed to the conservation of this one. http://libwww.freelibrary.org/medievalman/Detail.cfm?imagetoZoom=mca2010001"
Laura wrote: "Here's the second roll. The American Branch contributed to the online presentation of this manuscript. http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/msroll1066/membrane1.cfm"
Carol responds:
Thanks, Stephen (and Laura), but what we're looking for is a genealogy of the same sort owned by John, Earl of Lincoln or the de la Pole family, that shows Richard as king after Edward IV and skips Edward V.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"I also replied to your query about Thomas Penn's documentary but Yahoo appears to have lost it. I have checked out the BBC but they are saying that it is no longer on iplayer. I googled Thomas Penn "The Winter King" but it came up with the book and not the documentary."
Carol responds:
I think I may have found it on Google videos. Is it this one? Henry VII: Winter King - Britain on DocuWatch - free streaming British history documentaries
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Johanne wrote :
"For people who get confused easily (like me), it would be helpful if you would make a practice of reproducing the earlier email that you are responding to in your email? If it's long, and you are only responding to a small part of it, I recommend following Carol's practice, as she is consistent in providing the relevant bits that she is referring to, if not the entire previous email. That is considered proper Netiquette. "
Carol responds:
Thanks, Johanne. Of course I complicate the process a little by posting below the message I'm responding (I only top-post when I'm in a hurry), but I appreciate the support. It would make it easier to quote the relevant bits of the post in question if people (especially those posting from e-mail or smart phones?) would snip the long tails of old posts in the thread to make it easier for us to quote only the post we're responding to (or, as you say, the relevant part if it's long as mine tend to be).
Anyway, I blame Yahoo for not making it immediately and unquestionably clear who is responding to whom. In my view, we need to do everything we can to overcome Yahoo's deficiencies.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
On Jul 20, 2014, at 1:17 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
"For people who get confused easily (like me), it would be helpful if you would make a practice of reproducing the earlier email that you are responding to in your email? If it's long, and you are only responding to a small part of it, I recommend following Carol's practice, as she is consistent in providing the relevant bits that she is referring to, if not the entire previous email. That is considered proper Netiquette. "
Carol responds:
Thanks, Johanne. Of course I complicate the process a little by posting below the message I'm responding (I only top-post when I'm in a hurry), but I appreciate the support. It would make it easier to quote the relevant bits of the post in question if people (especially those posting from e-mail or smart phones?) would snip the long tails of old posts in the thread to make it easier for us to quote only the post we're responding to (or, as you say, the relevant part if it's long as mine tend to be).
Anyway, I blame Yahoo for not making it immediately and unquestionably clear who is responding to whom. In my view, we need to do everything we can to overcome Yahoo's deficiencies.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Henry VII. The Winter King HD Henry VII. The Winter King HD This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. View on youtu.be Preview by Yahoo
or here, if that link doesn't work:
Henry VII Winter King BBC documentary factual and historical full 2013 Henry VII Winter King BBC documentary factual and hi... Henry VII Winter King BBC documentary factual and historical full 2013 bbc documentary, documentary bbc, bbc documentary history, bbc, documentary... View on youtu.be Preview by Yahoo
Apologies to those who think YouTube is The Devil's Own.
~Weds
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hilary wrote:
" It appears as an agreement in Richard's Parliament Rolls, but, as you say, were all who should have been there there or was this a hastily assembled Parliament without full representation from the shires and a quorum? I'm sure Marie could help us on that."
Marie:
Er, well I'll try. I assume you're referring to the assembly of June 1483 which originally drew up what came to be known as Titulus Regius? I think this would have been a full parliament because there had been a parliament summoned to sit immediately after Edward V's coronation (the date set for its opening was 25th June). I believe (although I've never seen it suggested) that this would have been the reason for delaying the coronation until 22nd June - 40 days' notice was required to summon a parliament. The members would. I'm sure, have aimed to be in London for the coronation on the 22nd, and it would have been a full assembly which , as it had been summoned, on 25th and drew up the petition to Richard. The only problem was that this parliament had not been officially opened by Edward V, the monarch in whose name it had been summoned, and so had no legal basis.
Hilary again:
"Secondly, my recollection is that though Henry wanted to repeal TR he never actually did? And an Act cannot be repealed without due Parliamentary process, just like a Bill can't become Law without it. I think we discussed on here that Henry did not dare to put it before Parliament in case someone like Stillington had a fit on conscience and it became a running hare? What I think Carol has given us is something that may have been drawn up, but was put in a drawer an quietly forgotten."
Marie:
Henry did repeal Titulus Regius, and did so without having it read and discussed. Not only is the Act of Repeal amongst the Parliament rolls, but we also have the extant minutes of a meeting Henry had held with the Justices beforehand in order to make sure the repeal would be legal. Henry was inclined to have Titulus Regius simply removed from the statute books without any formalities at all, but the justices felt this might leave the keepers of the parliament rolls open to charges of neglect at some future date, and it was they the justices - who came up with the compromise solution of having the Bill of Repeal drawn up and pushed through in the way that it was. It's fairly clear from the brief minutes that they were under extreme pressure from Henry to agree to some solution that did not require the bill to be read or discussed, so it's hard to know how happy they really were about what they agreed to.
But I think we need to be careful not to impose the legal standards of later periods on to the 15th century. Edward IV had already disposed of the entire proceedings of the Readeption parliament of Henry VI by simply having the records destroyed, and Henry VII was to do the same in1487 with the records of the Irish parliament held under the auspices of Lambert Simnel/ Warwick/ Edward VI or whatever you want to call him.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Carol wrote:
"Hi, Doug. The petition to make Richard king was made by the Three Estates and incorporated into TR. which *is* an act of Parliament. If you go to the TR link on the page I linked you to (the direct link is Original Text - Titulus Regius, you'll see the wording, "An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Issue, with a recapitulation of his title," which is the original label given to it by the Master of the Rolls.
