Stillington and Cis

As you may know, a couple of years' ago I was tasked with trying to find a family relationship between Stillington and Eleanor Talbot but I only came up with the much later one of his granddaughters marrying into the family in the 1480s. You may also recall that his daughter, Juliana, married one John Hampton from Somerset and had 3 daughters who married into the Newton and Gorges families. Sir John Newton was Eleanor's brother-in-law (i.e. married to the sister of her sister-in-law Joan Cheddar - sorry!). Hampton seems to have worked for Henry VI (as did Stillington of course) so the marriage would be logical, particularly as he came from Somerset, the Bishop's diocese.

I looked at Hampton again and the Visitations (we know the risks round them of course) have his mother as one Egelina (probably Avelina) Neville, daughter of Sir Thomas Neville, Baron Lovell & St Maur and the heiress Alice St Maur (Seymour). Sir Thomas Neville, Baron Lovell, was Cis's brother, so Egelina would have been her niece, and Hampton the second-cousin of Edward, Clarence, Richard and of course Warwick. Although she was Cis's niece, Egelina was in fact the same age because of the huge numbers of Neville children of which Cis was about number 22, so Hampton would have been more like a direct nephew.

Hampton's eldest daughter was born in 1469, so that would make the marriage right at the time when Warwick and George were making noises about Edward's legitimacy. Now I reckon JAH would say this is yet another attempt by Edward or Cis to get Stillington on side if he did witness the Pre-Contract. I have to eat my hat and say it is interesting, though I still stick to my guns that I think he was told later rather than chosen as a witness. If he was bribed in this way then why did he potentially get linked with Clarence in the 1470s?

One further thought. Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne. But potentially Cis did. Her nose had been put out of joint by the Woodvilles, she would have a much more pliant son in Richard and a Neville would inherit the Crown. Could she have told Stillington to speak when he did? H

Hilary wrote :

Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed & I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses & I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol





On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:

Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed & I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses & I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol





On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:

Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed & I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses & I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol

I think the problem with assessing the number of rebels is that we don't have enough data. The Act of Attainder lists those attainted, who were all of the gentry class or above, and I think there are about 120 of them. We don't seem to have trial records, with the exception of the Bodmin rebels, so don't know how many ordinary people might have been charged, but it goes without saying that the 'gentlemen' would not have turned up on their own. There would have been retainers, and probably also tenants. I'm afraid to say that I think if that many 'gentlemen' (far from being gents in the modern sense, most of them) could be mobilized then the rebellion was probably very large although interest in it clearly collapsed rather quickly.

I suspect there was a quite committed top layer - a large top layer - of old Lancastrian gentry and men who were associated with the Woodvilles, but I doubt there was much commitment further down the social scale.

Re Hilary's Breton ancestry observation - I'm not quite sure what we're saying here. Is the idea that, over 400 years on from the Conquest, there may have been a sort of secret club of Sons (and Daughters) of the Breton Conquest aiming at a political takeover?

Marie

Hi David,

Thanks for the link - that looks a very well researched website. But of course not all these people joined Henry in Brittany (his mother, for instance!). Some stayed in England and tried to earn themselves a pardon. Others, such as Blount, didn't rebel until much later, after Tudor had left Brittany.

Hi David,

Thanks for the link - that looks a very well researched website. But of course not all these people joined Henry in Brittany (his mother, for instance!). Some stayed in England and tried to earn themselves a pardon. Others, such as Blount, didn't rebel until much later, after Tudor had left Brittany.

Hi Hilary,

My problem with the Breton ancestry theory is that there's absolutely no evidence for it, and I'm not sure that reminding other people of their own royal or British lineage would have been very clever of Margaret Beaufort. I'm sure that Breton origins were a big factor in the perceptions of the first generations of the Conqueror's men, though, and probably account for the sudden flowering of Breton-based Arthurian literature. That was a long time before our period, though.

I agree about the myth of Edward's 'golden age', and it wasn't just bad for old Lancastrian families. He tended to bleed the country dry when he could get away with it, and didn't address any of the social problems of the period - not a single piece of reforming legislation in his entire 22-year reign. I also agree that the treatment of the Countess of Oxford probably emanated from Edward, and to be fair to Edward and Richard she does seem to have been in touch with her son, and was probably financing him. I was reading an article by Anne Crawford recently which explained that the normal procedure was for the King to appoint a keeper to look after the lands of the wife/ widow of an attainted rebel, and she would essentially live under house arrest. This had happened to the Countess of Oxford in 1462, but the restrictions were lifted after 3 months because of her good behaviour and humble attitude. Now, my guess is that after Barnet & Tewkesbury 1471 Richard was tasked by Edward with being the Countess' minder. If you rerun the story through that lens it makes a lot more sense.

