Re: Fw: new message

Well I'm just back from abroad and I'll ask one of my daft questions.
Is it possible to 'kill' someone without ending their life?
Suppose that Edward's sons were still in England after Bosworth - we know we've been fed what we're supposed to read by HT. He needs to repeal TR to blacken Richard's reputation, and to a much lesser extent, to legitimise his wife. But he's already killed one anointed king and killing two others is taking it a bit far, even for HT and his religious mother. Suppose he put them into her care (of course) but made them take Holy Orders, which would mean that they were 'dead' as far as inheritance was concerned but could re-emerge in England after university with a new identity (we do it today) and could still be closely monitored. A bit like Arthur, Lord Lisle? They could be an asset. After all, I doubt they'd love uncle Richard and there would be no going back.
Is that feasible? H (who thinks we will never restore Richard's reputation until we get to the bottom of this)

From: "Anne Angstadt friedaofalsace@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2015, 11:50
Subject: Re: Fw: new message

This is certainly been the longest hiatus I can recall in some 3 years of being (almost entirely) a lurker on this Forum.
Anne

Great idea, Hilary! Hope your vacation was refreshing. Been missing your insights. Nance www.NanceCrawford.com

Parker was Viscountess Boleyn’s grandfather.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 31 October 2015 10:03
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Fw: new message

Thanks all! Jan, I don't see how it would make much difference re complaints or the De La Poles because Henry was now king by right of conquest and he and mummy would make absolutely sure during their lifetime that the boys never raised the issue of duress. If they did, then they'd made an example with Warwick .

It always seemed daft of Richard or Henry to send them abroad. That set them free to 'do a Warbeck' and cause all sorts of problems. I can't think of any plotters over here (even MB got found out) who actually got away with it. We're a fickle lot when the chips are down. And sis would make sure they towed the line. You can lose people for years in the universities and then the Church. And there are worse things than being a Prince of the Church as Henry Beaufort discovered.

Re your question about Sir William Parker, I'm interested in the name as a Thomas Parker has strayed into my research - probably his son by the dates. H

From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" < >
To:
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2015, 18:05
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Fw: new message

Jan here.

Suppose either son of Edward IV claimed that he had been forced to enter the church under duress & under age, like a girl claiming she had been forced into marriage? How would this arrangement affect the de la Poles, assuming they found out?

Also I have come across 2 names for the king's standard bearer at Bosworth. No 1 is Sir Percival Thirlwall, named in a ballad, I think. No 2 is Sir(?) William Parker who is mentioned in Jones & Underwood on MB, so is presumably named in documents to do with her. Has anybody any further information?

Sent from my iPad

On 30 Oct 2015, at 16:49, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Well I'm just back from abroad and I'll ask one of my daft questions.

Is it possible to 'kill' someone without ending their life?

Suppose that Edward's sons were still in England after Bosworth - we know we've been fed what we're supposed to read by HT. He needs to repeal TR to blacken Richard's reputation, and to a much lesser extent, to legitimise his wife. But he's already killed one anointed king and killing two others is taking it a bit far, even for HT and his religious mother. Suppose he put them into her care (of course) but made them take Holy Orders, which would mean that they were 'dead' as far as inheritance was concerned but could re-emerge in England after university with a new identity (we do it today) and could still be closely monitored. A bit like Arthur, Lord Lisle? They could be an asset. After all, I doubt they'd love uncle Richard and there would be no going back.

Is that feasible? H (who thinks we will never restore Richard's reputation until we get to the bottom of this)

From: "Anne Angstadt friedaofalsace@... []" <richardiii [email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2015, 11:50
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Fw: new message

This is certainly been the longest hiatus I can recall in some 3 years of being (almost entirely) a lurker on this Forum.

Anne

Thanks all! Jan, I don't see how it would make much difference re complaints or the De La Poles because Henry was now king by right of conquest and he and mummy would make absolutely sure during their lifetime that the boys never raised the issue of duress. If they did, then they'd made an example with Warwick.It always seemed daft of Richard or Henry to send them abroad. That set them free to 'do a Warbeck' and cause all sorts of problems. I can't think of any plotters over here (even MB got found out) who actually got away with it. We're a fickle lot when the chips are down. And sis would make sure they towed the line. You can lose people for years in the universities and then the Church. And there are worse things than being a Prince of the Church as Henry Beaufort discovered.Re your question about Sir William Parker, I'm interested in the name as a Thomas Parker has strayed into my research - probably his son by the dates. H
From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2015, 18:05
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: new message

Jan here.Suppose either son of Edward IV claimed that he had been forced to enter the church under duress & under age, like a girl claiming she had been forced into marriage? How would this arrangement affect the de la Poles, assuming they found out?Also I have come across 2 names for the king's standard bearer at Bosworth. No 1 is Sir Percival Thirlwall, named in a ballad, I think. No 2 is Sir(?) William Parker who is mentioned in Jones & Underwood on MB, so is presumably named in documents to do with her. Has anybody any further information?