So Titulus Regius *is* an act of Parliament, which was repealed (unread and unrecorded) by Henry's Parliament. Had it been only the original bill presented to Richard by the Three Estates, it would not have had official status."
Marie responds:
Absolutely. Titulus Regius was passed as an Act of parliament in 1484, the 1483 assembly having lacked the necessary legal status. Fully agree.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hilary wrote:
"Carol it's interesting that Ross makes a point similar to Doug - ie that though it was affirmed as an Act by Richard's only Parliament, we don't know the composition of the informal parliament/council that drew it up - ie was it possible to get the Three Estates together in such a short time?"
Marie replies:
There had been no rush to get the estates together - the normal 40 days' notice had been given, the writs having been issued on 13th May. There had, however, been a blip on 16th June, when some writs of supersedeas were sent out postponing the coronation and parliament till November, so it is possible that some members were not present on 25th June. It's not really an issue, though, because this assembly wasn't a legal anyway, but was merely representative of the people in the same sort of ad hoc fashion as the army gathered outside the city which had acknowledged Edward IV as king on 3 March 1461. It was the assembly of 1484 which gave Richard's claim the official parliamentary seal of approval.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Doug wrote:
"Who's sttill trying to worry out what, if any, is the difference between "recognizing" the existence of a legal state (illegitimacy) and enacting legislation that places a person, or persons, in that legal state and just which of the two TR is."
Marie:
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Richard wasn't attempting to make parliament pronounce people illegitimate who were the offspring of a valid marriage - that would have been scandalous and foolish. This is why TR had merely pronounces that Edward IV's children are bastards because his union with Elizabeth Woodville had broken the rules in such a way as to render them so. It's true that the Church hadn't pronounced on the marriage, but the rules of the church regarding marriage were quite clear, so that the only question for parliament was whether they accepted the truth of the claims being made about EIV's marriage to EW - either the precontract or the witchcraft would have sufficed. It is possible that a church court, if it had sat to determine the issue, might have protected the legitimacy of the children for the sake of the realm, but it was well established that the church and the common law had separate rules regarding legitimacy, so this would not have bound parliament. For instance, if the parents of a child born out of wedlock later married, the child became legitimate in the eyes of the church but remained a bastard under common law.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hilary wrote:
"And there was one other issue which was that the Speaker was normally an MP - Catesby wasn't."
Marie responds:
Can you be sure Catesby wasn't an MP? In her introduction to the 1484 parliament in PROME, Rosemary Horrox merely says it was his first time in parliament. We may not have the records to show what seat he represented, but surely Richard would have got him put forward as a candidate for somewhere or other if he had him in mind as Speaker.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Wednesday wrote :
You can watch Winter King here: Henry VII. The Winter King HD or here, if that link doesn't work:
Henry VII Winter King BBC documentary factual and historical full 2013
Apologies to those who think YouTube is The Devil's Own."
Carol responds:
Thanks, Weds. At the moment, I'm primarily interested in the genealogy that belonged to the de la Poles. Anyone have a still image of it?
I like YouTube when I'm in the mood, especially Horrible Histories. Helps me forget the horrors of the modern world (which probably couldn't be made humorous).
Carol, who tried to trim all the extra goodies that Yahoo gratuitously added to your post but didn't quite succeed
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Marie wrote:
"Henry did repeal Titulus Regius, and did so without having it read and discussed. Not only is the Act of Repeal amongst the Parliament rolls, but we also have the extant minutes of a meeting Henry had held with the Justices beforehand in order to make sure the repeal would be legal. Henry was inclined to have Titulus Regius simply removed from the statute books without any formalities at all, but the justices felt this might leave the keepers of the parliament rolls open to charges of neglect at some future date, and it was they the justices - who came up with the compromise solution of having the Bill of Repeal drawn up and pushed through in the way that it was. It's fairly clear from the brief minutes that they were under extreme pressure from Henry to agree to some solution that did not require the bill to be read or discussed, so it's hard to know how happy they really were about what they agreed to.
But I think we need to be careful not to impose the legal standards of later periods on to the 15th century. Edward IV had already disposed of the entire proceedings of the Readeption parliament of Henry VI by simply having the records destroyed, and Henry VII was to do the same in1487 with the records of the Irish parliament held under the auspices of Lambert Simnel/ Warwick/ Edward VI or whatever you want to call him."
Carol responds:
I posted Henry's repeal (you probably haven't gotten to my post yet if you're still catching up) and presented my own reasons for why he may have done things in that particular way. The question we had, which you seem to have answered in your second paragraph, was whether repealing TR in this unorthodox way (usually the repealed act is quoted before it's repealed) was legally valid. You seem to have answered that question in your second paragraph. In any case, legal or not, the repeal certainly had the desired effect as within a short time no one but the (few?) surviving members of Richard's Parliament knew the contents of the original bill. Fortunately for Henry, Stillington, Russell, and Bourchier (the archbishop of Canterbury) were all old and died less than ten years into Henry's reign. (In Bourchier's case, he died soon after he crowned Henry!) Catesby, Richard's speaker (who possibly had a hand in writing and certainly in passing TR) Henry had been sure to execute.
I wonder how many people actually turned in (or burned) copies of TR under threat of severe punishment and whether anyone besides the Croyland Chronicler (if it was his copy that Buck found) dared to keep a copy.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"There had been no rush to get the estates together - the normal 40 days' notice had been given, the writs having been issued on 13th May. There had, however, been a blip on 16th June, when some writs of supersedeas were sent out postponing the coronation and parliament till November, so it is possible that some members were not present on 25th June. It's not really an issue, though, because this assembly wasn't a legal [Parliament] anyway, but was merely representative of the people in the same sort of ad hoc fashion as the army gathered outside the city which had acknowledged Edward IV as king on 3 March 1461. It was the assembly of 1484 which gave Richard's claim the official parliamentary seal of approval."