Marie

Re the Zouches, Doug, I suspect it is simply that Lord Zouche was attainted for fighting for Richard. I don't know how many other males of the Zouche family there were of military age, but if there were any I doubt very much whether we have information about what they were doing on 22 August 1485. Can you shed more light on this for us, Hilary?

I share Doug's concerns about making assumptions based on marital relationships, or relationships in general as the noble and gentry classes were so interrelated that you inevitably find members of the same extended family on different sides of the divide. It's in the nature of civil war, isn't it? It's only when you find a group of relations in the same area all fighting on the same side at the same time that you can reasonably assume that their relationship was a unifying factor for them. From what I've seen, Hilary is quite right that there were several interrelated families involved in Buckingham's Rebellion. Sometimes the reverse is true, of course: property disputes within a family pull their members on to different sides in the wars. It's a complex subject and really requires digging down into local records to see how these people were getting on with each other in daily life. A deep study of Buckingham's fellow rebels rather than of the rebellion itself would be a nice subject for someone to get their teeth into, wouldn't it?

Marie

We know Catesby betrayed Richard. You have only to read his Will. It also explains the otherwise strange statement that after Hastings' execution all Hastings men became Buckingham's men. Catesby worked as a lawyer for not only Hastings but also Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort. Having seen

her pictures, I find it hard to believe she was ever a popular fun-lover!!

Jennie

Hilary wrote:

But going back to our friend Stillington, one thing that puzzles me is, if he either witnessed or was told of the Pre-Contract in the 1460s, why was no mention of it made at the time of the Readeption? It would have been perfect timing; no-one knew whether Edward would come back, EW had an (illegitimate) heir whilst in sanctuary, and what better way than to get back in favour with Henry VI, who had highly prized him? He was supposedly in sanctuary. Do we know where? One would have thought the newly-returned Morton would have dropped by for one of his fireside chats. Both men were very similar and had once had similar loyalties. Yet not even a whisper anywhere of a Pre-Contract. Very odd.

Marie replies:

Hi, Hilary. Stillington spent the Readeption in St Martin's (where else?). He may not have had a choice about submitting to the new regime as he was Archbishop Neville's rival for the chancellorship. He was immediately dismissed by HVI's government and scuttled into sanctuary. George Neville may even have harboured a grudge against him for accepting the post in 1467 when he himself was so ignominiously dismissed.

Also, the precontract story may not have been so useful to the Readeption government as you might think because it would have freed the exiled Edward to make a marriage alliance with a foreign ruling house in order to help him regain his throne, and he had shown himself perfectly good at fathering children so could be expected to have another baby within the year. Better for them that he kept the wife who had few political connections and who was safely under guard at Westminster Sanctuary with all her children.

The story that Edward IV himself was illegitimate was of far more use to Henry VI's government, and enabled them to mollify Clarence by recognising him as next heir after Edward of Lancaster.

And, of course, Stillington may actually have supported the House of York and not wished to help Edward's enemies. He is said to have helped persuade Clarence to return to the fold. According to the letter by Gerhard von Wesel, he emerged from sanctuary to greet Edward on the very day he returned to London.

Hi Paul & Mary,

Can I agree with you both? I think the thing is that we know a lot of surface detail, but the sort of documents that would have told us what people were really up to - or even what those accused were accused of - don't exist. It's sadly a matter of trying to piece things together atom by atom almost from tiny scraps of detail in the drier sort of records that do survive. There's still a lot of work to be done there, I think.

Marie

Thanks David. I've just been led by one trail to spend a fortnight in Norman England and Scotland. It was indeed fascinating and I learned a lot. It does make you wonder how much the original Conqueror gang came to resent the Plantagenets - especially when John lost Normandy. To us it seems a long, long time ago but to them it must have been the equivalent of the Civil War; still close enough for grudges to have been passed down. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 12:12
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Hi Hilary,You are right about forgotten Breton descent - especially from around the time of Hastings and the 'anarchy'. The main areas were Yorkshire, where Richmond was built by them and the epicentre of Breton influence. They also founded Middleham. They were highly represented in the West Country and East Anglia.
As you say, names changed. Markenfields descended from the Breton stewards of Richmond, Dynham was originally de Dinan - the Royal Stuarts, the Zouches (Rohan), the FitzAlans. The bishop Poore who built Salisbury and moved on to Durham was almost certainly a Poher, as were the builders of Powerscourt in Ireland.
The historian Katherine Keats-Rohan has written extensively on the origins of the continental origins of the period around the 'Norman' conquest.
The best summary of the rebels I have found is here:http://edwardv1483.com/index.php?p=1_7_Richard-s-Rebels
The best estimate for those rebels who made it to Brittany is 400 to 500.
Kind regardsDavid



Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H

From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol





On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol





On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol







On 10 Aug 2015 12:47:46, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:

Thanks David. I've just been led by one trail to spend a fortnight in Norman England and Scotland. It was indeed fascinating and I learned a lot. It does make you wonder how much the original Conqueror gang came to resent the Plantagenets - especially when John lost Normandy. To us it seems a long, long time ago but to them it must have been the equivalent of the Civil War; still close enough for grudges to have been passed down. H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 12:12
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Hi Hilary,You are right about forgotten Breton descent - especially from around the time of Hastings and the 'anarchy'. The main areas were Yorkshire, where Richmond was built by them and the epicentre of Breton influence. They also founded Middleham. They were highly represented in the West Country and East Anglia.
As you say, names changed. Markenfields descended from the Breton stewards of Richmond, Dynham was originally de Dinan - the Royal Stuarts, the Zouches (Rohan), the FitzAlans. The bishop Poore who built Salisbury and moved on to Durham was almost certainly a Poher, as were the builders of Powerscourt in Ireland.
The historian Katherine Keats-Rohan has written extensively on the origins of the continental origins of the period around the 'Norman' conquest.
The best summary of the rebels I have found is here:http://edwardv1483.com/index.php?p=1_7_Richard-s-Rebels
The best estimate for those rebels who made it to Brittany is 400 to 500.
Kind regardsDavid



Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H

From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol





On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like William Stanley.

How many Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but given the population of England at the time, it isn't large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.) Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and, perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities) originally stood by Richard It's only after his first Parliament (which may have alienated them with its enlightened legislation, thou gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law, brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard. Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk, supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or too old to fight.

Does anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's coronation and fought on one side or the other at Bosworth?

Carol





On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Hi Carol, I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't - Richard was no forgiver of disloyalty. The people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this clarifies the point I was making.
As for Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters' Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections. I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff connections and they were key, particularly as the High Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a Woodville and played a big part in Richard's coronation. But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan. I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?. It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as well.
Hope this helps. H From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Monday, 10 August 2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis

Jan here.In her book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing something else. There is a database called Warriors of the Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On 8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@... [] > wrote:

Hilary wrote :

"Very few people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR) as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet. And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people who *didn't* stand to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's son), diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny Woodville fac

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

David wrote regarding Breton website Tanwezhen:

" think the estimates of the numbers of rebels come from the Breton records and the cost of paying for their upkeep in Vannes."

Marie asks:

Hi David. Probably just me but I'm only getting one article on that website and I can't see estimates of the number of English rebels with Henry. Could you possibly quote the passages?

Hi Hilary,

Just to say that Clarence's attainder didn't free up the Warwick lands for regranting because they were Isabel's inheritance, not George's, and their son was therefore recognised as Earl of Warwick. All the King could do was to grant offices relating to those lands, or annuities out of the profits until Edward of Warwick came of age.

This, I will agree, left the West Midlands rather a vacuum, and the very people who fell during the Protectorate were the very ones Edward IV had used to balance Clarence's power in the region and had moved in after his execution to fill the void.

Marie

David wrote regarding Breton website Tanwezhen:

" think the estimates of the numbers of rebels come from the Breton records and the cost of paying for their upkeep in Vannes."

Marie asks:

Hi David. Probably just me but I'm only getting one article on that website and I can't see estimates of the number of English rebels with Henry. Could you possibly quote the passages?

Also over reported because by no means all of them fetched up in Brittany. For instance, Morton went to Flanders, then on down to Rome, then back to Flanders. Richard Fox went to Paris to study ....

I'm familiar with the Brittany Michael Jones (once heard him speak), but honestly, I don't think anyone has successfully assessed the numbers in Brittany with Henry Tudor unless some French source noted the number who arrived with him in 1484 (before they were joined by Oxford and the garrison of Hammes, of course). The first to join Henry in Brittany, of course, were Sir Edward Woodville and his men.

Hi David,

I've been looking through Michael Jones' article 'For my Lord of Richmond, a Pourpoint and a Palfry' (Ricardian 2003), and I've found there were payments made to the Englishmen who got left behind when Tudor fled, in order to speed them on their way. There are specific payments to Sir Edward Woodville (as Lord Scales), Cheyne and Poynings, and another payment to 408 other 'Englishmen and their servants' - I suppose it's possible that not all the servants were English but I'm not clear whether the number 408 includes the servants or not. Anyway, we seem to have a total of 411 left behind. Does anyone know how many were in Tudor's party when he crossed the border?

