Plots

I'm confused!....everytime I read about the Hastings/Morton plot it
doesn't make sense.....

I've come to the conclusion that Elizabeth Woodville was not
conspiring with the Lancastrians (ie Margaret Beaufort) on 13 June.
For her to support Henry Tudor while Edward V was still king, this
doesn't make sense. So, the Hastings/Morton plot that Richard
discovered must have been a Woodville plot on his life (I also refer
to Richard's letter to York on 10th June regarding a plot by the
Queen's blood and affinity), but Morton who was arrested with
Hastings was a staunch Lancastrian??

This brings me to Hastings himself who didn't like the Woodvilles and
had also had some sort of feud with Dorset before Edward IV's death?

Where does this leave Jane Shore however? was her punishment for
something else?...and Thomas Rotherham he was also a Lancastrian??

I'm starting to assume that Buckingham might have set Hastings up in
order to become more powerful himself??

Any ideas?

--- In , mrm_bell
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I'm confused!....everytime I read about the Hastings/Morton plot it
> doesn't make sense.....
>
> I've come to the conclusion that Elizabeth Woodville was not
> conspiring with the Lancastrians (ie Margaret Beaufort) on 13 June.
> For her to support Henry Tudor while Edward V was still king, this
> doesn't make sense. So, the Hastings/Morton plot that Richard
> discovered must have been a Woodville plot on his life (I also
refer
> to Richard's letter to York on 10th June regarding a plot by the
> Queen's blood and affinity), but Morton who was arrested with
> Hastings was a staunch Lancastrian??
>
> This brings me to Hastings himself who didn't like the Woodvilles
and
> had also had some sort of feud with Dorset before Edward IV's death?
>
> Where does this leave Jane Shore however? was her punishment for
> something else?...and Thomas Rotherham he was also a Lancastrian??
>
> I'm starting to assume that Buckingham might have set Hastings up
in
> order to become more powerful himself??
>
> Any ideas?

No one has really figured it all out, at least not to my satisfaction.
One complkication is that we don't really know hat was going through
anyone's mind, and trying to figure out motivation from scant
evidence, 500 years later, is vry difficult indeed.

Hashing it all over and suggesting various possibilities is one of
the pleasures of Ricardianism, and of study of the times in general.
Personally, I think Morton was behind it everything,

Katy

mrm bell wrote: I'm starting to assume that Buckingham
might have set Hastings up in order to become more
powerful himself??

Any ideas?

***

My ideas are unprovable.

I have the notion that Buckingham may never have been
on Richard's side.

I think it's possible that Margaret Beaufort,
Buckingham's aunt-by-marriage, may have convinced
Buckingham to help them set up Richard to take the
blame for the removal of Edward V and Richard of York.

Once they thought Edward V and Richard of York were
out of their way, Henry Tudor's supporters abandoned
Buckingham to Richard.

Then they waited until events in 1485 allowed them to
overthrow Richard.

Just my interpretation of events. I'm open to new
ideas.

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

mrm bell wrote: I'm starting to assume that Buckingham
might have set Hastings up in order to become more
powerful himself??

Any ideas?

***

My ideas are unprovable.

I have the notion that Buckingham may never have been
on Richard's side.

I think it's possible that Margaret Beaufort,
Buckingham's aunt-by-marriage, may have convinced
Buckingham to help them set up Richard to take the
blame for the removal of Edward V and Richard of York.

Once they thought Edward V and Richard of York were
out of their way, Henry Tudor's supporters abandoned
Buckingham to Richard.

Then they waited until events in 1485 allowed them to
overthrow Richard.

Just my interpretation of events. I'm open to new
ideas.

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

mrm bell wrote:

"I'm confused!....everytime I read about the Hastings/Morton plot it
doesn't make sense.....

I've come to the conclusion that Elizabeth Woodville was not
conspiring with the Lancastrians (ie Margaret Beaufort) on 13 June.
For her to support Henry Tudor while Edward V was still king, this
doesn't make sense. So, the Hastings/Morton plot that Richard
discovered must have been a Woodville plot on his life (I also refer
to Richard's letter to York on 10th June regarding a plot by the
Queen's blood and affinity), but Morton who was arrested with
Hastings was a staunch Lancastrian??

This brings me to Hastings himself who didn't like the Woodvilles and
had also had some sort of feud with Dorset before Edward IV's death?

Where does this leave Jane Shore however? was her punishment for
something else?...and Thomas Rotherham he was also a Lancastrian??

I'm starting to assume that Buckingham might have set Hastings up in
order to become more powerful himself??

Any ideas?"

Would this be of any help?

Under Edward IV, Hastings had been in a nearly impregnable position, politically and territorily. But that position had been based on Hastings' friendship with the King. With Edward gone Hastings was in a vulnerable spot.
Orgiginally Hastings probably hoped to retain, under Richard's Protectorate, something close to the position he had held under Edward IV (wasn't he Master of the Horse, as well as a carousing companion?). Thus Hastings' attempts to ingratiate himself with Richard by warning him what the Woodvilles were up to. And as Protector, Richard would need supporters and would have be able to disburse some patronage to get it. Another reason to support Richard - as Protector.
It seems most likely that the 13 June plot was between the Woodvilles and Hastings against Richard's becoming King (this was AFTER the Bishop of Bath had informed the Council that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was invalid).
As King, Richard, while still needing support, would have a much greater pool of resources to draw from. And any support that Hastings could provide was more than balanced by the support provided (however temporarily) by Buckingham. Or the Stanleys. Or by men who would support Richard simply because he was the King.
As long as Richard was only Protector, Hastings still wielded some power in the Council; as a counterweight to the Woodvilles, if nothing else. Once the facts about Edward IV's marriage came out and Richard became a candidate for the throne, Hastings' remaining influence/value disappeared.
It was in order to regain his previous position that Hastings allied himself with the Woodvilles. Any disagreements between them were more than matched by a common goal: clawing their way back to power by getting rid of Richard.
Morton and Stanley were probably involved simply because the power struggle between the various Yorkist factions might give the Lancastrians opportunities they could turn to their advantage. There is also the fact that Richard had been at odds with the Stanleys in the North and they (the Stanleys) most likely felt they could expect little or no preferment from Richard as King. Morton, though used by Edward IV, does not seem to have been really trusted and therefor would be in the same position as the Stanleys.
We know how things went once Richard became king. Imagine if Edward V, firmly under the thumbs of his (disliked) relatives, had remained on the throne! From the Lancastrian viewpoint either option offered many opportunities but the preferred one would be a boy king ruled by relatives at odds with a large portion of the ruling establishment.

Sorry about the length of this post - hope it fills in some gaps. I have probably written some things as fact that as are assumptions on my part!

Doug Stamate

p.s. Sorry about the delay in posting this, I've been having troubler with my outgoinging e-mail.