Sent from my iPad


On 30 Oct 2015, at 16:49, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Well I'm just back from abroad and I'll ask one of my daft questions.
Is it possible to 'kill' someone without ending their life?
Suppose that Edward's sons were still in England after Bosworth - we know we've been fed what we're supposed to read by HT. He needs to repeal TR to blacken Richard's reputation, and to a much lesser extent, to legitimise his wife. But he's already killed one anointed king and killing two others is taking it a bit far, even for HT and his religious mother. Suppose he put them into her care (of course) but made them take Holy Orders, which would mean that they were 'dead' as far as inheritance was concerned but could re-emerge in England after university with a new identity (we do it today) and could still be closely monitored. A bit like Arthur, Lord Lisle? They could be an asset. After all, I doubt they'd love uncle Richard and there would be no going back.
Is that feasible? H (who thinks we will never restore Richard's reputation until we get to the bottom of this)

From: "Anne Angstadt friedaofalsace@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2015, 11:50
Subject: Re: Fw: new message

This is certainly been the longest hiatus I can recall in some 3 years of being (almost entirely) a lurker on this Forum.
Anne

With regard to the church thing, Medieval Popes were probably more political than religious, therefore if the right circumstances existed and money was available, it might have been possible to release any potential rulers from vows, especially if they were under age or did not give 'informed' consent at the time the vows were made. If there was a crisis in the Tudor dynasty, ie the lack of a male heir, then the 'right' circumstances might have existed and Edward and/or Richard might have been able to count on papal support to regain their secular status.
Hiliary wrote:







Couple of responses to all this (thanks Doug I went to Hong Kong to see my daughter and grandchild - had a great time, they make fabulous cakes there!):
Firstly, I would assume that once you have renounced your 'earthly inheritance' it would be hard to get the Pope's sanction to claim it back, particularly from someone who had taken the Crown by conquest. Proving duress after HT's death would be quite hard. I've come across one or two instances where a man has gone into the Church, then his elder brother died, but the title passed over him - hard luck! But I'm really no expert in Church Law.
Strangely enough we don't know how much Edward's sons aspired to be king with all its risks; a life in the Church might suit them better. That's certainly one of the theories around Edward II. In fact, I doubt Richard aspired to be king until fate put him there and he thought he could do some good.
I wasn't actually thinking of Richard of Eastwell in this instance and I'm not the first one to go down this route. Jeremy Potter came up with John Russell, Leslau with someone whose dates didn't match (sorry can't remember his name) but I have someone whose dates match and who I am still checking out (speculation is far from proof). For what its worth I was always a sceptic about their survival but I've come to think there was something 'out there' which reached crisis point fifty years' later when Anne Boleyn failed to produce that male heir and the dynasty was in real trouble. It's interesting how Henry and Anne's Court was populated by successors of people that Richard would recognise and then, with Jane Seymour, we go back to the old bedrock of HT support from the South West. I just wonder if there wasn't an alterior motive for getting rid of Anne - and those who died with her. They were hardly brash young suitors, were they? Did they know something?
Glad the forum's talking again! H


From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 1 November 2015, 8:45
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: new message







But an approach like this implies that Henry Tudor and his successors would have to 'trust' that Edward and Richard never, never would contemplate putting forward their claims. I find this rather unrealistic. It is the same problem with David Baldwin's theory (set out in The Lost Prince) that Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII all agreed (separately of course) to let Richard of Shrewsbury live a relatively 'free' life. The only way to be sure that someone with a strong claim to the crown, which both boys had after the repeal of TR. could not distabilise the situation was to imprison them, like Warwick, or execute them.








Hilary wrote:
Thanks all! Jan, I don't see how it would
make much difference re complaints or the De La Poles because Henry was now king
by right of conquest and he and mummy would make absolutely sure during their
lifetime that the boys never raised the issue of duress. If they did, then
they'd made an example with Warwick.

Doug here:
As long as boys were under Henry's
control there'd be no complaints of duress! In fact, as long as there was a
Tudor on the throne, the boys would have to keep a very, very low profile just
to stay alive. The slightest hint that either was even thinking about his claim
to the throne would've led to a quick end  especially once the boys were no
longer children; ie, your Warwick example.