Marie

Hi David,

I've been looking through Michael Jones' article 'For my Lord of Richmond, a Pourpoint and a Palfry' (Ricardian 2003), and I've found there were payments made to the Englishmen who got left behind when Tudor fled, in order to speed them on their way. There are specific payments to Sir Edward Woodville (as Lord Scales), Cheyne and Poynings, and another payment to 408 other 'Englishmen and their servants' - I suppose it's possible that not all the servants were English but I'm not clear whether the number 408 includes the servants or not. Anyway, we seem to have a total of 411 left behind. Does anyone know how many were in Tudor's party when he crossed the border?

Marie

Hi David,

I've been looking through Michael Jones' article 'For my Lord of Richmond, a Pourpoint and a Palfry' (Ricardian 2003), and I've found there were payments made to the Englishmen who got left behind when Tudor fled, in order to speed them on their way. There are specific payments to Sir Edward Woodville (as Lord Scales), Cheyne and Poynings, and another payment to 408 other 'Englishmen and their servants' - I suppose it's possible that not all the servants were English but I'm not clear whether the number 408 includes the servants or not. Anyway, we seem to have a total of 411 left behind. Does anyone know how many were in Tudor's party when he crossed the border?

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Not so simple, I think. I can't think of another example where the King granted a nobleman custody of such a huge patrimony that he was going to have to give up again in a few years - it would be madness. The only way that such inheritances were ever put in the hands of a powerful third party is when the wardship and marriage of the heir went with it. Edward IV had granted young Warwick's wardship and marriage to Dorset, but only granted him a few of the estates to go with it, all of them well south of Warwick. For whatever reason, it seems that Edward didn't want Dorset to intrude too much into Warwickshire - my guess is it was because Hastings and Rivers were already making their own presence felt in that county.

Richard would in the long term have had to decide what to do about Warwick. He was evidently no longer going to marry a daughter of Marquis Dorset, and his status and importance in the marriage market was greatly enhanced when Richard lost his own son. So what I'm saying is that the question of who to place in control of Warwick Castle (other than as constable, I mean) was bound up with the question of young Warwick's marriage.

Incidentally, Henry VII managed pretty well with the vacuum in the West Midlands - it suited him, in fact. I can't see that it caused Richard any problems either. It might have led to some local disorder but, historically, overmighty subjects were a far bigger threat to the Crown. Look how Henry also decided to leave a vacuum where the Nevilles had been in Yorkshire. The lack of such local leadership in both areas probably saved Henry's bacon in 1486 and 1487.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Ah, I see - you mean he could have used Hastings if he hadn't executed him!

I take your point about Midlands families, although some of those you name only became influential after Bosworth. It's probably not fair to look back at families promoted by Edward IV in the region (eg Hastings), or those promoted by Henry VII (eg Spencer, Empson, Bray) and conclude that, since Richard didn't use them, he must have had no one. When he executed Hastings (for reasons he clearly believed, so there was no other policy option available) he still had Buckingham and Catesby. It was when he discovered Buckingham was not really on his side at all that the problem arose.

If you want a feel for the West Midlands families who were Yorkist, you could do worse than study the names of those indicted for participation in the Humphrey Stafford Rebellion. Indeed, the Staffords of Grafton were a family that Richard was promoting in this area - linked by marriage to the Beauchamps of Powick and the Berkeleys of Weoley, Sculle, Brace of Doverdale, etc. The mother was one of the Fray sisters, through which they had many links, including Danvers. I think the problem is that Richard's reign was too short for his policies to have borne much fruit. Imagine what we'd have to say about Henry VII if his reign had ended at Stoke.

Marie

PS.

Re Geoffrey Richardson's theory that it was Morton who converted Buckingham - in this he is merely following More, I think.

Been looking over the last few days about the Tudor stories of who converted who in Buckingham's Rebellion. Vergil concentrates on Margaret Beaufort and has her sending Bray to contact Buckingham - I don't think he has much to say about Morton at all. Hall also identifies MB, inventing a chance meeting between the two near Worcester some time over the year Buckingham spent brooding on his estates (remember, Vergil and Hall postdate the rebellion to the autumn of 1484). More, of course, credits his former mentor, Bishop Morton, although More's and Vergil's accounts don't really clash. More seems to be suggesting that Morton himself was organising people to rise in support of Tudor, but that his aim with Buckingham was more about getting him to let him go than anything else, and to that end he was encouraging Buckingham to think about taking the throne for himself, but it's hard to be sure because More never got to the end.