Pam wrote: [Buckingham's] rebellion came too soon
after he'd been given lavish rewards.

***

That's what led me to my present opinion. I couldn't
understand why Buckingham would turn on Richard so
soon after receiving so much power and land. *Unless*
Buckingham was never on Richard's side.

It's easier to understand--if Buckingham was using
Richard to clear his nephews from the path to the
throne and take the blame for killing them.

Easier to understand doesn't mean that's what really
happened. But it's as possible as more complicated
explanations.

***

Buckingham may have been just "scouting out the
territory," weighing his options in the interim before
making the rebellion he knew he'd ultimately make.
Perhaps he planned to obtain all the gifts which
Richard would bestow for the purpose of spending that
wealth in the future fight against Richard.
Maybe Buckingham thought that it would be to his
advantage to use Richard to get rid of his own
[Buckingham's] enemies, just to have less to deal with
in the future.

***

This makes sense to me.

***

Margaret Beaufort's relationship to Buckingham could
certainly have allowed her to influence him. Maybe she
even claimed that Henry's claims were merely a front
to draw Richard into a lethal fight, after which
Buckingham could assert his own superior claim to the
throne--superior to Tudor's, I mean.

***

Margaret Beaufort's influence complicates things.
It's easy to believe she used Buckingham against
Richard. It's less easy to believe she ever intended
for Buckingham to be king instead of her own son. Her
successful rise to the top of the Yorkist court
suggests to me that she was capable of double-crossing
Buckingham, just as she apparently double-crossed
Elizabeth Woodville and Richard. All for Henry's
sake.

***

Did you read the _Ricardian Bulletin_ of Spring, 2004?


***

I received a copy of the Winter 2003 and Summer 2004
Ricardian Bulletins. But I didn't get the Spring 2004
issue. Maybe the supply ran out. I'll try to get a
copy of the article through the library.

***

The Gordon Smith article about Stony Stratford makes a
case about the Woodville clan attempting to ambush
Richard. There must be something to it for Richard to
have acted/reacted so precipitously against Anthony
Woodville, Thomas Grey, & Thomas Vaughn.

***

The Woodvilles' delay in telling Richard about
Edward's death suggests that they didn't intend to
deal fairly with him. If they had intended to honor
Edward IV's will and cooperate with Richard, they
would have contacted him right away. Events would
have been very different, IMO.

Marion







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Stephen
> 4) There were ten Dukes of Buckingham in all and there are some
excellent websites about the other houses.

B
Were the later ones all Villiers? Do you know why they restart the
count? It's terribly irritating.

Ann:
If the holder of a peerage dies without a male heir to inherit
the title, that title then becomes extinct. "Heir" is almost always a
direct male descendant of the first person who was granted that title (a
very very few titles may descend to a woman).

If it's revived later for someone not descended from that first
holder (male line again), it's said to be "of the second creation" and
the count restarts.

If you want a really unlucky title, "Duke of York" has a
sinister history. Prince Andrew is the first Duke of the York of the
EIGHTH creation, and since he has only daughters, presumably the title
will become extinct at his death.

L.P.H.,

Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
system of government."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Marie wrote: The full details for the Griffiths &
Thomas one, as per the bibliography, are:
Griffiths, R.A., and Thomas, R.S., 'The Making of the
Tudor Dynasty' (Gloucester, 1985).

***

I've borrowed an edition published in New York, 1985.
Hopefully the text is the same.

The bad news is that there are no footnotes or end
notes. There is a "Further Reading" section with
titles for each chapter. There are interesting
sources discussed there, but nothing is said about
Buckingham's letter to Henry Tudor or where it is now.

On p. 96, the authors write about Buckingham's letter
as if they had read it themselves. Here's a quote:

"On 24 September 1483, the duke of Buckingham himself
wrote to Henry Tudor, indicating his association with
the Beaufort-Wydeville conspiracy, even though his and
Henry's interests were incompatible in some
particulars. Despite the assertions of
sixteenth-century writers, it would be rash to assume
that Buckingham endorsed Henry's claim to the throne
or the marriage with Elizabeth of York as a means of
ending the Wars of the Roses and deposing Richard III.
When he wrote the letter, he may have had more
immediate concerns in mind; he may have felt that he
could tackle the thorny question of who should have
primacy in the kingdom once Richard was out of the
way. Thus,
when he wrote to Henry on 24 September, he informed
him that his own rebellion would begin on 18 October
and he invited him to join in. He made no pretence of
acknowledging Henry as the next king of England or of
welcoming his marriage to Elizabeth of York."

I'd love to see Buckingham's letter reproduced in
readable form. It would be good to know where it is
now. Can anyone on the list find out and let us know?

TIA!

Marion



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: The full details for the Griffiths &
> Thomas one, as per the bibliography, are:
> Griffiths, R.A., and Thomas, R.S., 'The Making of the
> Tudor Dynasty' (Gloucester, 1985).
>
> ***
>
> I've borrowed an edition published in New York, 1985.
> Hopefully the text is the same.
>
> The bad news is that there are no footnotes or end
> notes. There is a "Further Reading" section with
> titles for each chapter. There are interesting
> sources discussed there, but nothing is said about
> Buckingham's letter to Henry Tudor or where it is now.
>
> On p. 96, the authors write about Buckingham's letter
> as if they had read it themselves. Here's a quote:
>
> "On 24 September 1483, the duke of Buckingham himself
> wrote to Henry Tudor, indicating his association with
> the Beaufort-Wydeville conspiracy, even though his and
> Henry's interests were incompatible in some
> particulars. Despite the assertions of
> sixteenth-century writers, it would be rash to assume
> that Buckingham endorsed Henry's claim to the throne
> or the marriage with Elizabeth of York as a means of
> ending the Wars of the Roses and deposing Richard III.
> When he wrote the letter, he may have had more
> immediate concerns in mind; he may have felt that he
> could tackle the thorny question of who should have
> primacy in the kingdom once Richard was out of the
> way. Thus,
> when he wrote to Henry on 24 September, he informed
> him that his own rebellion would begin on 18 October
> and he invited him to join in. He made no pretence of
> acknowledging Henry as the next king of England or of
> welcoming his marriage to Elizabeth of York."
>
> I'd love to see Buckingham's letter reproduced in
> readable form. It would be good to know where it is
> now. Can anyone on the list find out and let us know?
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion

Dammit! I've just orderd a 2nd hand copy on Amazon, hoping it might
solve the mystery. No reference at all? I feared as much. The other
authors don't know where they got it from either, which is why they
give no source.
Just a thought. Perhaps Griffiths & Thomas list earlier articles of
their own in their bibliography? That is often what authors are
drawing on for their books.
I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of these historian-invented
traditions with absolutely no foundation except constant copying.
Good work anyway.