Carol responds:
A seal of approval Edward IV never had if I recall correctly. If anyone deserves the title "king by right of conquest" (and, of course, a very strong hereditary claim), it was Edward.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Am top posting in hopes of getting rid of all but the pertinent stuff beneath. Incidentally, there's a button at the top of any message reply window that offers the option of changing the previous message to plain text. I found it only by chance, Yahoo doesn't make anything easy, do they?
I should have been more clear.
The illustrated scroll of the de la Poles is exhibited in the Winter King documentary. The narrator uses it to illustrate how Henry VII was inserted alongside what the de la Poles considered the legitimate heirs to the throne.
It's not a genealogy scroll per se; it's an illuminated (long) scroll showing the descent of their family and the descent of royalty.
Am not sure this is what you're looking for, but it's a scroll that belonged to the de la Poles, it was mentioned in The Winter King book and documentary, and you can freeze frame it as the narrator reviews it. It's unrolled on a very long table, and it's quite long.
-------
Carol wrote:
Thanks, Weds. At the moment, I'm primarily interested in the genealogy that belonged to the de la Poles. Anyone have a still image of it?
I like YouTube when I'm in the mood, especially Horrible Histories. Helps me forget the horrors of the modern world (which probably couldn't be made humorous).
Carol, who tried to trim all the extra goodies that Yahoo gratuitously added to your post but didn't quite succeed
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re the de la Pole genealogy - I once took a look at it in the John Rylands Library - it's rather long, but the interesting part for me was the last section, showing how the de la Poles fitted into the royal succession. I didn't photograph it, but an image of the end section was at one point available on the John Rylands website, and I downloaded that. I have to go out now but I'll post it up when I get a chance.
Like all such genealogies, it is a work of propaganda and plays with the facts to suit its purposes. I'll have to look up the details again later, but I do recall that it - quite falsely - claims that Richard had his parliament recognise Lincoln as his heir. Since Richard's own son was still alive at the time of Richard's Parliament, the author of the scroll is further forced to claim that the parliament sat in January of Richard's second regnal year, ie 1485. There are other little alterations of the facts, but I'll have to look up the details and report back. Illustrates the point for David, though, that all royal genealogies are to be treated with caution and we're not just dissing the Tudor one because we don't like the Tudors.
Marie
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi, Hilary –
As I recall there is a lot of info about Catesby and his family in Peter A. Hancock’s book, *Richard III and the Murder in the Tower,* which deals with the execution of Hastings, not Richard’s nephews.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi Marie, I think this is Baldwin (but could be Ross). Certainly the Catesbys had been MPs since the 14th century at least (for Coventry and Northants). One was a particular favourite of the Black Prince, who held the manor of Coventry. Catesby's grandfather, who died in 1437, was also an MP for Northants. What's frustrating is that this very good website hasn't yet completed the 15th century
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/members/members-1386-1421
When it does, we shall know a lot more - this is a reply to Doug as well. Interesting that our Catesby's son married Empson's daughter and certainly his son was an MP and Sheriff of Warks.H
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
On Monday, 21 July 2014, 14:51, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hi, Hilary As I recall there is a lot of info about Catesby and his family in Peter A. Hancock's book, *Richard III and the Murder in the Tower,* which deals with the execution of Hastings, not Richard's nephews. Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond) Hi Marie, I think this is Baldwin (but could be Ross). Certainly the Catesbys had been MPs since the 14th century at least (for Coventry and Northants). One was a particular favourite of the Black Prince, who held the manor of Coventry. Catesby's grandfather, who died in 1437, was also an MP for Northants. What's frustrating is that this very good website hasn't yet completed the 15th century http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/members/members-1386-1421 When it does, we shall know a lot more - this is a reply to Doug as well. Interesting that our Catesby's son married Empson's daughter and certainly his son was an MP and Sheriff of Warks.H
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"The illustrated scroll of the de la Poles is exhibited in the Winter King documentary. The narrator uses it to illustrate how Henry VII was inserted alongside what the de la Poles considered the legitimate heirs to the throne.
It's not a genealogy scroll per se; it's an illuminated (long) scroll showing the descent of their family and the descent of royalty. Am not sure this is what you're looking for, but it's a scroll that belonged to the de la Poles, it was mentioned in The Winter King book and documentary, and you can freeze frame it as the narrator reviews it. It's unrolled on a very long table, and it's quite long."
Carol responds:
Yes, that's what I'm looking for, thanks. I don't have time now to go through the documentary looking for it, but good to know it's there. I'll try to locate a still image online at some point. It will be easier to refer to.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi, Hilary
Could you provide the quotation and the page that you say Hancock misquoted? Do you think that was an aberration, or do you think it is typical of the quality of the work? I found the book quite fascinating and enjoyed the background material on people like Catesby who one doesn't see often dealt with in depth.
TTFN J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi Joane, since Hancock misquotes an article from this Society which leads us right up the garden path I'm a bit dubious about some of the things he says. Problem is, there are so many relationships that you can construe all sorts of things from them. The Catesbys had been successful lawyers and 'friends' of the Beauchamps for a couple of centuries, they'd served our George and Hastings. But there were lots of people like them - up and coming, favourties of the Crown, good marriages, land acquisitions. And lawyers didn't often take to the battlefield, sensible people.
There are other people around in the 'Eleanor area' - the Empsons, the Spencers (of Diana fame), the Raleighs (who came from the West Country), the Throckmortons, the Pargiters (of George Washington fame). Interesting how many of them would become rebels in another generation, mainly because of recusancy.