Hilary
continued:
It always seemed daft of Richard or Henry to send them
abroad. That set them free to 'do a Warbeck' and cause all sorts of problems. I
can't think of any plotters over here (even MB got found out) who actually got
away with it. We're a fickle lot when the chips are down. And sis would make
sure they towed the lin e. You can lose people for years in the universities and
then the Church. And there are worse things than being a Prince of the Church as
Henry Beaufort discovered.//snip//

Doug here:
Well, to be fair, Richard only sent one
abroad, and the younger one at that. Which tells me that the one that
might cause problems, either on his own or by being used by others, was
kept closer at hand. I don't think Edward died prior to Bosworth simply because
there was no reason for Richard not to make such an occurrence public. Such an
announcement wouldn't have been aimed at those such as Tudor, but rather at the
much, much larger group, (such as Sir William Stanley?) who were fence-sitters,
so to speak. I admit it is a sort of circular logic, but I can't see Richard
sending his younger nephew off abroad if that nephew had
inherited whatever claims his older brother had held. (Hope that makes
sense!)
The Church does remain a possibility, but
then that leads towards Eastham...
Doug

Yes, I agree with Jan and Doug. There is something about the idea that the boys could have been forced to take holy orders, and never ever raised their heads again, that doesn't feel right to me. Edward II maybe isn't a particularly good comparison as (a) Ian Mortimer's theory may not be right, and (b) he had already tasted the chalice of kingship, may have found it poisoned and come to terms with handing on throne to his son. Edward V had had the throne snatched from him as a young boy by his uncle before he'd ever had a chance to try his hand at the job which was all he'd ever been raised for. What little we know of him suggests he was a proud youth, and I'm not convinced that neither he nor his brother would ever have sought to stage a come back. Whatever the chances of one of the boys trying to stake a claim in later years, that doubles when you have two of them, and there's even a small chance (this is a multiplication of whatever fraction you have for each, so it's much less) that both would have done so.

(Sorry, couldn't resist the mathematical pedantry. My article in the Bulletin on Lambert Simnel was meant to read that an unusual first name with an unusual surname would have been multiply uncommon, but somehow or other this came out as 'doubly' when it appeared in print....)

Marie

Jan wrote: FWIW Sir William Stanley took an immense risk in sending somebody (Clifford?) to investigate PW when MoY welcomed him to her court. He must have felt more loyalty to E4 & to his sons than to anybody else. Maybe he never believed that they were bastards or that if they were they were still worth more than HT's family. He seems to have thought it possible that one son had survived & he lost everything as a result. Doug here: I rather wonder if Sir William didn't represent the problem the Yorkists faced: which candidate do we support? They had to choose between Edward of Warwick, Edward IV's two sons or, lastly, the de la Poles and, seemingly couldn't plump for one over the others! Warwick suffered under his father's Attainder, but Attainders could easily be reversed. Once HT had been driven off the throne, a gathering of the Three Estates could offer the crown to Edward, just as they had to Richard. Then, during the next session of Parliament, the Attainder against Clarence could be revoked, revised, whatever; thus clearing the way for Edward's now legal coronation. As for Edward IV's sons, they were, and would remain illegitimate under Canon law, but Parliament could pass an Act legitimizing Edward's children; just as it had for Gaunt's offspring, the Beauforts. Finally, there were the de la Poles. Of direct descent and completely legitimate, yet they seem to have been everyone's last choice! It's only my opinion, but I tend to think that the reason for their seemingly always being in last place is that they were adults, thus limiting the role the nobility would have in any de la Pole reign. I could be mistaken, of course. Doug (Apologies for the delay in responding! There seems to have been some problems with my computer. Surely it couldn't have been me pressing the wrong buttons/keys, could it?)

Hi, I agree - Henry behaved as though he just did not know what was out there. And I still find it hard to swallow the idea of *both* boys, not monks but priests able to pop off to Rome or whatever, having decided to play Henry's game and never all their lives let slip a work to anyone that resulted in rumours.

As for Edward V being a churchman and Perkin Warbeck Richard Duke of York, the problem there is that Perkin's story was that his elder brother had been murdered. Of course, it could have been a ruse to protect Edward, but somehow I doubt it. The two are surely as likely to have viewed their sister's marriage as rape as decided to support her choice.

Also, although the precontract would indeed have been grounds for their bastardisation in canon law, remember that the evidence for it had never been placed before a church court, so there had never been a canon law ruling on the matter - this is the thing that Crowland complains about.

Marie

Arthur, Viscount Lisle (-1542)

Edward V (1470-)

Richard of Shrewsbury (1473-)

George of Bedford , (1477-9)

All of his other known children were female.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 05 November 2015 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Fw: new message

I do think the Stanley thing, the more you mull it over, is very important and is yet so rarely cited. Both Stanleys, Thomas particularly, were close to Richard. They would surely have known whether the boys were alive in 1485. I was once a Buckingham theory supporter but that also has its problems. Why didn't Richard say Buckingham killed them and close the issue forever? If he didn't know what Buckingham had done with them why didn't he grant Buckingham's wish to speak with him? And why didn't he enforce the full penalty of the law for treason on Buckingham if he had indeed killed Edward's sons or had a hand in spiriting them away?