Marie

>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: Dammit! I've just orderd a 2nd hand copy
on Amazon, hoping it might solve the mystery. No
reference at all? I feared as much. The other
authors don't know where they got it from either,
which is why they give no source.

Just a thought. Perhaps Griffiths & Thomas list
earlier articles of their own in their bibliography?
That is often what authors are drawing on for their
books. I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of
these historian-invented traditions with absolutely no
foundation except constant copying. Good work anyway.

***

Griffiths & Thomas don't give their readers a real
bibliography. They give a "Further reading" section
for each chapter at the back of the book. That's a
sort of bibliography, I guess. But there are no
footnotes or cross references. You have to guess at
which title relates to the statements you have
questions about.

I'll double check the Further reading section, but I
don't remember lots of citations from earlier articles
by Griffiths & Thomas. At least I didn't say to
myself: "Gee, they seem to have rewritten their
articles into a book." I do remember thinking: "They
seem to have a good working relationship with Michael
K. Jones." They cite his work, and I half-way
remember a complementary reference to him in the text,
probably the acknowledgements.

I also hope this isn't a historian-invented tradition.
If Buckingham's letter is being kept in a public
archive, it should be possible to cite, shouldn't it?
If it's in a private archive, couldn't it be cited
without invading the owner's privacy somehow?

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie wrote: Dammit! I've just orderd a 2nd hand copy
> on Amazon, hoping it might solve the mystery. No
> reference at all? I feared as much. The other
> authors don't know where they got it from either,
> which is why they give no source.
>
> Just a thought. Perhaps Griffiths & Thomas list
> earlier articles of their own in their bibliography?
> That is often what authors are drawing on for their
> books. I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of
> these historian-invented traditions with absolutely no
> foundation except constant copying. Good work anyway.
>
> ***
>
> Griffiths & Thomas don't give their readers a real
> bibliography. They give a "Further reading" section
> for each chapter at the back of the book. That's a
> sort of bibliography, I guess. But there are no
> footnotes or cross references. You have to guess at
> which title relates to the statements you have
> questions about.
>
> I'll double check the Further reading section, but I
> don't remember lots of citations from earlier articles
> by Griffiths & Thomas. At least I didn't say to
> myself: "Gee, they seem to have rewritten their
> articles into a book." I do remember thinking: "They
> seem to have a good working relationship with Michael
> K. Jones." They cite his work, and I half-way
> remember a complementary reference to him in the text,
> probably the acknowledgements.
>
> I also hope this isn't a historian-invented tradition.
> If Buckingham's letter is being kept in a public
> archive, it should be possible to cite, shouldn't it?
> If it's in a private archive, couldn't it be cited
> without invading the owner's privacy somehow?
>
> Marion

My copy has just arrived. Looking at the further reading for that
chapter, I see it has :
1) firstly, a book called "The Staffords, earls of Stafford and dukes
of Buckingham" by Carole Rawcliffe. That looks the most hopeful
source, but unfortunately I have searched the net and there seem to
be no copies available. If Stephen is reading this, I wonder if he
might have a copy. Otherwise, does anyone know a library near them
that does?
2)Rosemary Horrox' PhD thesis on the patronage of Richard III- I
imagine that is the base of her 'Study in Service' book and it isn't
mentioned in that
3)An article by Farrar & Sutton in Ricardian no 78 - just checked
that. Very interesting, but no deal. It does, however, quote the
relevant sections from the History of Shrewsbury that was the other
book quoted in Underwood & Jones' footnote, so it looks as though
that can now be ruled out.
4)Several other works which are on non-Buckingham topics.
My hunch would be that, if we have a date for this letter, the source
is not a chronicle or "history" but either the letter itself or an
official reference to it - possibly the Act of Attainder against
Buckingham?
Unfortunately I can't get to view the Parliament Rolls in my part of
the world either.
Can anyone help us out with either Parliament Rolls or Rawcliffe's
book?
However, you also hint that Griffiths & Thomas may have got the info
from Jones. I notice from his Margaret Beaufort bibliography that he
had an article included in a book edited by Ralph Griffiths in 1981.

Failing all this, if anyone is seeing either of these people speaking
anywhere in the near future, could they possibly ask them the
question? Ta.

Marie
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

Marie wrote: firstly, a book called "The Staffords,
earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham" by Carole
Rawcliffe. ... Otherwise, does anyone know a library
near them that does?

***

The library where I work claims to have it on the
shelf, but I don't want to raise false hopes. I'm on
leave until next Wednesday. If someone else hasn't
found it by then, I'll try to borrow it.

***

My hunch would be that, if we have a date for this
letter, the source is not a chronicle or "history" but
either the letter itself or an official reference to
it - possibly the Act of Attainder against
Buckingham?

***

I hadn't thought of the Act of Attainder. I can't
remember seeing that. It sounds possible, though.

Somehow I got the impression that Griffiths & Thomas,
or Michael K. Jones had actually seen and read
Buckingham's original letter. But maybe I
misunderstood what they wrote.

Marion







_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , marion davis
> <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > Marie wrote: Dammit! I've just orderd a 2nd hand copy
> > on Amazon, hoping it might solve the mystery. No
> > reference at all? I feared as much. The other
> > authors don't know where they got it from either,
> > which is why they give no source.
> >
> > Just a thought. Perhaps Griffiths & Thomas list
> > earlier articles of their own in their bibliography?
> > That is often what authors are drawing on for their
> > books. I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of
> > these historian-invented traditions with absolutely no
> > foundation except constant copying. Good work anyway.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Griffiths & Thomas don't give their readers a real
> > bibliography. They give a "Further reading" section
> > for each chapter at the back of the book. That's a
> > sort of bibliography, I guess. But there are no
> > footnotes or cross references. You have to guess at
> > which title relates to the statements you have
> > questions about.
> >
> > I'll double check the Further reading section, but I
> > don't remember lots of citations from earlier articles
> > by Griffiths & Thomas. At least I didn't say to
> > myself: "Gee, they seem to have rewritten their
> > articles into a book." I do remember thinking: "They
> > seem to have a good working relationship with Michael
> > K. Jones." They cite his work, and I half-way
> > remember a complementary reference to him in the text,
> > probably the acknowledgements.
> >
> > I also hope this isn't a historian-invented tradition.
> > If Buckingham's letter is being kept in a public
> > archive, it should be possible to cite, shouldn't it?
> > If it's in a private archive, couldn't it be cited
> > without invading the owner's privacy somehow?
> >
> > Marion
>
> My copy has just arrived. Looking at the further reading for that
> chapter, I see it has :
> 1) firstly, a book called "The Staffords, earls of Stafford and
dukes
> of Buckingham" by Carole Rawcliffe. That looks the most hopeful
> source, but unfortunately I have searched the net and there seem to
> be no copies available. If Stephen is reading this, I wonder if he
> might have a copy. Otherwise, does anyone know a library near them
> that does?