It's hard. H
On Monday, 21 July 2014, 14:51, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hi, Hilary
As I recall there is a lot of info about Catesby and his family in Peter A. Hancock's book, *Richard III and the Murder in the Tower,* which deals with the execution of Hastings, not Richard's nephews.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi Marie, I think this is Baldwin (but could be Ross). Certainly the Catesbys had been MPs since the 14th century at least (for Coventry and Northants). One was a particular favourite of the Black Prince, who held the manor of Coventry. Catesby's grandfather, who died in 1437, was also an MP for Northants. What's frustrating is that this very good website hasn't yet completed the 15th century
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/members/members-1386-1421
When it does, we shall know a lot more - this is a reply to Doug as well. Interesting that our Catesby's son married Empson's daughter and certainly his son was an MP and Sheriff of Warks.H
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Regarding the genealogy of Henry Tudor and his descent from Llewelyn the Great.
I am aware that there is a great deal of noise concerning family trees on the Internet and I know that the members of this forum would not be taken in by any false claims. However, I have checked each stage against other sources and am reasonably sure that my point is valid. That is, that Henry Tudor was a descendant of Llewelyn the great in separate lines by his eldest son Gruffydd and daughter Angharad.
Apparently, the daughter by which Henry descends is attested on original documents from 1260 and she is accepted as a probable daughter of Joan by an expert on the Plantagenets.
This is discussed in detail in a blog by someone called Sharon Kay Penman.
http://sharonkaypenman.com/blog/?p=74
She lists Llewelyn's children, but spends a lot of time discussing Gwladus.
Although the lady is a writer of historical fiction, so I am unlikely to have read any of her work, the blog seems to be fairly accurate as far as I can tell.
Kind regards
David
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sent: Mon, Jul 21, 2014 12:04:23 PM
Re the de la Pole genealogy - I once took a look at it in the John Rylands Library - it's rather long, but the interesting part for me was the last section, showing how the de la Poles fitted into the royal succession. I didn't photograph it, but an image of the end section was at one point available on the John Rylands website, and I downloaded that. I have to go out now but I'll post it up when I get a chance.
Like all such genealogies, it is a work of propaganda and plays with the facts to suit its purposes. I'll have to look up the details again later, but I do recall that it - quite falsely - claims that Richard had his parliament recognise Lincoln as his heir. Since Richard's own son was still alive at the time of Richard's Parliament, the author of the scroll is further forced to claim that the parliament sat in January of Richard's second regnal year, ie 1485. There are other little alterations of the facts, but I'll have to look up the details and report back. Illustrates the point for David, though, that all royal genealogies are to be treated with caution and we're not just dissing the Tudor one because we don't like the Tudors.
Marie
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hastings and Edward were very much partners in crime as far as pursuing the ladies was concerned.
Jess From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []
Sent: 21/07/2014 17:18
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi, Hilary
Could you provide the quotation and the page that you say Hancock misquoted? Do you think that was an aberration, or do you think it is typical of the quality of the work? I found the book quite fascinating and enjoyed the background material on people like Catesby who one doesn't see often dealt with in depth.
TTFN J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi Joane, since Hancock misquotes an article from this Society which leads us right up the garden path I'm a bit dubious about some of the things he says. Problem is, there are so many relationships that you can construe all sorts of things from them. The Catesbys had been successful lawyers and 'friends' of the Beauchamps for a couple of centuries, they'd served our George and Hastings. But there were lots of people like them - up and coming, favourties of the Crown, good marriages, land acquisitions. And lawyers didn't often take to the battlefield, sensible people.
There are other people around in the 'Eleanor area' - the Empsons, the Spencers (of Diana fame), the Raleighs (who came from the West Country), the Throckmortons, the Pargiters (of George Washington fame). Interesting how many of them would become rebels in another generation, mainly because of recusancy.
It's hard. H
On Monday, 21 July 2014, 14:51, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hi, Hilary
As I recall there is a lot of info about Catesby and his family in Peter A. Hancock's book, *Richard III and the Murder in the Tower,* which deals with the execution of Hastings, not Richard's nephews.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi Marie, I think this is Baldwin (but could be Ross). Certainly the Catesbys had been MPs since the 14th century at least (for Coventry and Northants). One was a particular favourite of the Black Prince, who held the manor of Coventry. Catesby's grandfather, who died in 1437, was also an MP for Northants. What's frustrating is that this very good website hasn't yet completed the 15th century
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/members/members-1386-1421
When it does, we shall know a lot more - this is a reply to Doug as well. Interesting that our Catesby's son married Empson's daughter and certainly his son was an MP and Sheriff of Warks.H
Posted by: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply via web post
"
Reply to sender
"
Reply to group
"
Start a New Topic
"
Messages in this topic (75)
New Polling Options - Get Out the Vote!
You can now add a new option in an existing poll and vote directly from email
Yahoo Groups
Control your view and sort preferences per Yahoo Group
You can now control your default Sort & View Preferences for Conversations, Photos and Files in the membership settings page.
Visit Your Group
[The entire original message is not included.]
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Sandra wrote:
"It always surprises me that Stillington managed to live to 1491. OK, he was imprisoned, but not until after Lambert Simnel. So he was free to roam for two years until then, and must have been perceived as a danger to Henry's peace of mind and EoY's legitimacy. I would have thought that, given what he knew and was likely to say, even in clink, Henry would have seen he met with a mysterious end long before then. Was it simply that Stillington was a man of God? I'm not too sure Henry had that many scruples...yet he left Stillington behind bars. Or maybe Henry had yet to toughen up to become the disagreeable chap we know and don't love. Am I missing something here?"
Marie suggests:
Possibly. I'm currently struggling with the Latin text of a letter written by Pope Innocent VIII to Richard in May 1485, in which he says he's been told that priests in England have been arrested and tried by the secular authorities, and have been tortured, bound and even hanged. He expresses his shock and admonishes Richard to see this does not happen in future. Now, other than the arrests and temporary detentions of Morton and Rotherham, I know of no cases of priests being arrested in England during Richard's reign, and the only secular indictments of priests that I've come across took place in Edward IV's reign. I've no doubt this allegation came from Bishop Morton himself, who was hanging around the papal curia at the very time this letter was written. It may have been a propaganda coup that came back to bite Morton and his Tudor master, however, because Henry was extremely reliant on Pope Innocent's endorsement of his regime (viz a string of dispensations for his marriage, anathematizations of rebels, etc). So it may be no coincidence that Stillington was released very soon after Morton's return to England. Do you follow my drift?