Re the Anne Boleyn issue, those who died with her are interesting. Norreys was Francis Lovell's nephew, the Brereton family were close to the Stanleys and Weston was the nephew of our Hospitaller Prior. As well as this a number of people were executed without trial in the following years purportedly on the grounds of religion and some had connections to Anne, like Sir Adrian Fortescue. If Anne knew something then as queen she had every reason to keep it quiet; once no longer queen she was very dangerous indeed, as were her potential confidants. She had of course spent several years in France which may mean something or nothing.

Finally, what prompted me to ask the Church question was that whilst pursuing Stillington (sorry he won't go away) I came across a churchman whose background does not ring true. Now I don't think for a moment he was one of 'our boys' but he was a protegee of MB and Henry VIII pardoned him of high treason, a very rare thing indeed in the 1530s. How many of Edward's bastards were out there? Do we know Stephen? H

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2015, 20:13
Subject: RE: Re: Fw: new message

Hi, I agree - Henry behaved as though he just did not know what was out there. And I still find it hard to swallow the idea of *both* boys, not monks but priests able to pop off to Rome or whatever, having decided to play Henry's game and never all their lives let slip a work to anyone that resulted in rumours.

As for Edward V being a churchman and Perkin Warbeck Richard Duke of York , the problem there is that Perkin's story was that his elder brother had been murdered. Of course, it could have been a ruse to protect Edward, but somehow I doubt it. The two are surely as likely to have viewed their sister's marriage as rape as decided to support her choice.

Also, although the precontract would indeed have been grounds for their bastardisation in canon law, remember that the evidence for it had never been placed before a church court, so there had never been a canon law ruling on the matter - this is the thing that Crowland complains about.

Marie

On Sunday, November 8, 2015, 09:34, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Wow! I now have over sixty thousand records of peripheral people (from the conquest onwards) to challenge my peripheral brain but they do give some good data on things like age at death against previous assumptions let alone complex relationships like the Kendal article:) Perhaps we should go for the 'Richard Encyclopaedia' ? H
From: "ajhibbard@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 7 November 2015, 22:33
Subject: Re: Fw: new message

Thanks H - I do stop in from time to time.
My "Getting Richard Right" pages continue to multiply & my spreadsheet of primary references is now over 4400 lines (of course, not every reference is to Richard! & I skip a line between dates)
In other words, my peripheral brain seems to be working.

A J

A persistent local story claims that the two 'Princes in the Tower' were not murdered but were secretly moved to Longdendale by Francis Lovell, Lord of Longdendale, who was Chamberlain to Richard III.

I agree with you that William Stanley's actions deserve further study. A visitor to the Portland Basin museum last year took a photo of placard there that says

A persistent local story claims that the two 'Princes in the Tower' were not murdered but were secretly moved to Longdendale by Francis Lovell, Lord of Longdendale, who was Chamberlain to Richard III.

I agree with you that William Stanley's actions deserve further study. A visitor to the Portland Basin museum last year took a photo of placard there that says

A persistent local story claims that the two 'Princes in the Tower' were not murdered but were secretly moved to Longdendale by Francis Lovell, Lord of Longdendale, who was Chamberlain to Richard III.

I've said this about William Stanley for a long while - way back before the millennium, I was happily taking part in observations that, if a member of the Stanley family - who made it their business to know anything important to their advancement or safety - had doubts about what happened to the boys, then for sure we can feel safe questioning the idea that either or both of them were killed.
Mariaejbronte@...
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:24 AM, ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

I agree with you that William Stanley's actions deserve further study. A visitor to the Portland Basin museum last year took a photo of placard there that says

A persistent local story claims that the two 'Princes in the Tower' were not murdered but were secretly moved to Longdendale by Francis Lovell, Lord of Longdendale, who was Chamberlain to Richard III.

Hi Leena welcome back! I'm busy at the moment so can't respond to the rest but there is a very good book by Dr Simon Phillips called the Prior of the Knights Hospitaller in Late Medieval England. It is downloadable. It goes into a lot of detail about the politicalisation of the Order by the fifteenth century (from HVI onwards the Prior was present at each Parliament) and the relationship and rivalry between Kendal as Turcopolier and the Lancastrian Weston against whom he made serious complaints.  Hospitallers tended to run in families and Prior Kendal was almost certainly a descendant of Sir Jordan Kendal (1291-1358). Of Richard's secretary I can find no trace. H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: pansydobersby
Sent: 08 November 2015 19:25
To:
Subject: John Kendall and Jean de Foix (was: Re: Fw: new message)

Hello everyone - long time, no see.

I have yet to read the Kendall article which was linked to, but it's interesting to see that somebody else has made the connection to Jean de Foix. Although I must say something from the point of view of my own research: I believe the John Kendall who may have been the son of Jean de Foix was actually the Turcopolier of the Knights Hospitaller, *not* Richard's secretary. The Turcopolier can't have been the same person who was Richard's secretary because the Turcopolier-Kendall was busy hustling about on the continent.