Even Vergil records the general belief that Buckingham wanted to make himself king, so both writers seem to suggest that Buckingham was attempting to use a rising in favour of HT & Elizabeth of York for his own personal ends.

Morton was very good at keeping out of the way of trouble after Friday 13th, incidentally. Rather than joining Buckingham's march out of Brecon he just got Buckingham to let him go, skipped off to his diocese and then took ship when things hotted up, and he didn't join Tudor in Brittany but went off to Rome to work on the papacy instead. Even after Bosworth he didn't cross back to England until after Henry was safely crowned and the sweating sickness had died down.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Could you give me the ref for this Dan Jones article - is it History Magazine or BBC History Magazine, and which month? I perhaps ought to get a copy for the library just for archival purposes (unless anyone would like to donate theirs).

Thanks.

Marie

Thanks a million, Hilary. I resent the amount of money these rags cost the library but feel we ought to have them for archival purposes (no one's going to want to read them in later years).

Barton Papers Library address is on the inside back cover of the Bulletin.

Marie

PS. Just to warn you, Hilary, I won't be able to acknowledge receipt of the magazine for at least 3 weeks as I'm away from tomorrow. But I will be very grateful.

Marie

Mary et al I do so agree. The other problem that people interested in history have (note I avoid the term historians), and I am as guilty as anyone, is to assume that people were acting to some grand plan - very few people do, Napoleon springs to mind. The rest of us are buffeted by whatever life throws at them and react accordingly. I'd put MB in that category and these were certainly times to be buffeted.

David, I agree as well and I recall that the St Johns also had Breton ancestry, and the Scots had also married into the Breton royal house? And of course one keeps coming back to the West Country and Wales and even the link with good old Arthurian legend. You're right, a twelve year old was much less of a threat than a trained warrior king. As I see it, England was a bit player in the field of European politics at this time - it was only a few years before France invaded Italy and was already eyeing not just Brittany but the Netherlands. A king like Richard would be a real pest though. Much better to keep him diverted by sponsoring a rebel - a rebel they'd never thought would succeed. Put that down to a swamp in Leicestershire!

And when the rebel becomes a real pest they sponsor Perkin Warbeck to stir up trouble as again.

The rest at home is Tudor myth to establish some sort of inherited/desired right to the throne but most of us have been taught English history as the history of 'kings'. It's unravelling that, and what it did to Richard which is so hard because it's been sifted. But as Marie says, it's searching scraps and two thirds of local archive stuff has yet to be published so there's still hope here. H (who is still looking for that John Russell quote but did find hard evidence that Ankarette Twynyho's mother was Alana Kendale and that Stillington only had one brother Thomas - that's the trouble you get diverted and end up looking at Bretons :) )

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 21/8/15, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] wrote:

Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Cis
To: ""
Date: Friday, 21 August, 2015, 23:01












Hilary and Carol,Regarding the earlier
post, I forgot to mention that the Woodville and
the Breton interests will also have coincided. Through
Jacquetta, they descended from Jean II of Dreux, Duke of
Brittany - and her sister married Arthur III. As aunt to the
Woodville siblings, she survived as Dowager Duchess until
1489.
The point is not
so much a question of a "Breton mafia" more a case
that the fate
of Brittany was the big foreign affairs issue of the day
and there would be many who would not be at all dismayed by
the accession of a 12-year-old - especially if that
king's future was to marry the richest heiress in
Europe, providing the possibility of merging the two crowns
and strengthening the great historic links between Brittany
and England. In the late 15th century there were thousands
of people in Cornwall who did not understand English. You
would need to be a linguist to say whether Cornish and
Breton were different languages or dialects of the same
language.
This would
have been a fairly positive-looking, settled future in 1483.

There was a
re-writing of history in France that painted Brittany as a
natural part of France, which it had never
been.
It should also
be remembered that the seas were the motorways of the day
and that
the people would have been dealing with their cousins
across the water, who would be
hours away. How often do you read that a Breton ship was
hired for transport for some purpose or other.
For anyone interested, there are a
couple of articles from the site Tanwezhen, which give a
Breton perspective on
events.
http://www.tanwezhen.bzh/search?q=Richard+iii
I think the estimates of the numbers
of rebels come from the Breton records and the cost of
paying for their upkeep in Vannes.