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
David wrote of Stillington:
"but he is named in connection with the 1476 attempt that almost cost Henry his life."
Marie replies:
Slightly disingenuous, perhaps. There is no naming of Stillington in said connection earlier than Hall (late 1540s).
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
David wrote to Marie:
"Regarding the genealogy of Henry Tudor and his descent from Llewelyn the Great.
I am aware that there is a great deal of noise concerning family trees on the Internet and I know that the members of this forum would not be taken in by any false claims. However, I have checked each stage against other sources and am reasonably sure that my point is valid. That is, that Henry Tudor was a descendant of Llewelyn the great in separate lines by his eldest son Gruffydd and daughter Angharad.
Apparently, the daughter by which Henry descends is attested on original documents from 1260 and she is accepted as a probable daughter of Joan by an expert on the Plantagenets.
This is discussed in detail in a blog by someone called Sharon Kay Penman.
http://sharonkaypenman.com/blog/?p=74 "
Marie replies:
Sorry, David, I'm confused. I can't see any mention in this article of the Tudors. All it shows is that two of Llewelyn's children were called Gruffydd and Angharad. I'm not saying that the Tudors weren't descended from Llewelyn - as I said, I haven't researched the subject so can't have an opinion. what I did say is that the only way to prove it would be for someone to check the genealogy generation by generation from HT back to Llewelyn, and Sharon Penman's article does not do that, and does not purport to do that.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
David Durose wrote :
"This is discussed in detail in a blog by someone called Sharon Kay Penman.
http://sharonkaypenman.com/blog/?p=74
She lists Llewelyn's children, but spends a lot of time discussing Gwladus.
Although the lady is a writer of historical fiction, so I am unlikely to have read any of her work, the blog seems to be fairly accurate as far as I can tell."
Carol responds:
"Someone called Sharon Kay Penman"! Even though you're not a Ricardian, you might want to set aside your distaste for historical fiction and give Sharon Kay Penman a try. Her books are much more readable and historically accurate than those of, say, Philippa Gregory. I can't vouch for her genealogy of other Welsh characters, but she would make sure that her work on Gwladys, a verifiable ancestor of Richard III as she married into the Mortimer family, was correct.
"The Sunne in Splendour," her (very long) Ricardian novel (based primarily on Kendall as far as I can tell) is highly enjoyable though of course the ending is heart-wrenching for those of us who love and admire Richard--and you'll be glad to know that she's not as hard on Henry Tudor as some Ricardian novelists. She has written historical novels on many of the kings and queens of medieval England from Stephen and his civil war with Maude the Empress through Richard III. I don't think she plans to do anything on the Tudors, though. That's been done a little too often.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
On Monday, 21 July 2014, 17:18, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hi, Hilary Could you provide the quotation and the page that you say Hancock misquoted? Do you think that was an aberration, or do you think it is typical of the quality of the work? I found the book quite fascinating and enjoyed the background material on people like Catesby who one doesn't see often dealt with in depth. TTFN J Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. TournierEmail - jltournier60@...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond) Hi Joane, since Hancock misquotes an article from this Society which leads us right up the garden path I'm a bit dubious about some of the things he says. Problem is, there are so many relationships that you can construe all sorts of things from them. The Catesbys had been successful lawyers and 'friends' of the Beauchamps for a couple of centuries, they'd served our George and Hastings. But there were lots of people like them - up and coming, favourties of the Crown, good marriages, land acquisitions. And lawyers didn't often take to the battlefield, sensible people. There are other people around in the 'Eleanor area' - the Empsons, the Spencers (of Diana fame), the Raleighs (who came from the West Country), the Throckmortons, the Pargiters (of George Washington fame). Interesting how many of them would become rebels in another generation, mainly because of recusancy. It's hard. H On Monday, 21 July 2014, 14:51, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote: Hi, Hilary As I recall there is a lot of info about Catesby and his family in Peter A. Hancock's book, *Richard III and the Murder in the Tower,* which deals with the execution of Hastings, not Richard's nephews. Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond) Hi Marie, I think this is Baldwin (but could be Ross). Certainly the Catesbys had been MPs since the 14th century at least (for Coventry and Northants). One was a particular favourite of the Black Prince, who held the manor of Coventry. Catesby's grandfather, who died in 1437, was also an MP for Northants. What's frustrating is that this very good website hasn't yet completed the 15th century http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/members/members-1386-1421 When it does, we shall know a lot more - this is a reply to Doug as well. Interesting that our Catesby's son married Empson's daughter and certainly his son was an MP and Sheriff of Warks.H
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Hi, Hilary
No problem; I'm definitely a novice where Catesby is concerned, and the only stake I have in Hancock's book is a bit of wishful thinking. But I would rather be disillusioned than go on with some delusional thinking. So carry on!
I wouldn't mind hearing a few other knowledgeable people hereabouts (Marie?) chime in with their thoughts.
I guess my final thought for now is the book worth having, or did I waste my shekels on it?? I certainly agree with you about the overall quality of JA-H's work. We are lucky to have him on our side! J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:25 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Johanne it's the bit where he says that Stillington was related to Eleanor Butler through the Cheddars and he quotes a Ricardian article by W E Hampton of which I was able to obtain a copy. The article (and I had come to the same conclusion) actually says that it was Stillington's grandchildren who were related to the Cheddars and that was some twenty years' after the supposed Eleanor incident. He doesn't impress me; his geographical knowledge is poor (unlike that of JAH), he talks about Ankarette Twynyho as a 'servant woman' which she clearly wasn't and he hasn't truly investigated the long history of the Catesbys or indeed of Stillington.
