Ed Loved Lucy?

Hello, All --

Forgive my ageing brain's follies, but I've become somewhat interested in the woman commonly, though perhaps mistakenly, known as "Elizabeth Lucy", Edward's mistress who Thomas More conflated with Eleanor Talbot/Butler.

From what I understand, per Hicks and also per something I can't for the life of me find right now, the Lucy most likely to have been Ned's, erm, "love" was one Margaret Lucy, the young widow of Sir William Lucy, of Dallington in Northants. (He is not to be confused with his near-contemporary, Sir William Lucy of Charlcote, who himself left a widow named Agnes.) She had a child who became Lady Lumley.

I'm fascinated by how Edward's ladyfriends seem to keep getting renamed. First it's Elizabeth Lambert/Shore becoming "Jane Shore", then it's Margaret Lucy becoming "Elizabeth Lucy". Was Lizzy Lambert confused with Maggie Lucy at one point?

Tamara (who resisted the urge to a YouTube link to the "I Love Lucy" theme)

Words elude me for the moment. http://www.broadwayworld.com/toronto/article/Kadozuke-Kollektif-Presents-the-World-Premiere-of-RICHARD-III-PLEASURES-OF-VIOLENCE-910-28-20140909# Sandra =^..^=

As Sir Thomas More got so much wrong, why do some misguided authors think him infallible?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Hello, All --

Forgive my ageing brain's follies, but I've become somewhat interested in the woman commonly, though perhaps mistakenly, known as "Elizabeth Lucy", Edward's mistress who Thomas More conflated with Eleanor Talbot/Butler.

From what I understand, per Hicks and also per something I can't for the life of me find right now, the Lucy most likely to have been Ned's, erm, "love" was one Margaret Lucy, the young widow of Sir William Lucy, of Dallington in Northants.  (He is not to be confused with his near-contemporary, Sir William Lucy of Charlcote, who himself left a widow named Agnes.)  She had a child who became Lady Lumley.

I'm fascinated by how Edward's ladyfriends seem to keep getting renamed.  First it's Elizabeth Lambert/Shore becoming "Jane Shore", then it's Margaret Lucy becoming "Elizabeth Lucy".  Was Lizzy Lambert confused with Maggie Lucy at one point?

Tamara (who resisted the urge to a YouTube link to the "I Love Lucy" theme)

I've just finished Richard lll The Great Debate...a beautiful 2nd hand Folio Society edition in beautiful condition and as cheap as chips..but I digress....which as everyone will know, edited by Paul Kendall, is the debate on More's version of events and Walpole's (God bless him..) stout rebuttal of the same and defence of Richard. Now...I thought before I begun to read More's History...I use the term loosely..never having read it before in it's entirety that I would end hurling it at the wall...au contraire...I found it so hilariously funny I found myself chucking aloud on several occasions. For example..More's knowledge of EVERYTHING that was going on in EVERYONE'S heads at the time. He knows for instance, that Richard sent a knight to make sure Hastings made it to the Tower that morning of the 13th June ..on the trip there Hastings horse stumbled a couple of times which of course is an indication of bad luck heading ones way. Hastings, poor sap, goes merrily on his way, conversing with a priest on route whereupon the knight comments 'whereto you talk so long to that priest. You have no need of a priest yet' while laughing because he of course knew that Hastings would be needing one imminently..Hastings then meets another chap also called Hastings and asks him if he remembered the last time he had met him when he had had such a heavy heart..however all was well now and lo he had never in his life been so merry..Hilarious. Pages and pages of speeches made by EW and Bucks...how modern historians have based their perceptions of Richard on this is beyond me...But there you go...Eileen

By the way...in Walpole's Historic Doubts he touches on the story that Richard dissed his mother by allowing her to be publicly accused of being an adulteress and deals with it thus...'THAT the tale of Richard aspersing the chastity of his own mother is incredible, it appearing that he lived with her in perfect harmony and lodged with her in her palace at that very time'...Other points Walpole makes also, well to me, make perfect sense such as: THAT it is as little credible that Richard gained the throne by a sermon of Dr Shaa and a speech by the DoB if the people only laughed at those orators. THAT the story of Sir James Tyrell as related by More is a notorious falsehood, Sir James being at that time master of the horse, in which capacity he had walked at Richards coronation. THAT the execution of Hastings, who had first engaged with Richard against the queen and whom More confesses that Richard was loath to lose, can be accounted for by nothing but absolute necessity and the law of self-defence... and so forth. I thoroughly recommend this book to anyone who has not read it yet....Eileen

Yes..especially one those days you walk into a room for some reason and cannot for the life of you remember what....