During Richard's reign, the Turcopolier was present at least in Venice, and possibly Rome and Rhodes if my memory serves me well. (Probably in other places as well, but for Venice at least the documentation exists.) This John Kendall was what I'd call an International Man of Mystery: he's also the one who allegedly later plotted to have Henry VII and his family poisoned! I think he was the kind of man whose loyalties might have swung either way, rather unpredictably, though he seems to have been fiercely loyal to his English kin. Now, if he really was the Earl of Kendall's illegitimate son (as I believe) and if he was equally loyal to his French Foix kin... that's an interesting question, isn't it.

Hilary may remember that the Hospitaller connection was what led me to my somewhat outlandish Anne Boleyn theory, but the Hospitallers have other interesting connections as well. For one thing, the court of Anjou was littered with Hospitaller families - not surprising, as René considered himself the King of Jerusalem - and Margaret of Anjou's last stepmother, Jeanne de Laval, came from one such family herself. But once you start researching the Hospitaller connections, two things must be kept in mind: (a) the only real common agenda the Hospitaller Knights had was their cause against the Islamic world; but (b) they usually came from well-connected families, so whatever personal agendas they might have had were frequently in conflict. Just looking at England, some Hospitallers were openly Lancastrian (Langstrother, anyone?). The northern Hospitaller families, on the other hand, were largely part of Warwick's network (Plumptons, Lumleys, etc.) and a significant number of them seem to have been loyal supporters of Richard and fought for him at Bosworth.

That's another thing to keep in mind: Hospitaller connections and sympathies were largely inherited. George Buck, of the Richard defence fame, was also descended from a Hospitaller family. And Hospitaller names crop up in connection with the Perkin Warbeck affair as well (e.g. Mallory, Thwaytes).

Leena

So far I've come across John Burgh and Edward Witham, both from families who were close to Richard. H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: pansydobersby
Sent: 08 November 2015 19:51
To:
Subject: Re: John Kendall and Jean de Foix (was: Re: Fw: new message)

Sorry, I'll correct myself a bit. Langstrother obviously fought on the Lancastrian side at Tewkesbury and was executed, but he was obviously part of Warwick's network, not a 'born Lancastrian' as it were. The number of Hospitaller families in Yorkshire alone is quite staggering, and I think I've only stumbled on a small part of them, quite by an accident. They're hard to uncover from records alone unless a member of these families has held a prominent position in the Order at some point.

It's interesting to ponder, though, that Clarence pretty much inherited this network of international influence. And obviously Richard after him, but the eternal conspiracy theorist in me is especially intrigued by whatever plots may have been originally instigated by Clarence... and then taken up by others.

Leena

That is very interesting David. They crop up in quite a few places around folks associated with the princes, like the Hautes and Tyrells. BTW I only recently realised that Thomas More's second wife Alice was the daughter of Sir John Harpur from Rushale Staffs. His family were virtually joined at the hip with the Stanleys  H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Durose David daviddurose2000@... []
Sent: 08 November 2015 16:20
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Fw: new message

The Shaas were associate with Longdende - they were minor gentry and really called Shaw. They took their name from Shaw near Royton. This is within walking distance of Ashton where the Assheton's took their name.

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/blueplaque/siredmundshaa

Regards

David


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On 8 Nov 2015, 13:24:25, ajhibbard@... [] wrote:

I agree with you that William Stanley's actions deserve further study. A visitor to the Portland Basin museum last year took a photo of placard there that says

A persistent local story claims that the two 'Princes in the Tower' were not murdered but were secretly moved to Longdendale by Francis Lovell, Lord of Longdendale, who was Chamberlain to Richard III.

A J

Hi Leena welcome back! I'm busy at the moment so can't respond to the rest but there is a very good book by Dr Simon Phillips called the Prior of the Knights Hospitaller in Late Medieval England. It is downloadable. It goes into a lot of detail about the politicalisation of the Order by the fifteenth century (from HVI onwards the Prior was present at each Parliament) and the relationship and rivalry between Kendal as Turcopolier and the Lancastrian Weston against whom he made serious complaints. Hospitallers tended to run in families and Prior Kendal was almost certainly a descendant of Sir Jordan Kendal (1291-1358). Of Richard's secretary I can find no trace. H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: pansydobersby
Sent: 08 November 2015 19:25
To:
Subject: John Kendall and Jean de Foix (was: Re: Fw: new message)

Hello everyone - long time, no see.

I have yet to read the Kendall article which was linked to, but it's interesting to see that somebody else has made the connection to Jean de Foix. Although I must say something from the point of view of my own research: I believe the John Kendall who may have been the son of Jean de Foix was actually the Turcopolier of the Knights Hospitaller, *not* Richard's secretary. The Turcopolier can't have been the same person who was Richard's secretary because the Turcopolier-Kendall was busy hustling about on the continent.