Kind regardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail for
iPad
On 10 Aug 2015 12:47:46, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:










Thanks
David. I've just been led by one trail to spend a
fortnight in Norman England and Scotland. It was indeed
fascinating and I learned a lot. It does make you wonder how
much the original Conqueror gang came to resent the
Plantagenets - especially when John lost Normandy. To us it
seems a long, long time ago but to them it must have been
the equivalent of the Civil War; still close enough for
grudges to have been passed down. H

From: "Durose
David daviddurose2000@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 12:12
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Cis














Hi Hilary,You are right about forgotten
Breton descent - especially from
around the time of Hastings and the 'anarchy'. The
main areas were Yorkshire, where Richmond was built by them
and the epicentre of Breton influence. They also founded
Middleham. They were highly represented in the West Country
and East Anglia.
As you say, names changed.
Markenfields descended from the Breton
stewards of Richmond, Dynham was originally de Dinan - the
Royal Stuarts, the Zouches (Rohan), the FitzAlans. The
bishop Poore who built Salisbury and moved on to Durham was
almost certainly a Poher, as were the builders of
Powerscourt in
Ireland.
The
historian Katherine Keats-Rohan has written extensively on
the origins of the continental origins of the period around
the 'Norman' conquest.
The best summary of the rebels I
have found is
here:http://edwardv1483.com/index.php?p=1_7_Richard-s-Rebels
The best estimate for those rebels
who made it to Brittany is 400 to 500.
Kind
regardsDavid



Sent from
Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
wrote:










Hi Carol,
I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean
was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract
most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they
probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at
that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to
gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively
removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a
better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed
Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they
wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry
and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't
- Richard was
no forgiver of disloyalty. The
people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings
who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this
clarifies the point I was making.
As for
Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters'
Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the
South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections.
I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go
back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff
connections and they were key, particularly as the High
Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts
etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir
Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas
Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a
Woodville and played
a big part in Richard's coronation.
But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan.
I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the
Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you
might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change
names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons
from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?.
It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as
well.
Hope
this helps. H



From: "Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Cis













Jan here.In her
book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the
number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through
Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as
her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing
something else. There is a database called Warriors of the
Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum.
Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On
8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@...
[] >
wrote:























Hilary wrote :

"Very few
people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to
gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates
would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the
crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they
wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR)
as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet.
And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his
justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of
course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other
countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with
Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of
course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people
who *didn't* stand
to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the
marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's
son),
diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny
Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like
William Stanley.

How many
Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't
counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but
given the population of England at the time, it isn't
large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms
against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his
reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among
the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward
V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any
such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.)
Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided
loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and,
perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities)
originally stood by Richard It's only after his first
Parliament (which may have alienated them with its
enlightened
legislation, thou
gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife
and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to
waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law,
brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard.
Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were
firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk,
supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the
battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or
too old to fight.

Does
anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's
coronation and fought on one side or the other at
Bosworth?

Carol






































On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:










Hi Carol,
I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean
was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract
most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they
probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at
that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to
gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively
removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a
better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed
Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they
wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry
and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't
- Richard was
no forgiver of disloyalty. The
people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings
who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this
clarifies the point I was making.
As for
Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters'
Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the
South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections.
I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go
back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff
connections and they were key, particularly as the High
Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts
etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir
Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas
Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a
Woodville and played
a big part in Richard's coronation.
But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan.
I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the
Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you
might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change
names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons
from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?.
It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as
well.
Hope
this helps. H
From: "Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 9:21

Subject: Re:
Re: Stillington and Cis












Jan here.In her
book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the
number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through
Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as
her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing
something else. There is a database called Warriors of the
Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum.
Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On
8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@...
[] >
wrote:























Hilary wrote :

"Very few
people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to
gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates
would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the
crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they
wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR)
as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet.
And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his
justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of
course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other
countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with
Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of
course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people
who *didn't* stand
to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the
marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's
son),
diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny
Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like
William Stanley.

How many
Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't
counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but
given the population of England at the time, it isn't
large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms
against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his
reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among
the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward
V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any
such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.)
Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided
loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and,
perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities)
originally stood by Richard It's only after his first
Parliament (which may have alienated them with its
enlightened
legislation, thou
gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife
and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to
waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law,
brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard.
Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were
firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk,
supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the
battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or
too old to fight.

Does
anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's
coronation and fought on one side or the other at
Bosworth?

Carol






































On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:










Hi Carol,
I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean
was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract
most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they
probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at
that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to
gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively
removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a
better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed
Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they
wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry
and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't
- Richard was
no forgiver of disloyalty. The
people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings
who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this
clarifies the point I was making.
As for
Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters'
Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the
South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections.
I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go
back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff
connections and they were key, particularly as the High
Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts
etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir
Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas
Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a
Woodville and played
a big part in Richard's coronation.
But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan.
I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the
Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you
might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change
names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons
from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?.
It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as
well.
Hope
this helps. H
From: "Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 9:21

Subject: Re:
Re: Stillington and Cis












Jan here.In her
book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the
number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through
Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as
her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing
something else. There is a database called Warriors of the
Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum.
Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On
8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@...
[] >
wrote:























Hilary wrote :

"Very few
people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to
gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates
would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the
crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they
wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR)
as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet.
And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his
justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of
course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other
countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with
Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of
course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people
who *didn't* stand
to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the
marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's
son),
diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny
Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like
William Stanley.