Oh, I am in great company&. Bill Cosby said at fifty your remember button is on your bottom. Just as your behind hits the chair, you remember.!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 8:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Ed Loved Lucy?

There are too many of those days to count. If I could remember how to count.

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:22 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Ed Loved Lucy?

Yes..especially one those days you walk into a room for some reason and cannot for the life of you remember what....

There's perhaps a combination of factors at work: the sainthood bolstering his credibility (perhaps truer in the mid part of the last century than now); a lack of understanding of Renaissance literary forms; a paucity of documentary evidence leading historians to put undue weight on whatever scraps are available; and a belief, inculcated through five centuries of tradition that, even if More exaggerated, he must surely be starting from a kernel of truth. And, above all the, the writing is classy and persuasive, seducing people, almost despite themselves, to think of it as journalism.
Jonathan

From: "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2014, 12:43
Subject: Re: Ed Loved Lucy?

As Sir Thomas More got so much wrong, why do some misguided authors think him infallible? Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: khafara@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Ed Loved Lucy?
Sent: Thu, Sep 11, 2014 3:53:33 AM

Hello, All --
Forgive my ageing brain's follies, but I've become somewhat interested in the woman commonly, though perhaps mistakenly, known as "Elizabeth Lucy", Edward's mistress who Thomas More conflated with Eleanor Talbot/Butler.
From what I understand, per Hicks and also per something I can't for the life of me find right now, the Lucy most likely to have been Ned's, erm, "love" was one Margaret Lucy, the young widow of Sir William Lucy, of Dallington in Northants. (He is not to be confused with his near-contemporary, Sir William Lucy of Charlcote, who himself left a widow named Agnes.) She had a child who became Lady Lumley.
I'm fascinated by how Edward's ladyfriends seem to keep getting renamed. First it's Elizabeth Lambert/Shore becoming "Jane Shore", then it's Margaret Lucy becoming "Elizabeth Lucy". Was Lizzy Lambert confused with Maggie Lucy at one point?
Tamara (who resisted the urge to a YouTube link to the "I Love Lucy" theme)

Sorry, Marie - I wasn't here back in the day so I had no idea it was your theory first!

I also wasn't referring to any of JAH's theories, myself. I agree with you on that, actually.

You're probably right - I was just going by old genealogical texts that name Elizabeth Percy (daughter of Sir Henry Percy of Athol) as the second wife of that same Sir William Lucy who died in the Battle of Northampton.

Hi Pansy,

I'm actually not that fussed to get the credit for the Margaret Lucy theory - more concerned that it gets given its due weight and isn't ridiculed just because Michael Hicks is unpopular with Ricardians.

From memory, Vergil and More refer to her between them as Elizabeth Lucy and Lady Lucy. No Lady Elizabeth Lucy has ever been turned up, which suggests that Vergil and More don't have it 100% accurate between them, and either 1) She was plain Elizabeth Lucy, which obviously leaves the field wide open, or 2) she was Lady Lucy but not named Elizabeth. There was only one Lady Lucy at the time who was decently widowed, and that was Margaret FitzLewis, and she does seem such a good candidate, even down to the fact that her mother is mentioned in some source - can't remember what now - as having been extremely beautiful.

Marie

Hilary wrote:

"Just to add even more fog to this, Sir William Lucy of Dallington seems to have had three wives - Margaret Neville (died circa 1433), Elizabeth Percy (died circa 1436 - the one I was referring to) and Margaret Fitzlewis, who is our likely candidate. As you say, forget Lucy of Charlecote. But some genealogies on the web have Lucy of Dallington married to an Elizabeth Wayte - I can't find her. Is this from JAH and Hicks?"

Marie replies:

You would do better to read Hicks (it's in his 'Edward V') than the internet genealogies! This is all confused. I don't know about Margaret Neville, but on some websites at least she is given Margaret FitzLewis' year of death so there is certainly confusion abroad. It is almost certain that Margaret FitzLewis was not Sir William's first wife as she would have been a generation younger than him.