During Richard's reign, the Turcopolier was present at least in Venice, and possibly Rome and Rhodes if my memory serves me well. (Probably in other places as well, but for Venice at least the documentation exists.) This John Kendall was what I'd call an International Man of Mystery: he's also the one who allegedly later plotted to have Henry VII and his family poisoned! I think he was the kind of man whose loyalties might have swung either way, rather unpredictably, though he seems to have been fiercely loyal to his English kin. Now, if he really was the Earl of Kendall's illegitimate son (as I believe) and if he was equally loyal to his French Foix kin... that's an interesting question, isn't it.

Hilary may remember that the Hospitaller connection was what led me to my somewhat outlandish Anne Boleyn theory, but the Hospitallers have other interesting connections as well. For one thing, the court of Anjou was littered with Hospitaller families - not surprising, as René considered himself the King of Jerusalem - and Margaret of Anjou's last stepmother, Jeanne de Laval, came from one such family herself. But once you start researching the Hospitaller connections, two things must be kept in mind: (a) the only real common agenda the Hospitaller Knights had was their cause against the Islamic world; but (b) they usually came from well-connected families, so whatever personal agendas they might have had were frequently in conflict. Just looking at England, some Hospitallers were openly Lancastrian (Langstrother, anyone?). The northern Hospitaller families, on the other hand, were largely part of Warwick's network (Plumptons, Lumleys, etc.) and a significant number of them seem to have been loyal supporters of Richard and fought for him at Bosworth.

That's another thing to keep in mind: Hospitaller connections and sympathies were largely inherited. George Buck, of the Richard defence fame, was also descended from a Hospitaller family. And Hospitaller names crop up in connection with the Perkin Warbeck affair as well (e.g. Mallory, Thwaytes).

Leena

So sorry! Have managed to turn the Knyvets the right way up (sorry other folks) but can't find Phillips. Perhaps my life got in the way too 😊 But I got there in the end through an entirely different connection. It's interesting that the ODNB says Richard's secretary was an architect (?) and that Prior Kendal came from Yorkshire (Ros ?) or Norfolk.

Personally, I reckon  if there is a Hospitaller link then it might only be through providing a way out for the princes after Bosworth. But then one asks why Prior John went to such extremes to criticise HT if he wanted to cover something up?  I honestly have no grand theory  wish I did.  H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: pansydobersby
Sent: 09 November 2015 23:49
To:
Subject: RE: John Kendall and Jean de Foix (was: Re: Fw: new message)

Thanks, Hilary! :) I hope I can contribute more again - I tend to disappear for months on end because 'real life' just seems to refuse to let up with its many annoyances.

Re: Dr Simon Phillips' book - yes, I know it - in fact, I sent it to you a few months ago, remember? ;)

Honestly, I'm not convinced that Prior Kendal was descended from those Kendals (who were, if I understand correctly, actually de Ros barons of Kendale - though the Ros family were a big Templar/Hospitaller family in their day). But who knows, really. There were clearly many John Kendalls about. Anne F. Sutton wrote an interesting article on the different potential candidates for Richard's secretary, btw: it's in 'Richard III: Crown and People', edited by J. Petre.

As far as I know, the only things that can be known for sure about Prior Kendal are that his nephews were Tongs, his cousin was a Clippesby of Oby, and he called Sir John Paston 'cousin' as well. Also, I haven't been able to connect his coat of arms with any English Kendal family - or any other family, for that matter. BUT, interestingly, if we put on our speculative hat and suppose that Sir John Kendal might actually be the illegitimate son of Jean de Foix, the coat of arms would make sense as a combination of Grailly (a.k.a. what the Foix-Grailly used to be before they adopted their Foix arms) and Trussell. Thus it was Philippa Kerdeston, née Trussell, the widow of Sir Thomas Kerdeston, who caught my eye. Through her husband's family she would have had a personal connection to Jean de Foix AND her family connections would connect her to the Clippesbys and the Pastons. So who knows...

The Trussells also had Hospitaller connections, and the Graillys had an illustrious past in the Crusades. It would make perfect sense for their descendant to rise in the ranks of the Knights of St John. But like I said, it's pure speculation still - mostly based on a coat of arms, and little else. Hard to tell where one might find any solid proof either way.

Leena

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Hi Leena welcome back! I'm busy at the moment so can't respond to the rest but there is a very good book by Dr Simon Phillips called the Prior of the Knights Hospitaller in Late Medieval England. It is downloadable. It goes into a lot of detail about the politicalisation of the Order by the fifteenth century (from HVI onwards the Prior was present at each Parliament) and the relationship and rivalry between Kendal as Turcopolier and the Lancastrian Weston against whom he made serious complaints. Hospitallers tended to run in families and Prior Kendal was almost certainly a descendant of Sir Jordan Kendal (1291-1358). Of Richard's secretary I can find no trace. H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: pansydobersby
Sent: 08 November 2015 19:25
To:
Subject: John Kendall and Jean de Foix (was: Re: Fw: new message)

Hello everyone - long time, no see.