Sorry, my main Source was J.M.Robinson's "THE STAFFORDS", which I
borrowed from the County Library and renewed four times. I would like
to see Rawcliffe, however.

> 2)Rosemary Horrox' PhD thesis on the patronage of Richard III- I
> imagine that is the base of her 'Study in Service' book and it
isn't
> mentioned in that
> 3)An article by Farrar & Sutton in Ricardian no 78 - just checked
> that. Very interesting, but no deal. It does, however, quote the
> relevant sections from the History of Shrewsbury that was the other
> book quoted in Underwood & Jones' footnote, so it looks as though
> that can now be ruled out.
> 4)Several other works which are on non-Buckingham topics.
> My hunch would be that, if we have a date for this letter, the
source
> is not a chronicle or "history" but either the letter itself or an
> official reference to it - possibly the Act of Attainder against
> Buckingham?
> Unfortunately I can't get to view the Parliament Rolls in my part
of
> the world either.
> Can anyone help us out with either Parliament Rolls or Rawcliffe's
> book?
> However, you also hint that Griffiths & Thomas may have got the
info
> from Jones. I notice from his Margaret Beaufort bibliography that
he
> had an article included in a book edited by Ralph Griffiths in 1981.
>
> Failing all this, if anyone is seeing either of these people
speaking
> anywhere in the near future, could they possibly ask them the
> question? Ta.
>
> Marie
> >
I shall see Jones in Norwich on 13th prox. and shall try to ask him
then.

Stephen
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com

Rawcliffe's book is very good from "our" Buckingham's son onwards, as
Edward was a great one for keeping records. His father's records were
nearly all destroyed by his retainers on the collapse of the rebellion,
so whatever you hope to find in Carol's book, don't hold your breathe
as it isn't there.
Paul

>>>
>>
>> My copy has just arrived. Looking at the further reading for that
>> chapter, I see it has :
>> 1) firstly, a book called "The Staffords, earls of Stafford and
> dukes
>> of Buckingham" by Carole Rawcliffe. That looks the most hopeful
>> source, but unfortunately I have searched the net and there seem to
>> be no copies available. If Stephen is reading this, I wonder if he
>> might have a copy. Otherwise, does anyone know a library near them
>> that does?
>
> Sorry, my main Source was J.M.Robinson's "THE STAFFORDS", which I
> borrowed from the County Library and renewed four times. I would like
> to see Rawcliffe, however.
>
>> 2)Rosemary Horrox' PhD thesis on the patronage of Richard III- I
>> imagine that is the base of her 'Study in Service' book and it
> isn't
>> mentioned in that
>> 3)An article by Farrar & Sutton in Ricardian no 78 - just checked
>> that. Very interesting, but no deal. It does, however, quote the
>> relevant sections from the History of Shrewsbury that was the other
>> book quoted in Underwood & Jones' footnote, so it looks as though
>> that can now be ruled out.
>> 4)Several other works which are on non-Buckingham topics.
>> My hunch would be that, if we have a date for this letter, the
> source
>> is not a chronicle or "history" but either the letter itself or an
>> official reference to it - possibly the Act of Attainder against
>> Buckingham?
>> Unfortunately I can't get to view the Parliament Rolls in my part
> of
>> the world either.
>> Can anyone help us out with either Parliament Rolls or Rawcliffe's
>> book?
>> However, you also hint that Griffiths & Thomas may have got the
> info
>> from Jones. I notice from his Margaret Beaufort bibliography that
> he
>> had an article included in a book edited by Ralph Griffiths in 1981.
>>
>> Failing all this, if anyone is seeing either of these people
> speaking
>> anywhere in the near future, could they possibly ask them the
>> question? Ta.
>>
>> Marie
>>>
> I shall see Jones in Norwich on 13th prox. and shall try to ask him
> then.
>
> Stephen
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams

p.s because Carol didn't find it! Sounded as if I'm criticising her
book, which I'm not. It is very comprehensive in that she seems to have
found everything there is to find.