You say 'forget Lucy of Charlcote' but you haven't - Elizabeth Percy was *his* first wife. There is huge confusion on websites between the two Sir William Lucys - I myself shared that confusion for a long while. It doesn't help that they were both midlanders.

If you see an Elizabeth Wayte married to Lucy of anywhere, that is definitely taken from either JAH or Buck. Michael Hicks clearly states that he failed to find any evidence of her existence so he certainly isn't to blame.

Hilary, I think we're the same kind of crazy. ;)

I personally think the Lex Luthor you're looking for is a convergence of many different people with many different interests& You have Louis XI and MB (and her mother: I have come to realise just how important Margaret Beauchamp of Bletso is in this puzzle), but then you'd also have Margaret of Anjou and other people with permanent chips on their shoulders, and many different foreign interests and many different local interests - and also rapidly changing interests and rival interests, and, and& when you've got some kind of a Master Plan that spans a period of several years, the plan is bound to change many times in the course of the years.

You'd also have to wonder whether the destruction of Clarence was part of the plan, or an unintended consequence of the plan (at least for the time being), or something else entirely. And if something else, then what?

It's not like the Church would have had uniform interests, either: the Knights of Malta would have had different interests from Morton's, and Morton would have had different interests from Stillington's, and Stillington would have had different interests from the Pope's& You'd have churchmen who were loyal to their own family first and foremost, churchmen who were loyal to a cause, or an order, or a country, or only to themselves. Hard to tease out an overarching motive in all of this.

I don't know& the more I think about all this, the more esoteric it all seems. I mean, the image becomes clearer, but what the image actually represents turns out to be the real puzzle.

I suppose one thing is for sure, though: those who had the biggest motive to hold on to the Lancastrian dream through the bleakest years of the 1470s would be those with the most fanatical sense of revenge (the Earl of Oxford, Margaret of Anjou, et al?), and those who had most to fear (like the French?). Those who simply hoped to gain from it would have had plenty of time to go with the flow (as most of them did) and possibly deposit some of their eggs in both baskets. You'd only have to look at the French nobles in Normandy in the 1440s for an example in cautious but effective double-dealing.

Pansy

Hilary, I think we're the same kind of crazy. ;)

I personally think the Lex Luthor you're looking for is a convergence of many different people with many different interests& You have Louis XI and MB (and her mother: I have come to realise just how important Margaret Beauchamp of Bletso is in this puzzle), but then you'd also have Margaret of Anjou and other people with permanent chips on their shoulders, and many different foreign interests and many different local interests - and also rapidly changing interests and rival interests, and, and& when you've got some kind of a Master Plan that spans a period of several years, the plan is bound to change many times in the course of the years.

You'd also have to wonder whether the destruction of Clarence was part of the plan, or an unintended consequence of the plan (at least for the time being), or something else entirely. And if something else, then what?

It's not like the Church would have had uniform interests, either: the Knights of Malta would have had different interests from Morton's, and Morton would have had different interests from Stillington's, and Stillington would have had different interests from the Pope's& You'd have churchmen who were loyal to their own family first and foremost, churchmen who were loyal to a cause, or an order, or a country, or only to themselves. Hard to tease out an overarching motive in all of this.

I don't know& the more I think about all this, the more esoteric it all seems. I mean, the image becomes clearer, but what the image actually represents turns out to be the real puzzle.

I suppose one thing is for sure, though: those who had the biggest motive to hold on to the Lancastrian dream through the bleakest years of the 1470s would be those with the most fanatical sense of revenge (the Earl of Oxford, Margaret of Anjou, et al?), and those who had most to fear (like the French?). Those who simply hoped to gain from it would have had plenty of time to go with the flow (as most of them did) and possibly deposit some of their eggs in both baskets. You'd only have to look at the French nobles in Normandy in the 1440s for an example in cautious but effective double-dealing.

Pansy

Hilary wrote,

"As I said I'm not greatly into the Elizabeth Lucy story other than the fact that our Arthur seems to end up in Talbot and Grey territory again. I have Sir William Lucy Charlecote's wife as Elizabeth Grey of Ruthin. I do know a bit more about his family which seems nicely intertwined with Northants plotters, later on anyway.