I have yet to read the Kendall article which was linked to, but it's interesting to see that somebody else has made the connection to Jean de Foix. Although I must say something from the point of view of my own research: I believe the John Kendall who may have been the son of Jean de Foix was actually the Turcopolier of the Knights Hospitaller, *not* Richard's secretary. The Turcopolier can't have been the same person who was Richard's secretary because the Turcopolier-Kendall was busy hustling about on the continent.

During Richard's reign, the Turcopolier was present at least in Venice, and possibly Rome and Rhodes if my memory serves me well. (Probably in other places as well, but for Venice at least the documentation exists.) This John Kendall was what I'd call an International Man of Mystery: he's also the one who allegedly later plotted to have Henry VII and his family poisoned! I think he was the kind of man whose loyalties might have swung either way, rather unpredictably, though he seems to have been fiercely loyal to his English kin. Now, if he really was the Earl of Kendall's illegitimate son (as I believe) and if he was equally loyal to his French Foix kin... that's an interesting question, isn't it.

Hilary may remember that the Hospitaller connection was what led me to my somewhat outlandish Anne Boleyn theory, but the Hospitallers have other interesting connections as well. For one thing, the court of Anjou was littered with Hospitaller families - not surprising, as René considered himself the King of Jerusalem - and Margaret of Anjou's last stepmother, Jeanne de Laval, came from one such family herself. But once you start researching the Hospitaller connections, two things must be kept in mind: (a) the only real common agenda the Hospitaller Knights had was their cause against the Islamic world; but (b) they usually came from well-connected families, so whatever personal agendas they might have had were frequently in conflict. Just looking at England, some Hospitallers were openly Lancastrian (Langstrother, anyone?). The northern Hospitaller families, on the other hand, were largely part of Warwick's network (Plumptons, Lumleys, etc.) and a significant number of them seem to have been loyal supporters of Richard and fought for him at Bosworth.

That's another thing to keep in mind: Hospitaller connections and sympathies were largely inherited. George Buck, of the Richard defence fame, was also descended from a Hospitaller family. And Hospitaller names crop up in connection with the Perkin Warbeck affair as well (e.g. Mallory, Thwaytes).

Leena

He may well indeed! I admire him very much (and use him occasionally). Mine is quite different though because it is a huge set of family relationships going back to before the Conquest and beyond the fifteenth century (and embracing Europe when it occurs). So to get to his 100,000 (a twentieth of the population) in Richard's time and to link them all in families will probably take me at least a decade  but I live in hope. Sad aren't I? H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: ajhibbard@... []
Sent: 10 November 2015 18:32
To:
Subject: Re: Fw: new message

You and Ian Rogers. Seems I've read he has over 100,000 names on his database! (www.girders.net)

A J

So sorry! Have managed to turn the Knyvets the right way up (sorry other folks) but can't find Phillips. Perhaps my life got in the way too = But I got there in the end through an entirely different connection. It's interesting that the ODNB says Richard's secretary was an architect (?) and that Prior Kendal came from Yorkshire (Ros ?) or Norfolk.

Personally, I reckon if there is a Hospitaller link then it might only be through providing a way out for the princes after Bosworth. But then one asks why Prior John went to such extremes to criticise HT if he wanted to cover something up? I honestly have no grand theory  wish I did. H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: pansydobersby
Sent: 09 November 2015 23:49
To:
Subject: RE: John Kendall and Jean de Foix (was: Re: Fw: new message)

Thanks, Hilary! :) I hope I can contribute more again - I tend to disappear for months on end because 'real life' just seems to refuse to let up with its many annoyances.

Re: Dr Simon Phillips' book - yes, I know it - in fact, I sent it to you a few months ago, remember? ;)

Honestly, I'm not convinced that Prior Kendal was descended from those Kendals (who were, if I understand correctly, actually de Ros barons of Kendale - though the Ros family were a big Templar/Hospitaller family in their day). But who knows, really. There were clearly many John Kendalls about. Anne F. Sutton wrote an interesting article on the different potential candidates for Richard's secretary, btw: it's in 'Richard III: Crown and People', edited by J. Petre.

As far as I know, the only things that can be known for sure about Prior Kendal are that his nephews were Tongs, his cousin was a Clippesby of Oby, and he called Sir John Paston 'cousin' as well. Also, I haven't been able to connect his coat of arms with any English Kendal family - or any other family, for that matter. BUT, interestingly, if we put on our speculative hat and suppose that Sir John Kendal might actually be the illegitimate son of Jean de Foix, the coat of arms would make sense as a combination of Grailly (a.k.a. what the Foix-Grailly used to be before they adopted their Foix arms) and Trussell. Thus it was Philippa Kerdeston, née Trussell, the widow of Sir Thomas Kerdeston, who caught my eye. Through her husband's family she would have had a personal connection to Jean de Foix AND her family connections would connect her to the Clippesbys and the Pastons. So who knows...

