Richard's supposed unpopularity and the rumour machine

The other day Paul mentioned Skidmore's allegations that Richard was brought down because of his unpopularity'. Was he unpopular because he'd done something wrong, or was he unpopular because a number of networks had spread rumour which made him look unpopular?

If you can bear with me, I'll give you an example of just one tiny Beaufort network and you can then perhaps see how easy it is to cause trouble for a new king based on the spread of malicious rumour within your greater family  what a boon it must have been to Louis XI! I've tried to keep the number of names to a minimum.

You won't have heard of Joan Welles, but she was MB's cousin 4 times removed. That sounds remote, but in fact she was descended from the younger brother of Eudes Welles, whose son married Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe, MB's mother. Remember MB always looked after her own!

In the 1470s, probably with MB's blessing, Joan married a lawyer Thomas x who came from a Staffs family which had rubbed shoulders with the Stanleys and Staffords for 3 hundred years and who, like the Catesbys, had risen through being servants to the Crown, changing allegiance with the changing kings. We know he represented the gentry in Warks and Leics in various cases and also held land in Bedfordshire and Herts.

Thomas x had two second cousins  one was the High Sheriff of Hunts, the other High Sheriff of Devon. The High Sheriff of Hunts had been squire to the body to Henry VI, had strong connections with Lancastrian Northants society and his son was married to the daughter was of a Goldsmith/Alderman of London (was not Lambert one of those?) . The High Sheriff of Devon had connections with the Beaumonts, the Denys (as in Twynyho), the Bourchiers, the Luttrells, to name but a few. His grandmother had been a Cheddar (of EB fame). Securing the High Sheriff network, which was relied upon for the raising of troops in the days of the monarch having no standing army, was an important pre-requisite for rebellion. Incidentally, both High Sheriff families were associated with the wool trade - Margaret was later to dabble in this from her base in Collyweston, Northants, as was Reggie Bray.

Thomas x also had a brother who was a Merchant of the Staple in London, and we know from the brother's will that he was godfather to a number of children of other prominent merchants in London. He lived in Candlewick Street. Joan's brother married into gentry in Essex and her nephew would later become Escheator of Staffs for Henry VII.

How do we know there was a connection between MB and Joan? Well, Joan's son was to become attorney to Reggie Bray and her other son one of the first Wardens of the new prestigious All Souls College Oxford where he was a friend of the pro-Tudor Danvers family.

Now this was just one of the numerous people related to MB through her mother's marriages. And this was a person quite distantly related. We've mentioned before that the closer the relationship, the bigger the culprits, which is hardly surprising.

I suppose you could say that the rumour machine equated with the Press today. Nothing changes much does it? H (with apologies for the formatting which has been tortuous)

Hi Hilary, it's surely my fault, but I fail to see a link between these family ties and the rumours machine. What rumours did Joan spread exactly? Thank you for your patience. Mac

Hi Mac, one of the things to which Skidmore points is the disenchantment of people, particularly in London and the South West, with Richard - hence their support for Buckingham's rebellion and ultimately Henry Tudor. Unlike Marie, whose expertise is in the documents around Richard's reign, I look at data, and probability. So, if large numbers of the nobility and the gentry in the South West (most of whom have never met Richard) seem suddenly to dislike him, then is it really because he's done horrible things like killing Rivers, Hastings and the princes, or is it because they're closer to another faction which is spreading rumours saying he has and it suits them to believe it because they are related to that other faction? It suits them to believe it because some, like the Courtenays and Hungerfords. have suffered huge reversals of fortune under Edward and stand little chance of recovery other than by supporting an alternative faction. So too many supporters in one area and it looks - er fixed. In other posts I've shown how MB's family connections encompassed the South West and Wales, as well of course as Lancashire, Staffordshire and probably Northants and Oxfordshire. Once a large number of High Sheriffs turn against you, then as a king, you're in big trouble because your supporters struggle to gather troops and that's even worse if you're a northern king who lacks the vital support of London. To give you an example, Yorkist Richard Boughton, High Sheriff of Warks, was murdered the day before Bosworth when he was on a mission to recruit troops for Richard - Hastings wasn't there to protect him. So what did Joan (or rather her male relatives say)? They repeated what the MB faction told them to say, ie that Richard murdered Rivers, Hastings, and killed the princes, that there was unrest in London and that in the longterm support for Henry Tudor would reward them- (and of course they could always change sides again if Richard won). As it was they indeed got those great rewards. And what I'm saying is that if there were twenty, or even ten Joans out there with families doing MB's bidding with the promise of reward, then she had as good as covered the whole country with the exception of perhaps Yorkshire and some gentry and nobility there were starting to move south because of the wool industry. As with all applied historical studies exercises, we'd do well to provide the written evidence in letters; the evidence is in the statistics and the probability. And in this case I would say the probability is pretty high. I do hope this helps. Kindest regards H
From: "mac.thirty@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015, 13:49
Subject: Re: Richard's supposed unpopularity and the rumour machine

Hi Hilary, it's surely my fault, but I fail to see a link between these family ties and the rumours machine. What rumours did Joan spread exactly? Thank you for your patience. Mac

Indeed, Hilary, and then there's confirmation bias, too. Once somebody gives you reasons to suspect something, and you keep running into new negative rumours, the new reports tend to be seen as 'confirmation' of the old reports, even if the supposed facts don't match and even if the reports have nothing to do with each other beyond concerning the same person.
If it works in the 21st century - and it does, unfortunately - I can't see why it shouldn't have worked in the 15th.
Pansy

Rumour runs a hundred miles while truth is pulling on his tights.
Paul


On 15/03/2015 15:55, pansydobersby wrote:
Indeed, Hilary, and then there's confirmation bias, too. Once somebody gives you reasons to suspect something, and you keep running into new negative rumours, the new reports tend to be seen as 'confirmation' of the old reports, even if the supposed facts don't match and even if the reports have nothing to do with each other beyond concerning the same person.
If it works in the 21st century - and it does, unfortunately - I can't see why it shouldn't have worked in the 15th.
Pansy