Oh, Marie, I'm not sure I had a point, really - or if I did, it didn't have anything to do with Elizabeth Lucy.

I suppose it's just that even though Margaret FitzLewis as Edward's mistress is perfectly plausible and convincing to me, it's still 'only' speculation. As is pretty much all we're doing as well, really. And I certainly couldn't see Hicks ever being convinced by any of the speculation I've jotted down in my multiple notebooks& no matter how much circumstantial evidence I gather, it would still be only circumstantial.

I agree that the Ricardian community has its own deeply-held myths and beliefs, but we're still a small minority. On the whole, I definitely do think that if we tried to put forth any interesting and well-argued speculations to a non-Ricardian audience, they'd be scrutinised and quickly torn apart. Call me a pessimist if you like, though. I'd love to be proven wrong one day. :)

Sometimes it does feel like understanding the workings of this era is like trying to explain the current crisis in Ukraine on the basis a bunch of unrelated inquisitions post mortem, Putin's family tree, a copy of a speech made by Obama, and a few scattered issues of Daily Mail. But I suppose that's why it fascinates me so endlessly.

Pansy

Indeed, Hilary - though of course there are other affiliations as well, like all those deeds you've looked into, and of course religious orders, professional connections, etc. E.g. how Morton was associated with some of the key players (e.g. Knyvetts, Daubeney) through Lincoln's Inn in the 1470s& it's intriguing to ponder whether he was the instrument that allied Knyvett with Buckingham so closely. Or perhaps it was the other way round?

I actually don't think HT was an accidental choice, but at the same time, I don't think he was everybody's choice either. I tend to think HT was the choice of Margaret of Anjou and that cliched it in the end. Yet another thing I can never prove& sigh.

Then you'd have to account for all the people who were anti-Edward rather than anti-York, per se. Strange as it may sound, someone like Oxford probably wasn't a natural supporter of HT. There are those hints of a long-standing hidden connection between Oxford and Clarence, too. You might even argue (as James Ross has done) that possibly Oxford's famous escape attempt was actually a suicide attempt, when he heard Clarence had died, and thus thought his last hope of deliverance was gone&

I think Oxford was a huge missed opportunity for Richard, but by the time he sat on the throne, I suppose there was nothing he could have done about it. The connection would had to have been cultivated much earlier, and it was a connection Richard couldn't possibly have cultivated whilst Edward was alive.

Sad, though. Oxford was so like Richard in many ways (though more fanatical). They'd probably have been friends in a different universe.

Pansy

Pansy wrote:

"

I suppose it's just that even though Margaret FitzLewis as Edward's mistress is perfectly plausible and convincing to me, it's still 'only' speculation. As is pretty much all we're doing as well, really. And I certainly couldn't see Hicks ever being convinced by any of the speculation I've jotted down in my multiple notebooks& no matter how much circumstantial evidence I gather, it would still be only circumstantial.

I agree that the Ricardian community has its own deeply-held myths and beliefs, but we're still a small minority. On the whole, I definitely do think that if we tried to put forth any interesting and well-argued speculations to a non-Ricardian audience, they'd be scrutinised and quickly torn apart. Call me a pessimist if you like, though. I'd love to be proven wrong one day. :)"

Marie:

Well, I think I've already shown that novel speculations, and old chestnuts that are simply provably inaccurate, are got away by Ricardians a lot of the time. I wrote a long post about this earlier today but accidentally lost it, so I'll make this as short as possible. History is not the few incontrovertible facts we have - they don't give us the story. History is a combination of research and interpretation. It is an art, not a science. In that sense it is pretty much *all* speculation. But not all speculations are of equal value. This is where we come down to phrases such as "evaluation of sources" that history courses like to claim they teach, but even evaluation of sources is only part of it.

There is a world of difference between speculation that is mere daydream and a rationally evaluated interpretation of the known facts. You could almost put a percentage score to any particular piece of speculation based on the soundness of the sources, the adherence of said speculation to the social and legal norms of the time, the number and relative plausibility of other possible interpretations, and whether there are known facts that don't fit so comfortably with the theory which have been ignored.