I'm sorry we differ in our opinion but it's so easy in all this to make something of nothing - eg many churches round here have the same features which he claims relate to Eleanor. H
(Sorry Marie, this was the bit I was looking for)
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Marie wrote:
"There had been no rush to get the estates together - the normal 40 days' notice had been given, the writs having been issued on 13th May. There had, however, been a blip on 16th June, when some writs of supersedeas were sent out postponing the coronation and parliament till November, so it is possible that some members were not present on 25th June. It's not really an issue, though, because this assembly wasn't a legal anyway, but was merely representative of the people in the same sort of ad hoc fashion as the army gathered outside the city which had acknowledged Edward IV as king on 3 March 1461. It was the assembly of 1484 which gave Richard's claim the official parliamentary seal of approval."
Doug here:
I'm getting a bit confused and was wondering if my understanding of the terms "three estates", "Three Estates (the capitalization being important), and Parliament is correct.
I understand the terms as:
"three estates" being the general division of society into commons, lords and clergy,
"Three Estates (capitalized)" being a gathering of members from the three estates into a body whose actions, while possibly authoritative, aren't necessarily legal, and
"Parliament" a body whose actions are both authoritative *and* legal.
Do I have it down properly?
Doug
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Doug wrote:
"
I'm getting a bit confused and was wondering if my understanding of the terms "three estates", "Three Estates (the capitalization being important), and Parliament is correct.
I understand the terms as:
"three estates" being the general division of society into commons, lords and clergy,
"Three Estates (capitalized)" being a gathering of members from the three estates into a body whose actions, while possibly authoritative, aren't necessarily legal, and
"Parliament" a body whose actions are both authoritative *and* legal.
Do I have it down properly?"
Marie:
Of course you do, Doug. You may have noticed that I occasionally miss the odd capitalisation - I don't regard forum posts as the sort of document that require a full edit. I assumed it was clear that I didn't mean there had been any attempt to gather together the entire population of the country.
Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Marie wrote:
"Of course you do, Doug. You may have noticed that I occasionally miss the odd capitalisation - I don't regard forum posts as the sort of document that require a full edit. I assumed it was clear that I didn't mean there had been any attempt to gather together the entire population of the country."
Doug here:
Oh no, context made it quite clear you meant the "official" Three Estates. My concern really was the difference between the last two and *why* the actions of the Three Estates, while acceptable for offering the throne to Richard, weren't considered enough to stand on their own without the sanction of a Parliament. I'm presuming it would be because the former hadn't followed the legal niceties, nor was the monarch included.
Do you, or anyone, know of an accessible; ie, not too technical, history of early Parliamentary development?
Thanks in advance,
Doug
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Carol wrote;
"I wonder how many people actually turned in (or burned) copies of TR under threat of severe punishment and whether anyone besides the Croyland Chronicler (if it was his copy that Buck found) dared to keep a copy."
Marie replies:
The Crowland Chronicler didn't keep a copy. The single copy that turned up was, as I have read, discovered (rather ironically) amongst the parliamentary records in the Tower, simply not filed where expected. So if anyone defied Henry's edict it was the keepers of the parliament rolls themselves. Buck didn't personally find it, he only made use of it.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Carol wrote:
"A seal of approval [by parliament] Edward IV never had if I recall correctly. If anyone deserves the title "king by right of conquest" (and, of course, a very strong hereditary claim), it was Edward."
Marie responds:
Edward did have his title ratified by parliament, at some length, and it was the first item of business in his first parliament. Of course, the Act refers to God having given Edward the victory at Mortimer's Cross and Towton, but he was not claiming right of conquest. The argument was that the House of York had the better claim, and that Henry VI had forfeited his right to remain king when he joined QM at 2nd St Albans and thus broke the 1460 agreement whereby the Yorkists had agreed to his keeping the throne for life, with the house of York ruling thereafter. Edward did, of course, date his reign from 3rd March when he was acknowledged king by the assembled soldiers and citizens in the capital, so that he was not relying on his victory at Towton for his claim.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"The Crowland Chronicler didn't keep a copy [of TR]. The single copy that turned up was, as I have read, discovered (rather ironically) amongst the parliamentary records in the Tower, simply not filed where expected. So if anyone defied Henry's edict it was the keepers of the parliament rolls themselves. Buck didn't personally find it, he only made use of it."
Carol responds:
That's good to know. Clearly, the keepers knew that Henry's order to have them burn it unread was at the very least unorthodox and possibly illegal. But I thought the Keeper of the Rolls was Robert Morton (John Morton's nephew), of all people among the least likely to keep anything favorable to Richard. (Audrey Williamson, for one, has accused him of destroying documents from Richard's reign and Protectorate.) Do you recall where you read that it was discovered among the parliamentary records? And who found it? Stow, maybe?
Thanks,
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Carol earlier:
"A seal of approval [by parliament] Edward IV never had if I recall correctly. If anyone deserves the title "king by right of conquest" (and, of course, a very strong hereditary claim), it was Edward."
Marie responded:
"Edward did have his title ratified by parliament, at some length, and it was the first item of business in his first parliament. Of course, the Act refers to God having given Edward the victory at Mortimer's Cross and Towton, but he was not claiming right of conquest. The argument was that the House of York had the better claim, and that Henry VI had forfeited his right to remain king when he joined QM at 2nd St Albans and thus broke the 1460 agreement whereby the Yorkists had agreed to his keeping the throne for life, with the house of York ruling thereafter. Edward did, of course, date his reign from 3rd March when he was acknowledged king by the assembled soldiers and citizens in the capital, so that he was not relying on his victory at Towton for his claim."
Carol again:
Thanks, Marie. I stand corrected. So it appears that Richard was again following precedent (his brother's) by having Parliament ratify his title--or perhaps they decided to do it themselves for the reasons stated in the preamble to TR (to dispel doubts caused by his having been elected by an unofficial Parliament). Henry VII's bill (I mean his Parliament's act) posthumously removes all charges of treason against "the most blessed Prince King Herrie [VI]," MoA, various Beauforts, and Jasper Tudor.