On Oct 8, 2004, at 20:29, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

>
> Rawcliffe's book is very good from "our" Buckingham's son onwards, as
> Edward was a great one for keeping records. His father's records were
> nearly all destroyed by his retainers on the collapse of the rebellion,
> so whatever you hope to find in Carol's book, don't hold your breathe
> as it isn't there.
> Paul
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> My copy has just arrived. Looking at the further reading for that
>>> chapter, I see it has :
>>> 1) firstly, a book called "The Staffords, earls of Stafford and
>> dukes
>>> of Buckingham" by Carole Rawcliffe. That looks the most hopeful
>>> source, but unfortunately I have searched the net and there seem to
>>> be no copies available. If Stephen is reading this, I wonder if he
>>> might have a copy. Otherwise, does anyone know a library near them
>>> that does?
>>
>> Sorry, my main Source was J.M.Robinson's "THE STAFFORDS", which I
>> borrowed from the County Library and renewed four times. I would like
>> to see Rawcliffe, however.
>>
>>> 2)Rosemary Horrox' PhD thesis on the patronage of Richard III- I
>>> imagine that is the base of her 'Study in Service' book and it
>> isn't
>>> mentioned in that
>>> 3)An article by Farrar & Sutton in Ricardian no 78 - just checked
>>> that. Very interesting, but no deal. It does, however, quote the
>>> relevant sections from the History of Shrewsbury that was the other
>>> book quoted in Underwood & Jones' footnote, so it looks as though
>>> that can now be ruled out.
>>> 4)Several other works which are on non-Buckingham topics.
>>> My hunch would be that, if we have a date for this letter, the
>> source
>>> is not a chronicle or "history" but either the letter itself or an
>>> official reference to it - possibly the Act of Attainder against
>>> Buckingham?
>>> Unfortunately I can't get to view the Parliament Rolls in my part
>> of
>>> the world either.
>>> Can anyone help us out with either Parliament Rolls or Rawcliffe's
>>> book?
>>> However, you also hint that Griffiths & Thomas may have got the
>> info
>>> from Jones. I notice from his Margaret Beaufort bibliography that
>> he
>>> had an article included in a book edited by Ralph Griffiths in 1981.
>>>
>>> Failing all this, if anyone is seeing either of these people
>> speaking
>>> anywhere in the near future, could they possibly ask them the
>>> question? Ta.
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>>
>> I shall see Jones in Norwich on 13th prox. and shall try to ask him
>> then.
>>
>> Stephen
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> you're never too old to launch your dreams
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , marion davis
> <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > Marie wrote: Dammit! I've just orderd a 2nd hand copy
> > on Amazon, hoping it might solve the mystery. No
> > reference at all? I feared as much. The other
> > authors don't know where they got it from either,
> > which is why they give no source.
> >
> > Just a thought. Perhaps Griffiths & Thomas list
> > earlier articles of their own in their bibliography?
> > That is often what authors are drawing on for their
> > books. I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of
> > these historian-invented traditions with absolutely no
> > foundation except constant copying. Good work anyway.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Griffiths & Thomas don't give their readers a real
> > bibliography. They give a "Further reading" section
> > for each chapter at the back of the book. That's a
> > sort of bibliography, I guess. But there are no
> > footnotes or cross references. You have to guess at
> > which title relates to the statements you have
> > questions about.
> >
> > I'll double check the Further reading section, but I
> > don't remember lots of citations from earlier articles
> > by Griffiths & Thomas. At least I didn't say to
> > myself: "Gee, they seem to have rewritten their
> > articles into a book." I do remember thinking: "They
> > seem to have a good working relationship with Michael
> > K. Jones." They cite his work, and I half-way
> > remember a complementary reference to him in the text,
> > probably the acknowledgements.
> >
> > I also hope this isn't a historian-invented tradition.
> > If Buckingham's letter is being kept in a public
> > archive, it should be possible to cite, shouldn't it?
> > If it's in a private archive, couldn't it be cited
> > without invading the owner's privacy somehow?
> >
> > Marion
>
> My copy has just arrived. Looking at the further reading for that
> chapter, I see it has :
> 1) firstly, a book called "The Staffords, earls of Stafford and
dukes
> of Buckingham" by Carole Rawcliffe. That looks the most hopeful
> source, but unfortunately I have searched the net and there seem
to
> be no copies available. If Stephen is reading this, I wonder if he
> might have a copy. Otherwise, does anyone know a library near them
> that does?
> 2)Rosemary Horrox' PhD thesis on the patronage of Richard III- I
> imagine that is the base of her 'Study in Service' book and it
isn't
> mentioned in that
> 3)An article by Farrar & Sutton in Ricardian no 78 - just checked
> that. Very interesting, but no deal. It does, however, quote the
> relevant sections from the History of Shrewsbury that was the
other
> book quoted in Underwood & Jones' footnote, so it looks as though
> that can now be ruled out.
> 4)Several other works which are on non-Buckingham topics.
> My hunch would be that, if we have a date for this letter, the
source
> is not a chronicle or "history" but either the letter itself or an
> official reference to it - possibly the Act of Attainder against
> Buckingham?
> Unfortunately I can't get to view the Parliament Rolls in my part
of
> the world either.
> Can anyone help us out with either Parliament Rolls or Rawcliffe's
> book?
> However, you also hint that Griffiths & Thomas may have got the
info
> from Jones. I notice from his Margaret Beaufort bibliography that
he
> had an article included in a book edited by Ralph Griffiths in
1981.
>
> Failing all this, if anyone is seeing either of these people
speaking
> anywhere in the near future, could they possibly ask them the
> question? Ta.
>
> Marie

Hi, I used the Rawcliffe book earlier this year for my dissertation,
but do not recall anything about the letter, will have a look at it
on Monday when I go into Uni. As I an studying at the moment I also
have access to Rolls of Parliament so will have a look for the
attainder, that is what is in question isn't it? Whether there is
any mention of the letter from Buckingham to HT?
Will check back over the weekend to see if I have got this right.
Carole.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com

.
> >
> > Failing all this, if anyone is seeing either of these people
> speaking
> > anywhere in the near future, could they possibly ask them the
> > question? Ta.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Hi, I used the Rawcliffe book earlier this year for my
dissertation,
> but do not recall anything about the letter, will have a look at it
> on Monday when I go into Uni. As I an studying at the moment I
also
> have access to Rolls of Parliament so will have a look for the
> attainder, that is what is in question isn't it? Whether there is
> any mention of the letter from Buckingham to HT?
> Will check back over the weekend to see if I have got this right.
> Carole.

Excellent! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Marie

> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com

Carole wrote: As I an studying at the moment I
also have access to Rolls of Parliament so will have a
look for the attainder, that is what is in question
isn't it? Whether there is any mention of the letter
from Buckingham to HT? Will check back over the
weekend to see if I have got this right.

***

Thanks from me, as well, Carole.

Is it also possible for you to find out if the
original letter still exists in an archive somewhere?

I can't get over the feeling that the authors who
described it seemed to have read it for themselves.
But if they had, they should have given a clear
citation for its location. So maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks again,

Marion



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Paul wrote: Rawcliffe's book is very good from "our"
Buckingham's son onwards, as Edward was a great one
for keeping records. His father's records were
nearly all destroyed by his retainers on the collapse
of the rebellion, so whatever you hope to find in
Carol's book, don't hold your breathe as it isn't
there.
Paul

***

Did Rawcliffe find any records that support my
impression that Margaret Beaufort exploited Edward,
the 3rd duke, while he was her ward?

Jones and Underwood give a couple of examples in "The
King's Mother," and it would be interesting to compare
those to Rawcliffe's description of Margaret's
treatment of Edward while he was her ward.

TIA!

Marion



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

To be honest Marion I was researching an article on Henry Buckingham,
so didn't read in detail the later material, and don't recall much of
it. You will have to wait for someone else to answer your question I'm
afraid.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2004, at 15:57, marion davis wrote:

>
> Paul wrote: Rawcliffe's book is very good from "our"
> Buckingham's son onwards, as Edward was a great one
> for keeping records. His father's records were
> nearly all destroyed by his retainers on the collapse
> of the rebellion, so whatever you hope to find in
> Carol's book, don't hold your breathe as it isn't
> there.
> Paul
>
> ***
>
> Did Rawcliffe find any records that support my
> impression that Margaret Beaufort exploited Edward,
> the 3rd duke, while he was her ward?
>
> Jones and Underwood give a couple of examples in "The
> King's Mother," and it would be interesting to compare
> those to Rawcliffe's description of Margaret's
> treatment of Edward while he was her ward.
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you're never too old to launch your dreams

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Carole wrote: As I an studying at the moment I
> also have access to Rolls of Parliament so will have a
> look for the attainder, that is what is in question
> isn't it? Whether there is any mention of the letter
> from Buckingham to HT? Will check back over the
> weekend to see if I have got this right.
>
> ***
>
> Thanks from me, as well, Carole.
>
> Is it also possible for you to find out if the
> original letter still exists in an archive somewhere?
>
> I can't get over the feeling that the authors who
> described it seemed to have read it for themselves.
> But if they had, they should have given a clear
> citation for its location. So maybe I'm wrong.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Marion
>
>
If the above don't turn up the answer I have 2 things I could try -
I have a friend at the IHR with access to absolutely everything. His
health is poor so he may not be fast but I am sure he could find
something. Or I could ask Roger Lockyer, though as he is in France
for another month it wouldn't lead to immediate help, probably.
B
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

PS I could also try Stephen Gunn...?
B

Paul wrote: To be honest Marion I was researching an
article on Henry Buckingham, so didn't read in detail
the later material, and don't recall much of it. You
will have to wait for someone else to answer your
question I'm afraid.