With the Lady Lucy thing, for instance, either the Elizabeth or the Lady has to be wrong or a Lady Elizabeth Lucy would have turned up in the records. If we assume the Lady is right, as she seems to have been remembered in early Tudor times as a toff, then the question is: how many possible candidates are there, and how well does each fit the necessary criteria? To date nobody has managed to identify another serious contender so, as speculations go, the Margaret FitzLewis one must score a fairly high percentage rating. As I don't know your own theories I obviously can't judge them.

Great theory, Hilary - though I suppose, in the name of fairness, we don't know exactly how bright Buckingham was or wasn't&

I can't help but wonder: would someone who seems to have been good at manipulating people be so gullible himself?

Somehow I feel like it's more likely he knew exactly what he was going on - had known it for a long time - and either (a) really was loyal to MB and their lot (imagine that!), or (b) was hoping to pull off some kind of a long con - use MB's connections, wait until HT had invaded and then hope to destabilise things and swoop in to claim the ultimate prize.

I don't know what I think, to be honest. Somehow I just don't feel that Buckingham was quite the dumb puppet he's often made out to be.

Pansy

Hi David, Pansy, Hilary, Mary and Carol,

Just a general agreement with a lot of David's points. It's always dangerous to trawl the history books wearing one's hindsight lenses. There is good evidence that during Edward IV's reign Margaret Beaufort was hoping to entice Henry home, and in 1482 she actually brokered an official deal with Edward IV about it. The person holding out at that period was Henry, not his mother. And, yes, the likelihood that Anne of Brittany would have been Edward V's queen, would have been an important consideration, and there is evidence that MB assisted the earliest known plot to restore Edward V, in furtherance of which she had written to Henry and Jasper and other lords in Brittany.

I also agree that, if anyone poisoned Edward IV, the likeliest culprit would Louis XI. But Collins' evidence for poisoning really is made of vapour - dissipates under the heat of scrutiny.

Best,

Marie

Pansy, Hilary Mary and Carol,

I wonder why MB is always automatically included in the enemies of the House of York. I was re-reading Helen Maurer the other day, and a similar logical error was made in her article Whodunit.

The fact that Margaret had a motive for the deaths of the Princes was assumed in that piece without question. In fact, it seemed that the motive was so strong that the questions of means and opportunity were not addressed.

It seems to be taken as read that MB would have been happy to see Edward V, his brother and Richard out of the way in order to clear the way for Henry.

However, one fact that is seldom if ever mentioned in the context of MB and the Princes and the House of York is the engagement of Edward V and Anne of Brittany. Henry was being held in the same household that Anne was growing up in. The few reports that we have from Henry's exile indicate that he was well regarded by the Breton court.

So while Edward IV was alive, it is unlikely that Henry would have voluntarily returned to England after the death of Exeter and his own attempted abduction in 1476. However, after his death, MB must have viewed Edward V's marriage to Anne as Henry's ticket home in safety. A Woodville educated Edward with Anne as Queen would surely have been a welcoming prospect for Henry.

So while Maurer is correct in stating that getting her son home safely was MB's prime objective, she is entirely wrong in stating that his safest way of achieving this was at the head of an invading army - especially, given Henry's total lack of experience in warfare; not to mention the absence of the said army.

While Edward V was alive and king, MB would have wanted him to stay that way. Once deposed, she must then have supported any attempt at reinstatement as providing Henry with better prospects of returning safely.

Of course it is too easy to look at 1483 to 1485 and assume it was part of a clever plot. But looking at things as they stood on the death of Edward IV, none of the intervening steps were predictable.

I used to think that Louis could have had him poisoned because he knew he was dying himself and he did not want a strong England while France had a child king. However, reading Commynes on the death of Edward, he only says that he was greatly saddened. You would perhaps have expected a hint of some other reaction if it was something he had engineered.

Kind regards
David



From: pansydobersby ;
To: ;
Subject: Re: Ed Loved Lucy?
Sent: Wed, Sep 17, 2014 3:22:15 PM

Great theory, Hilary - though I suppose, in the name of fairness, we don't know exactly how bright Buckingham was or wasn't&

I can't help but wonder: would someone who seems to have been good at manipulating people be so gullible himself?