By the way, if Henry VII had not been more or less forced to marry EoY to (ostensibly) unite the houses of York and Lancaster, I suspect that he would have wanted to depict Edward IV as a usurper (as he did Richard III), given that, "ayenst all
Rightwysness, Honour, Nature and Dutie, [in] an inordinate, seditious and slaunderous
Acte" by Edward's Parliament, Henry VII's [half] uncle had been not only declared a traitor (mentioned in the act) but actually deposed (a fact that the act carefully refrains from mentioning). But since Henry intends (or the members of Parliament intend him!) to marry EoY, Edward has to be recognized as the rightful king (despite having deposed Henry VI twice and quite possibly had him executed) while Richard is depicted as a usurper and not a word is said about Edward V (or the House of York in general), and Parliament is quite careful to note that the repeal of TR must not be used in any way against Henry's "title" to the crown.
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"The Crowland Chronicler didn't keep a copy [of TR]. The single copy that turned up was, as I have read, discovered (rather ironically) amongst the parliamentary records in the Tower, simply not filed where expected. So if anyone defied Henry's edict it was the keepers of the parliament rolls themselves. Buck didn't personally find it, he only made use of it."
Then Carol responded:
"That's good to know. Clearly, the keepers knew that Henry's order to have them burn it unread was at the very least unorthodox and possibly illegal. But I thought the Keeper of the Rolls was Robert Morton (John Morton's nephew), of all people among the least likely to keep anything favorable to Richard. (Audrey Williamson, for one, has accused him of destroying documents from Richard's reign and Protectorate.) Do you recall where you read that it was discovered among the parliamentary records? And who found it? Stow, maybe?"
Marie responds:
I've been checked back through the article I got the information from: D. W. Baker, 'Jacobean Historiography and the Election of Richard III', from Huntingdon Library Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 3, Sept. 2007). Reading it more closely, and googling the MS concerned, it seems as though TR was probably never removed from the parliament rolls in the first place. What seems to have happened is that in the 1590s William Camden made an abstract of the contents of the parliament rolls from Edward II to Richard III, and included in that was an abridged version of TR. This circulated amongst his antiquarian friends, and after 1600 Camden published this version in his 'Britannia'. How the original managed to remain untouched is puzzling. The record of Henry's prior discussion with the justices makes it quite clear that he intended to expunge the original copy from the record.
You are right that Robert Morton was reappointed Master of the Rolls in late November 1485, and the Parliament Rolls did come under the Chancery so I guess were his responsibility. The Chancellor at the time was John Alcock. Interesting. Morton certainly wasn't a closet Ricardian.
As regards Audrey Williamson's claims, I would treat these with extreme caution. Some documents from Richard's reign clearly were destroyed (we're lacking heralds' accounts and indictments of traitors, for instance) but nobody recorded the fact that they were destroying things! Audrey Williamson's book is great fun but she did let herself get carried away.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"I've been checked back through the article I got the information from: D. W. Baker, 'Jacobean Historiography and the Election of Richard III', from Huntingdon Library Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 3, Sept. 2007). Reading it more closely, and googling the MS concerned, it seems as though TR was probably never removed from the parliament rolls in the first place. What seems to have happened is that in the 1590s William Camden made an abstract of the contents of the parliament rolls from Edward II to Richard III, and included in that was an abridged version of TR. This circulated amongst his antiquarian friends, and after 1600 Camden published this version in his 'Britannia'. How the original managed to remain untouched is puzzling. The record of Henry's prior discussion with the justices makes it quite clear that he intended to expunge the original copy from the record.
You are right that Robert Morton was reappointed Master of the Rolls in late November 1485, and the Parliament Rolls did come under the Chancery so I guess were his responsibility. The Chancellor at the time was John Alcock. Interesting. Morton certainly wasn't a closet Ricardian. [snip]"
Carol responds:
Thanks. I'll try to hunt up the article when I get back from England--not a research tour, unfortunately, just a trip to Ricardian sites with my not-yet-Ricardian sister (I'll do my best to educate her!).
Without questioning your source's credentials, which I'm sure are impressive, I find it hard to believe that--given Henry's demands, the punishments for keeping a copy, and the wording of the repeal--a copy (or even a synopsis) was left in the Parliament rolls. Your other suggestion, that the original bill or a copy was filed away somewhere unexpected, makes more sense. Either way, I can't see Robert Morton (or his assistants, if any) preserving it. Maybe, unknown to Morton, whoever was master of the rolls under Richard had filed away a copy. Or Alcock hid one?
Carol
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
Carol wrote:
"Without questioning your source's credentials, which I'm sure are impressive, I find it hard to believe that--given Henry's demands, the punishments for keeping a copy, and the wording of the repeal--a copy (or even a synopsis) was left in the Parliament rolls. Your other suggestion, that the original bill or a copy was filed away somewhere unexpected, makes more sense. Either way, I can't see Robert Morton (or his assistants, if any) preserving it. Maybe, unknown to Morton, whoever was master of the rolls under Richard had filed away a copy. Or Alcock hid one?"
Marie replies:
I do agree that it is puzzling. The synopsis that Camden published would have been his own - there never was one in the parliament rolls; what Camden made was an abridged version, or 'calendar' of all the Acts between Edward II and Richard III, and the abridged version of TR is part of that.
Also bear in mind that the Acts of Richard's parliament weren't all on separate sheets so there was not a sheet or small roll containing just TR which could have been easily picked up and destroyed. What they used to do was to sew the various membranes together end to end to form a long roll. According to the introduction to Richard's parliament in 'The Parliament Rrolls of Medieval England', there is just one such role for the 1484 parliament, consisting of 21 membranes. And you can see from the text that TR covers the bottom 2/3 of membrane 3 of said roll and all of membrane 4.