***

Thanks for the lead, Paul. Hopefully I'll find a copy
sooner rather than later.

While I'm waiting, I'll mention a couple of things
I've found about the 2nd duke's letter to Henry Tudor.

There are two relevant quotes in "Richard III: the
Road to Bosworth Field," by P.W. Hammond and Anne F.
Sutton. One comes from the Croyland Chronicle. The
second comes from the Attainder of Buckingham and his
supporters. Hammond and Sutton cite "Rolls of
Parliament, v. y, pp. 244-9, quoted in the modernized
summary from C.A. Halstead, "Richard III as Duke of
Gloucester and King of England," London: 1844, 2nd v.,
pp. 546-48.

I've quoted the parts about Buckingham's "letter" to
Henry Tudor below.

1) from Croyland Chronicle: "... public proclamation
was made, that Henry, duke of Buckingham, who at this
time was living at Brecknock in Wales, had repented of
his former conduct, and would be the chief mover in
this attempt, while a rumour was spread that the sons
of king Edward before-named had died a violent death,
but it was uncertain how. Accordingly, all those who
had set foot on this insurrection, seeing that if they
could find no one to take the lead in their designs,
the ruin of all would speedily ensue, turned their
thoughts to Henry, earl of Richmond, who had been for
many years living in exile in Britany. To him a
message was, accordingly, sent, by the duke of
Buckingham, by advice of the lord bishop of Ely, who
was then his prisoner at Brecknock, requesting him to
hasten over to England as soon as he possibly could,
for the purpose of marrying Elizabeth, the eldest
daughter of the late king, and, at the same time,
together with her, taking possession of the throne."
[I've copied and pasted this from the online version
on r3.org]

2) "And also the said duke on the 24th September by
his several writings and messages by him sent,
procured and moved Henry calling himself Earl of
Richmond and Jasper late Earl of Pembroke being there
in Brittany, great enemies of our said sovereign lord,
to make a great navy and bring with them an army from
Brittany; by reason whereof the said Henry and Jasper
and their adherents came from Brittany with a navy and
army of strangers and landed." [I've copied this from
Halstead rather than Hammond and Sutton]

The Croyland quote says that Buckingham and his
supporters asked Henry Tudor to marry Elizabeth of
York and take the throne.

The attainder quote doesn't say who intended to take
the throne.

I'm looking forward to anything that Stephen and
Carole can find out about this.

TIA!

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Stephen wrote: I cannot exactly answer the question
either as I have taken Robinson back to the
library but he has a whole chapter on Edward: "The
Tragedy of the Third Duke".

Fascinating stuff - an alternative source for you?.

***

Thanks, Stephen! I'll look for it when I get back to
work next Wednesday.

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Brunhilde wrote: If the above don't turn up the answer
I have 2 things I could try - I have a friend at the
IHR with access to absolutely everything. His
health is poor so he may not be fast but I am sure he
could find something. Or I could ask Roger Lockyer,
though as he is in France for another month it
wouldn't lead to immediate help, probably.


PS I could also try Stephen Gunn...?
B

***

I'd be interested in anything you could find out. I
don't have any deadlines to meet, so I can wait for an
answer.

The more I think about this letter from Buckingham to
Henry Tudor, the more interested I become in finding
out where the original is, who has seen it, how I can
see a reproduction, and how it got from Henry Tudor in
Brittany to an archive.

If the original letter doesn't exist any more, how do
Griffiths & Thomas know that: "... when he wrote to
Henry on 24 September, he informed him that his own
rebellion would begin on 18 October and he invited him
to join in. He made no pretence of acknowledging Henry
as the next king of England or of welcoming his
marriage to Elizabeth of York."

Croyland says the opposite. How did Croyland know
what was in the letter by April of 1486?

Like Marie, I hope this letter doesn't turn out to be
a false lead.

Marion






_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

I have written to Dr Gunn, and my friend seems to think writing to
Carole Rawcliffe is the obvious step - so I am expecting her e addy
in his next mail! :-)
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> I have written to Dr Gunn, and my friend seems to think writing to
> Carole Rawcliffe is the obvious step - so I am expecting her e
addy
> in his next mail! :-)
> Brunhild

Dr Gunn has stunned me with the speed of his reply, quoted below:

"I don't think the letter from Buckingham survives or someone would
have made use of it. What we do know is that Henry was proclaimed
king in the South-West during the 1483 rebellion, so whether or not
Buckingham was thinking of taking the throne for himself some people
were certainly treating Henry as the claimant."

Brunhild

Marie,
did you get the book your ordered "A Study in Service" Rosemary
Horrox? Her details about Buckingham's rebellion were good, although
I can't remember much of what she wrote offhand, just that there was
a series of rebellions in the South and Buckingham was caught up in
these. She suggests that he might not have originally intended to
rebel. When you get the book could you remind me what she sums up
about his rebellion?
thanks
Mim

From: "Sandi du Plessis vwd1@...
Subject: Re: Plots.
> >
> > Failing all this, if anyone is seeing either of these people
> speaking anywhere in the near future, could they possibly ask them the
> > question? Ta.
> >
> > Marie
>
This is my contribution FWIW :
Buckingham's correspondence, so far as anyone can ascertain, is no longer
extant. We know of its existence thanks to a single reference in the Rolls
of Parliament, Vol 6, pp.244-9. The relevant text reference may be seen in
Halsted, vol 2, pp.546-8, or more recently in Hammond and Sutton's Richard
III: The Road to Bosworth Field, p.162 (the footnote reference here is
erroneously given as 150 instead of 130). The passage appears in the Act of
Attainder of the October rebels, and reads as follows: "And also the said
duke [i.e. Buckingham] on the 24th September by his several writings and
messages by him sent, procured and moved Henry calling himself Earl of
Richmond and Jasper late Earl of Pembroke being there in Brittany, great
enemies of our said sovereign lord, to make a great navy and bring with them
an army from Brittany."

That is all we know of Buckingham's writings to Henry Tudor. The rest is
pure surmise, including the assertion that he mentioned the date of 18
October. The Rolls of Parliament mention the date 18 October in connection
with the activities of Buckingham and a list of other named persons, but not
in connection with the Tudors.