How many
Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't
counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but
given the population of England at the time, it isn't
large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms
against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his
reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among
the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward
V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any
such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.)
Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided
loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and,
perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities)
originally stood by Richard It's only after his first
Parliament (which may have alienated them with its
enlightened
legislation, thou
gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife
and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to
waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law,
brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard.
Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were
firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk,
supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the
battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or
too old to fight.

Does
anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's
coronation and fought on one side or the other at
Bosworth?

Carol




























































On 10 Aug 2015 12:47:46, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:










Thanks
David. I've just been led by one trail to spend a
fortnight in Norman England and Scotland. It was indeed
fascinating and I learned a lot. It does make you wonder how
much the original Conqueror gang came to resent the
Plantagenets - especially when John lost Normandy. To us it
seems a long, long time ago but to them it must have been
the equivalent of the Civil War; still close enough for
grudges to have been passed down. H

From: "Durose
David daviddurose2000@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 12:12
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Cis














Hi Hilary,You are right about forgotten
Breton descent - especially from
around the time of Hastings and the 'anarchy'. The
main areas were Yorkshire, where Richmond was built by them
and the epicentre of Breton influence. They also founded
Middleham. They were highly represented in the West Country
and East Anglia.
As you say, names changed.
Markenfields descended from the Breton
stewards of Richmond, Dynham was originally de Dinan - the
Royal Stuarts, the Zouches (Rohan), the FitzAlans. The
bishop Poore who built Salisbury and moved on to Durham was
almost certainly a Poher, as were the builders of
Powerscourt in
Ireland.
The
historian Katherine Keats-Rohan has written extensively on
the origins of the continental origins of the period around
the 'Norman' conquest.
The best summary of the rebels I
have found is
here:http://edwardv1483.com/index.php?p=1_7_Richard-s-Rebels
The best estimate for those rebels
who made it to Brittany is 400 to 500.
Kind
regardsDavid



Sent from
Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... []
wrote:










Hi Carol,
I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean
was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract
most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they
probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at
that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to
gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively
removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a
better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed
Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they
wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry
and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't
- Richard was
no forgiver of disloyalty. The
people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings
who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this
clarifies the point I was making.
As for
Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters'
Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the
South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections.
I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go
back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff
connections and they were key, particularly as the High
Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts
etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir
Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas
Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a
Woodville and played
a big part in Richard's coronation.
But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan.
I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the
Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you
might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change
names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons
from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?.
It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as
well.
Hope
this helps. H



From: "Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 9:21
Subject: Re: [Richard
III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Cis













Jan here.In her
book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the
number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through
Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as
her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing
something else. There is a database called Warriors of the
Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum.
Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On
8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@...
[] >
wrote:























Hilary wrote :

"Very few
people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to
gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates
would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the
crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they
wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR)
as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet.
And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his
justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of
course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other
countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with
Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of
course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people
who *didn't* stand
to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the
marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's
son),
diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny
Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like
William Stanley.

How many
Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't
counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but
given the population of England at the time, it isn't
large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms
against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his
reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among
the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward
V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any
such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.)
Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided
loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and,
perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities)
originally stood by Richard It's only after his first
Parliament (which may have alienated them with its
enlightened
legislation, thou
gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife
and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to
waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law,
brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard.
Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were
firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk,
supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the
battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or
too old to fight.

Does
anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's
coronation and fought on one side or the other at
Bosworth?

Carol






































On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:










Hi Carol,
I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean
was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract
most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they
probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at
that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to
gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively
removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a
better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed
Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they
wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry
and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't
- Richard was
no forgiver of disloyalty. The
people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings
who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this
clarifies the point I was making.
As for
Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters'
Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the
South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections.
I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go
back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff
connections and they were key, particularly as the High
Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts
etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir
Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas
Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a
Woodville and played
a big part in Richard's coronation.
But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan.
I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the
Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you
might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change
names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons
from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?.
It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as
well.
Hope
this helps. H
From: "Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 9:21

Subject: Re:
Re: Stillington and Cis












Jan here.In her
book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the
number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through
Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as
her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing
something else. There is a database called Warriors of the
Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum.
Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On
8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@...
[] >
wrote:























Hilary wrote :

"Very few
people at home or abroad (except perhaps Hastings) stood to
gain from Richard taking the throne."