So to remove it from the roll the clerks would have had to cut through membrane 3 just above the start of TR, unsew membrane 4 from membrane 5, and then sew membrane 5 back up to what remained of membrane 3. It was what Henry had said he had in mind, but the necessity for doing so seems to have got overlooked once the Act of Repeal had been passed. Had it been removed and then reinstated in the 17th C you would see the physical evidence.
Or perhaps Henry wanted it to look as though he had destroyed TR, for Elizabeth's benefit, by ordering the destruction of all the copies accessible to the public, but hung on to his own in case he might, at a later date, need to revive the bastardy of Edward IV's issue. As I mentioned before, Henry did like to keep all bases covered.
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
"I do agree that it is puzzling. The synopsis that Camden published would have been his own - there never was one in the parliament rolls; what Camden made was an abridged version, or 'calendar' of all the Acts between Edward II and Richard III, and the abridged version of TR is part of that.
Also bear in mind that the Acts of Richard's parliament weren't all on separate sheets so there was not a sheet or small roll containing just TR which could have been easily picked up and destroyed. What they used to do was to sew the various membranes together end to end to form a long roll. According to the introduction to Richard's parliament in 'The Parliament Rrolls of Medieval England', there is just one such role for the 1484 parliament, consisting of 21 membranes. And you can see from the text that TR covers the bottom 2/3 of membrane 3 of said roll and all of membrane 4.
So to remove it from the roll the clerks would have had to cut through membrane 3 just above the start of TR, unsew membrane 4 from membrane 5, and then sew membrane 5 back up to what remained of membrane 3. It was what Henry had said he had in mind, but the necessity for doing so seems to have got overlooked once the Act of Repeal had been passed. Had it been removed and then reinstated in the 17th C you would see the physical evidence.
Tamara butts in:
Hmmm. Double hmmmmm. Speaking of covering one's bases (or bets, or whatever) --
It occurs to my (admittedly Swiss-cheese) brain that this may be evidence that Henry at least believed (if he didn't actually know for certain) that Edward's sons by Elizabeth Wydeville were very much alive at the time of Bosworth.
1) The less important reason for my thinking this: The TR repeal didn't go into detail on just why the "false and seditious bille" was considered to be such -- which to my mind would among other things leave Henry the option of declaring, had either of the lads come to be real trouble for him, that not all of the claims made in TR were false and seditious. (Of course, Henry would have had many other reasons for not doing a point-by-point rebuttal of everything in TR, but whether or not this was one of his reasons for not doing one, to me it would have been one of the advantages for not doing one.)
2) More importantly, I am reminded that a decade after Bosworth, Henry has the resting place of the king he'd deposed all spiffed up and given a nice inscription (lost a few decades later in the Dissolution, but not before it was copied out onto parchment) that acknowledged Richard as a rightful King of England. By logical implication, this means acknowledging that TR, which gave Richard his legal right to be king, was legit -- and that Eddie's boys weren't.
Now, what was happening roundabout that time? Oh, yeah, Perkin Warbeck was charming the pants off of Yorkists (and/or enemies of Henry) throughout Europe with his claim to be the younger of Eddie IV's two boys. Warbeck wouldn't have freaked out Henry so much if he'd believed both boys were dead or otherwise not a threat to his position.
So, yes, Henry was definitely covering every base he could.
Tamara
Re: Repeal of TR (was Richmond)
On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:55 PM, "khafara@... []" <> wrote:
Marie said:
"I do agree that it is puzzling. The synopsis that Camden published would have been his own - there never was one in the parliament rolls; what Camden made was an abridged version, or 'calendar' of all the Acts between Edward II and Richard III, and the abridged
version of TR is part of that.
Also bear in mind that the Acts of Richard's parliament weren't all on separate sheets so there was not a sheet or small roll containing just TR which could have been easily picked up and destroyed. What they used to do was to sew the various membranes together end to end to form a long roll. According to the introduction to Richard's parliament in 'The Parliament Rrolls of Medieval England', there is just one such role for the 1484 parliament, consisting of 21 membranes. And you can see from the text that TR covers the bottom 2/3 of membrane 3 of said roll and all of membrane 4.
So to remove it from the roll the clerks would have had to cut through membrane 3 just above the start of TR, unsew membrane 4 from membrane 5, and then sew membrane 5 back up to what remained of membrane 3. It was what Henry had said he had in mind, but the necessity for doing so seems to have got overlooked once the Act of Repeal had been passed. Had it been removed and then reinstated in the 17th C you would see the physical evidence.
Tamara butts in:
Hmmm. Double hmmmmm. Speaking of covering one's bases (or bets, or whatever) --
It occurs to my (admittedly Swiss-cheese) brain that this may be evidence that Henry at least believed (if he didn't actually know for certain) that Edward's sons by Elizabeth Wydeville were very much alive at the time of Bosworth.
1) The less important reason for my thinking this: The TR repeal didn't go into detail on just why the "false and seditious bille" was considered to be such -- which to my mind would among other things leave Henry the option of declaring, had either of the lads come to be real trouble for him, that not all of the claims made in TR were false and seditious. (Of course, Henry would have had many other reasons for not doing a point-by-point rebuttal of everything in TR, but whether or not this was one of his reasons for not doing one, to me it would have been one of the advantages for not doing one.)
2) More importantly, I am reminded that a decade after Bosworth, Henry has the resting place of the king he'd deposed all spiffed up and given a nice inscription (lost a few decades later in the Dissolution, but not before it was copied out onto parchment) that acknowledged Richard as a rightful King of England. By logical implication, this means acknowledging that TR, which gave Richard his legal right to be king, was legit -- and that Eddie's boys weren't.
Now, what was happening roundabout that time? Oh, yeah, Perkin Warbeck was charming the pants off of Yorkists (and/or enemies of Henry) throughout Europe with his claim to be the younger of Eddie IV's two boys. Warbeck wouldn't have freaked out Henry so much if he'd believed both boys were dead or otherwise not a threat to his position.
So, yes, Henry was definitely covering every base he could.
Tamara