Regards
Sandi



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I have written to Dr Gunn, and my friend seems to think writing
to
> > Carole Rawcliffe is the obvious step - so I am expecting her e
> addy
> > in his next mail! :-)
> > Brunhild
>
> Dr Gunn has stunned me with the speed of his reply, quoted below:
>
> "I don't think the letter from Buckingham survives or someone would
> have made use of it. What we do know is that Henry was proclaimed
> king in the South-West during the 1483 rebellion, so whether or not
> Buckingham was thinking of taking the throne for himself some
people
> were certainly treating Henry as the claimant."
>
> Brunhild

Hmm. Sorry again. I know I've read about this Weobley business in one
of these books just in the last week, and we know he called all the
local gentry to him there and addressed them, and author of said book
surmised that he had proclaimed himself king, but it suggested there
is no direct evidence for this. I'll have to hunt this out.

The ultimate source may be this 'History of Shrewsbury' thing. This
contains a reproduction of a document which survives in a 1575 copy
among the Stafford Manuscripts. "It was written for Duke Edward years
after the rebellion by Lady Elizabeth Delabere, second wife of Sir
Richard, who describes herself as a 'servant'in her future husband's
household at Kynardsley, Herefordshire, in 1483. From other sources
she can be identified as Elizabeth, daughter of William Mores,
Serjeant of the Hall to Henry VII." ('The Duke of Buckingham's Sons,
October 1483-August 1485', Peter B. Farrer and Anne Sutton, Ricardian
no 78, 1982, p87). The article gives very interesting quotations from
this document, and it's a must for anyone interested in Buckingham's
son:

"A copy of an old role of paper found out in the threasory at
Thornbery Castle amons the evidences there, mensis Julii anno xxi,
1579.

Memorandum: the seconde yeare of King Richard the Thirde Duke Henrie
of Buckingham came from Brecknocke to Weoblie and with him brought my
Ladie, his wyfe, my Lorde Stafforde and my Lorde Henrie, and there
taried one weeke and send for the gentelmen of the countrey unto him
and when he had spoken with them departed thens. My Lorde his father
made him a frysse coat, and at his departing he delivered his sonne
and heyre to Sir Richard Delabeare knight for to kepe untill he sent
for him by a token, etc, et tu es Petrus et super hanc petram."

The rest is far too long to quote, but it tells how young Stafford
was delivered to Delabere in the park at Weobley and went with hin,
William Knyvet & 'Mistress Cliffe' to Kynardsley, where Sir Richard
Delabeare's servant Dame Elizabeth Delabeare took the lad on her arms
and carried him him into a chamber (it sounds as if he'd fallen
asleep).
She tells how, while the Duke was at Weobley, Brecon was robbed under
the leadership of the Vaughans, awho carried 'the younger ladies and
gentlewomen' off to Tretower. Then the proclamation offering rewards
for Buckingham, his sons & Knyvett. "And then there was great search
made where this company was become".
After Buckingham was taken, the Vaughans made a search for Stafford
and Knyvett. "In the meantime she [Elizabeth Belabeare] shaved the
said Lord Stafford's head and put upon him a maiden's raiment and so
conveyed him out of Kynardsely to Newchurch." With her on all her
journeys with the boy was one William ap Simon - sounds a familiar
sort of name doesn't it? So when Tyrell's man Sir Christopher
Wellesborne came to Kynardsley they couldn't find him. Wellesborne
then went to Weobley "and fat my Ladie of Buckingham and brought her
to the King to London".
Lord Stafford was then smuggled back to Kynardsley. However, they
then got warning that Richard's man, David Glyn Morgan, was on his
way, so they took Stafford by night "to a place called Adeley, the
parish of Kynnardsely, and there rested four days. The very day after
they got him out David Glyn Morgan arrived and arrested Sir Richard
Delabeare until he should deliver the boy up. However, they had to
take the boy back to Kynardsley as they were having problems getting
food out to him. He was there another week until 'there came a great
cry out of Wales', so Elizabeth picked the boy up again and took him
through a brook into Kynardsley Park. Then, after meeting Simon they
went on to Hereford, "and he [Stafford] riding behinde William ap
Symon asyde upon a pillowe like a gentel woman. . . and I wisse he
made the fearest gentelwoman and the best that ever she had in her
daies or ever shall have". Anywat, there they left him in the house
of a widow friend of Elizabeth Delabeare.

A problem with all this is that Buckingham's sons were not mentioned
in the reward proclamation and were of course too young to be wanted
as rebels. There is no doubt a lot of hindsight exaggeration in the
account, but I think it is probably the source for the Weaobley
proclamation. If there is any truth in it all, it does suggest that
Richard and the stafford connection both felt it was vital to keep
Buckingham's heir themselves - that itself may suggest the Duke had
claimed the throne. I guess if Richard didn't know where Buckingham's
heir was in January 1484 that would be one reason he might not want
to give publicity to Buckinghma's pretensions to the throne.

By the way the reference for the book is 'A History of Shrewsbury',
Hugh Owen & JB Blakeway, 1825.

Marie

PS. That bit about Buckingham making his son a frieze coat - I have
visions of the duke innocently sitting in the parlour bent over his
his sewing.