Somehow I feel like it's more likely he knew exactly what he was going on - had known it for a long time - and either (a) really was loyal to MB and their lot (imagine that!), or (b) was hoping to pull off some kind of a long con - use MB's connections, wait until HT had invaded and then hope to destabilise things and swoop in to claim the ultimate prize.

I don't know what I think, to be honest. Somehow I just don't feel that Buckingham was quite the dumb puppet he's often made out to be.

Pansy


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Mary wrote:

Rivers "asks Dynham to send him the confirmation of his right to raise troops in Wales and asks him to give his authority as Deputy Constable of the Tower to the Marquis of Dorset. He had no right to give this to Dorset only Edward could give this authority."

Marie:

Are you sure this is right? It was normal for people to be granted offices to perform "by themselves or by their sufficient deputy" (in Latin), so I was under the impression that office holders appointed their own deputies if they felt they needed one. I don't know what evidence we have for how Rivers was appointed Deputy Constable of the Tower. If there isn't a royal grant to him, then I would assume he had directly appointed by the Constable Lord Dudley, and that whether he could pass the job on to a third party would depend on the terms of his appointment by Dudley. Even if no formal royal authorization was required, it may still be that Rivers and Dorset had discussed and okayed this with Edward before Rivers left court.

I wrote:

"he'd taken the young blighter down with him for the and perhaps it had proved a difficult experience"

I correct myself:

That should have read "down with him for the parliament".

Yes. Thank goodness SOME people have heard of evidence.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 September 2014 21:20
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ed Loved Lucy?

Thanks for this Marie. Evidence as usual.

Mary

Hi Carol,

I was really passing on Ives' remarks, and he was talking about Richard's strike against Rivers et al at Northampton/ Stony Stratford. Ives suggests that in the light of Rivers' letters Richard's claims that the Woodvilles had been attempting to move against him, which he had forestalled, looks a lot more credible.

The coincidence of Rivers' moves to augment Woodville power with Edward's death may not have been entirely an accident but the causation may have been the other way about. If Edward's death was not as sudden as Crowland claims - ie if he had been looking very ill that winter - then Rivers' actions may actually have been prompted by fear of Edward's death.

Richard seems to have known that Dorset was in control of the Tower by the time he reached St Albans because, if my memory serves me, he wrote to Archbishop Bourchier asking him to secure control of the treasure there. But I can look up the details when I get back.

Marie

"Hi Carol, I was really passing on Ives' remarks, and he was talking about Richard's strike against Rivers et al at Northampton/ Stony Stratford. Ives suggests that in the light of Rivers' letters Richard's claims that the Woodvilles had been attempting to move against him, which he had forestalled, looks a lot more credible. The coincidence of Rivers' moves to augment Woodville power with Edward's death may not have been entirely an accident but the causation may have been the other way about. If Edward's death was not as sudden as Crowland claims - ie if he had been looking very ill that winter - then Rivers' actions may actually have been prompted by fear of Edward's death. Richard seems to have known that Dorset was in control of the Tower by the time he reached St Albans because, if my memory serves me, he wrote to Archbishop Bourchier asking him to secure control of the treasure there. But I can look up the details when I get back."

Carol responds:

Hi, Marie. Apologies for deleting your paragraph breaks to save space but I couldn't find anything else to cut. I look forward to hearing more. Meanwhile, any suggestions for obtaining a copy of the Ives article since I don't have access to the Barton Papers Library?

Carol

Can I just say that my original remark about Collins was about his theory that Edward had been poisoned by arsenic, not that it was done by the Woodvilles. And the arsenic theory is a good one because it can be done gradually by an agent, as happened with Napoleon and, some have mooted, Charles II. I don't have the Woodvilles as suspects; it would be mad. I was reflecting that there is a lot of dislike of Woodvilles which seems to have been stirred by historians through the ages. Yes they made some acquisitve marriages, but so had the Nevilles. Look at the sparkling marriages of Warwick and his sisters. That must have upset the old brigade just as much as the Woodvilles. The Courtenays, de Veres and Staffords had been around since the Conquest and now they had the upstart Nevilles muscling in on the Crown - in fact the Yorkist Crown was virtually a Neville Crown. That could have gone done as badly as the Woodvilles. In fact I have always thought that the vitriol of John Rous was directed against those who had in his mind 'robbed' the glorious Beauchamps of their possessions. H