Carol responds:

I think the Three Estates
would disagree with you. Why petition Richard to accept the
crown if they had nothing to gain? For one thing, they
wanted a strong man of proven ability (as specified in TR)
as opposed to a child king who would be a Woodville puppet.
And, certainly, the common people stood to benefit from his
justice (they would have known his reputation, though, of
course, they had no say in the matter.) As for other
countries, Scotland quickly made a three-year truce with
Richard, he made alliances with Spain and Portugal, and, of
course, Burgundy supported him. I'd say the only people
who *didn't* stand
to gain were the French, Francis of Brittany(because of the
marriage alliance between his daughter and Edward IV's
son),
diehard Lancastrians like the Earl of Oxford, the tiny
Woodville faction, and a few discontented Yorkists like
William Stanley.

How many
Englishmen joined Tudor abroad, do you know? I haven't
counted the number of names in the treason proclamation, but
given the population of England at the time, it isn't
large. (As you know, the idea of most Englishmen up in arms
against Richard is a myth.) And at the beginning of his
reign, he was (as Kendall notes) quite popular--except among
the rebels trying (or pretending to try) to restore Edward
V. (I personally can't see Viscount Welles having any
such aim given that he was MB's half-brother.)
Northumberland and Thomas Stanley (who must have had divided
loyalties given how well he had done under Richard and,
perhaps, doubts about his stepson's abilities)
originally stood by Richard It's only after his first
Parliament (which may have alienated them with its
enlightened
legislation, thou
gh I believe they both took part) and the deaths of his wife
and son that, perhaps, Northumberland's loyalty began to
waver. And, of course, Stanley's wife, brother-in-law,
brother, and possibly his son were plotting against Richard.
Norfolk, Surrey, Lincoln, and Lovell, in contrast, were
firmly on his side. Others, like the Duke of Suffolk,
supported Richard at his coronation but stayed out of the
battle. Others were too young (e.g., Edmund de la Pole) or
too old to fight.

Does
anyone have a list of the nobles who attended Richard's
coronation and fought on one side or the other at
Bosworth?

Carol






































On 10 Aug 2015 10:38:32, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@... [] wrote:










Hi Carol,
I knew I should have clarified that last point. What I mean
was that, without the 'excuse' of the Pre Contract
most people would have sighed and carried on. I agree, they
probably didn't want a minor and a Woodville minor at
that on the throne, but there was insufficient for them to
gain (I hope this puts it better) for them to have actively
removed him. The Pre Contract gave them the chance to have a
better king legitimately. I don't think France or indeed
Scotland would have welcomed Richard's accession; they
wouldn't want a proven warrior English king. MB,Henry
and his bunch of dispossessed rebels certainly wouldn't
- Richard was
no forgiver of disloyalty. The
people who really stood to gain were those like Hastings
who didn't get on at all with the Woodvilles. Hope this
clarifies the point I was making.
As for
Henry's followers and Richard's 'deserters'
Skidmore lists quite a few of them and most are from the
South West with MB/Hungerford/Courtenay/De Vere connections.
I've spent a long time looking at those webs and some go
back a very long way. MB also has a good few High Sheriff
connections and they were key, particularly as the High
Sheriff of Dorset was cousin to the High Sheriff of Hunts
etc etc. The defectors which spring to mind for me are Sir
Richard Haute (who had Woodville connections) and Thomas
Fitzalan Earl of Arundel who again was married to a
Woodville and played
a big part in Richard's coronation.
But the Fitzalans are from Dorset and part of the MB clan.
I also wouldn't dismiss David's assertions about the
Breton influence. Breton ancestry was much wider than you
might think, particularly as there was a tendency to change
names. Would you for example guess that the Lord Clintons
from Maxstoke (Buckingham territory) had Breton ancestry?.
It was particularly prevalent in Scotland as
well.
Hope
this helps. H
From: "Jan
Mulrenan janmulrenan@...
[]"
To:
""
Sent: Monday, 10 August
2015, 9:21

Subject: Re:
Re: Stillington and Cis












Jan here.In her
book on Buckingham's rebellion Louise Gill gives the
number of rebels as 400 - 500. I had a quick look through
Rosemary Horrox's book but didn't find a number as
her account is extremely detailed I was meant to be doing
something else. There is a database called Warriors of the
Roses I think it is in the documents section of the Forum.
Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sent from my iPad
On
8 Aug 2015, at 19:16, justcarol67@...
[] >
wrote:
















(Message over 64 KB, truncated)