>-- Original Message --
>To:
>From: "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...>
>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:42:20 -0000
>Subject: Re: Plots
>Reply-To:
>
>
>
><html><body>
>
>
><tt>
><BR>
>--- In , "brunhild613" <BR>
><brunhild613@y...> wrote:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> --- In , "brunhild613"
><BR>
>> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:<BR>
>> > <BR>
>> > I have written to Dr Gunn, and my friend seems to think writing
><BR>
>to <BR>
>> > Carole Rawcliffe is the obvious step - so I am expecting her e
><BR>
>> addy <BR>
>> > in his next mail! :-)<BR>
>> > Brunhild<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Dr Gunn has stunned me with the speed of his reply, quoted below:<BR>
>> <BR>
>> "I don't think the letter from Buckingham survives or someone would
><BR>
>> have made use of it. What we do know is that Henry was proclaimed <BR>
>> king in the South-West during the 1483 rebellion, so whether or not
><BR>
>> Buckingham was thinking of taking the throne for himself some <BR>
>people <BR>
>> were certainly treating Henry as the claimant."<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Brunhild<BR>
><BR>
>Hmm. Sorry again. I know I've read about this Weobley business in one <BR>
>of these books just in the last week, and we know he called all the <BR>
>local gentry to him there and addressed them, and author of said book <BR>
>surmised that he had proclaimed himself king, but it suggested there <BR>
>is no direct evidence for this. I'll have to hunt this out.<BR>
><BR>
>The ultimate source may be this 'History of Shrewsbury' thing. This <BR>
>contains a reproduction of a document which survives in a 1575 copy <BR>
>among the Stafford Manuscripts. "It was written for Duke Edward years
><BR>
>after the rebellion by Lady Elizabeth Delabere, second wife of Sir <BR>
>Richard, who describes herself as a 'servant'in her future husband's <BR>
>household at Kynardsley, Herefordshire, in 1483. From other sources <BR>
>she can be identified as Elizabeth, daughter of William Mores, <BR>
>Serjeant of the Hall to Henry VII." ('The Duke of Buckingham's Sons,
><BR>
>October 1483-August 1485', Peter B. Farrer and Anne Sutton, Ricardian <BR>
>no 78, 1982, p87). The article gives very interesting quotations from <BR>
>this document, and it's a must for anyone interested in Buckingham's <BR>
>son:<BR>
><BR>
>"A copy of an old role of paper found out in the threasory at <BR>
>Thornbery Castle amons the evidences there, mensis Julii anno xxi, <BR>
>1579.<BR>
><BR>
>Memorandum: the seconde yeare of King Richard the Thirde Duke Henrie <BR>
>of Buckingham came from Brecknocke to Weoblie and with him brought my <BR>
>Ladie, his wyfe, my Lorde Stafforde and my Lorde Henrie, and there <BR>
>taried one weeke and send for the gentelmen of the countrey unto him <BR>
>and when he had spoken with them departed thens. My Lorde his father <BR>
>made him a frysse coat, and at his departing he delivered his sonne <BR>
>and heyre to Sir Richard Delabeare knight for to kepe untill he sent <BR>
>for him by a token, etc, et tu es Petrus et super hanc petram."<BR>
><BR>
>The rest is far too long to quote, but it tells how young Stafford <BR>
>was delivered to Delabere in the park at Weobley and went with hin, <BR>
>William Knyvet & 'Mistress Cliffe' to Kynardsley, where Sir Richard <BR>
>Delabeare's servant Dame Elizabeth Delabeare took the lad on her arms <BR>
>and carried him him into a chamber (it sounds as if he'd fallen <BR>
>asleep).<BR>
>She tells how, while the Duke was at Weobley, Brecon was robbed under <BR>
>the leadership of the Vaughans,  awho carried 'the younger ladies and
><BR>
>gentlewomen' off to Tretower. Then the proclamation offering rewards <BR>
>for Buckingham, his sons & Knyvett. "And then there was great search
><BR>
>made where this company was become".<BR>
> After Buckingham was taken, the Vaughans made a search for Stafford <BR>
>and Knyvett. "In the meantime she [Elizabeth Belabeare] shaved the <BR>
>said Lord Stafford's head and put upon him a maiden's raiment and so <BR>
>conveyed him out of Kynardsely to Newchurch." With her on all her <BR>
>journeys with the boy was one William ap Simon - sounds a familiar <BR>
>sort of name doesn't it? So when Tyrell's man Sir Christopher <BR>
>Wellesborne came to Kynardsley they couldn't find him. Wellesborne <BR>
>then went to Weobley "and fat my Ladie of Buckingham and brought her
><BR>
>to the King to London". <BR>
>Lord Stafford was then smuggled back to Kynardsley. However, they <BR>
>then got warning that Richard's man, David Glyn Morgan, was on his <BR>
>way, so they took Stafford by night "to a place called Adeley, the <BR>
>parish of Kynnardsely, and there rested four days. The very day after <BR>
>they got him out David Glyn Morgan arrived and arrested Sir Richard <BR>
>Delabeare until he should deliver the boy up. However, they had to <BR>
>take the boy back to Kynardsley as they were having problems getting <BR>
>food out to him. He was there another week until 'there came a great <BR>
>cry out of Wales', so Elizabeth picked the boy up again and took him <BR>
>through a brook into Kynardsley Park. Then, after meeting Simon they <BR>
>went on to Hereford, "and he [Stafford] riding behinde William ap <BR>
>Symon asyde upon a pillowe like a gentel woman. . . and I wisse he <BR>
>made the fearest gentelwoman and the best that ever she had in her <BR>
>daies or ever shall have". Anywat, there they left him in the house
><BR>
>of a widow friend of Elizabeth Delabeare.<BR>
><BR>
>A problem with all this is that Buckingham's sons were not mentioned <BR>
>in the reward proclamation and were of course too young to be wanted <BR>
>as rebels. There is no doubt a lot of hindsight exaggeration in the <BR>
>account, but I think it is probably the source for the Weaobley <BR>
>proclamation. If there is any truth in it all, it does suggest that <BR>
>Richard and the stafford connection both felt it was vital to keep <BR>
>Buckingham's heir themselves - that itself may suggest the Duke had <BR>
>claimed the throne. I guess if Richard didn't know where Buckingham's <BR>
>heir was in January 1484 that would be one reason he might not want <BR>
>to give publicity to Buckinghma's pretensions to the throne.<BR>
><BR>
>By the way the reference for the book is 'A History of Shrewsbury', <BR>
>Hugh Owen & JB Blakeway, 1825.<BR>
><BR>
>Marie<BR>
><BR>
>PS. That bit about Buckingham making his son a frieze coat - I have <BR>
>visions of the duke innocently sitting in the parlour bent over his <BR>
>his sewing. <BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
></tt>
>
>
><br>
>
><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
><table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
><tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
><td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
></tr>
><tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
><td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
<tr> <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129d4vi8n/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=1705297333:HM/EXP=1097671349/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html"
target="_blank"><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_domain/lrec_scuba_082004.jpg"
alt="click here" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table>
</td>
></tr>
><tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=:HM/A=2376776/rand=140817109"></td></tr>
></table>
>
><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
>
><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
><br>
><tt><hr width="500">
><b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
><ul>
><li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group//">http://groups.yahoo.com/group//</a><br> 
><li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe">[email protected]</a><br> 
><li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo!
Terms of Service</a>.
></ul>
></tt>
></br>
>
><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
></body></html>
>
>
>
"Lord Stafford" (Edward, later 3rd Duke) was 5 at the time, "Lord Henrie"
(later Earl of Wiltshire) was younger. Anne (later Hastings, Francis of
Huntingdon's mother) was 1.

Stephen

__________________________________________________________________
Get Tiscali Broadband From £15:99
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadbandhome/

I've borrowed a copy of Rawcliffe's "The Staffords,
earls of Stafford and dukes of Buckingham."

I've read and re-read the second chapter, titled "The
second and third dukes of Buckingham, 1460-1521." I
can't find anything about a letter from the duke of
Buckingham to Henry Tudor.

On pp. 31-32 Rawcliffe writes: "These overwhelming
marks of royal favour make it all the harder to
understand Buckingham's sudden decision to join forces
with his aunt, Lady Margaret Beaufort, and a group of
disgruntled Yorkists in a rebellion against the King.
By agreeing to place Lady Margaret's son, Henry Tudor,
on the throne, he perhaps hoped to conceal his own
plans for a coup d'etat. ... Far from recognizing
Henry Tudor's superior title [Buckingham] seems to
have regarded the young claimant as a pawn in his own
manoeuvres to seize the throne."

Unfortunately, Rawcliffe doesn't footnote these
statements or explain why she thinks this.

I'd like to know more about how she formed this
opinion.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com