The Trussells also had Hospitaller connections, and the Graillys had an illustrious past in the Crusades. It would make perfect sense for their descendant to rise in the ranks of the Knights of St John. But like I said, it's pure speculation still - mostly based on a coat of arms, and little else. Hard to tell where one might find any solid proof either way.

Leena

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Hi Leena welcome back! I'm busy at the moment so can't respond to the rest but there is a very good book by Dr Simon Phillips called the Prior of the Knights Hospitaller in Late Medieval England. It is downloadable. It goes into a lot of detail about the politicalisation of the Order by the fifteenth century (from HVI onwards the Prior was present at each Parliament) and the relationship and rivalry between Kendal as Turcopolier and the Lancastrian Weston against whom he made serious complaints. Hospitallers tended to run in families and Prior Kendal was almost certainly a descendant of Sir Jordan Kendal (1291-1358). Of Richard's secretary I can find no trace. H

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: pansydobersby
Sent: 08 November 2015 19:25
To:
Subject: John Kendall and Jean de Foix (was: Re: Fw: new message)

Hello everyone - long time, no see.

I have yet to read the Kendall article which was linked to, but it's interesting to see that somebody else has made the connection to Jean de Foix. Although I must say something from the point of view of my own research: I believe the John Kendall who may have been the son of Jean de Foix was actually the Turcopolier of the Knights Hospitaller, *not* Richard's secretary. The Turcopolier can't have been the same person who was Richard's secretary because the Turcopolier-Kendall was busy hustling about on the continent.

During Richard's reign, the Turcopolier was present at least in Venice, and possibly Rome and Rhodes if my memory serves me well. (Probably in other places as well, but for Venice at least the documentation exists.) This John Kendall was what I'd call an International Man of Mystery: he's also the one who allegedly later plotted to have Henry VII and his family poisoned! I think he was the kind of man whose loyalties might have swung either way, rather unpredictably, though he seems to have been fiercely loyal to his English kin. Now, if he really was the Earl of Kendall's illegitimate son (as I believe) and if he was equally loyal to his French Foix kin... that's an interesting question, isn't it.

Hilary may remember that the Hospitaller connection was what led me to my somewhat outlandish Anne Boleyn theory, but the Hospitallers have other interesting connections as well. For one thing, the court of Anjou was littered with Hospitaller families - not surprising, as René considered himself the King of Jerusalem - and Margaret of Anjou's last stepmother, Jeanne de Laval, came from one such family herself. But once you start researching the Hospitaller connections, two things must be kept in mind: (a) the only real common agenda the Hospitaller Knights had was their cause against the Islamic world; but (b) they usually came from well-connected families, so whatever personal agendas they might have had were frequently in conflict. Just looking at England, some Hospitallers were openly Lancastrian (Langstrother, anyone?). The northern Hospitaller families, on the other hand, were largely part of Warwick's network (Plumptons, Lumleys, etc.) and a significant number of them seem to have been loyal supporters of Richard and fought for him at Bosworth.

That's another thing to keep in mind: Hospitaller connections and sympathies were largely inherited. George Buck, of the Richard defence fame, was also descended from a Hospitaller family. And Hospitaller names crop up in connection with the Perkin Warbeck affair as well (e.g. Mallory, Thwaytes).

Leena

Hi,

I don't know if that number for Ian Rogers' database is correct, but one thing to bear in mind about it is that he has, quite rightly, not made the assumption that the same name means the same individual, so consequently there are many individuals whose lives have been fragmented under separate biographies. Better that than mixing two different people up together by mistake.

Marie

I've an idea the Clerk of the Works was working in that capacity late into Edward's reign, but you will have this information. 'Our' John Kendall, however, had been Richard's secretary in the North during the 1470s - there are a couple of extant letters of Richard's that he signed (one of these in private hands), and I'm pretty sure I've seen also seen references to him in the legal records as "John Kendale, secretary". Being a notary was more of a legal position so I think it would be wise to keep the two separate at this stage. The problem is, there are just tons of John Kendals in the records for that era and we have to be extremely careful. That old Ricardian article is certainly worth a look as I seem to remember it dealt with some of the confusion. I personally think there's a lot of work to be done before we can safely identify Richard's secretary and where he came from.

My feeling about his importance in the government is that it was mainly the result of his having been Richard's secretary as duke, and being well known to and trusted by Richard, plus the role of King's secretary starting to become more important. I don't see that he would have needed to be of noble blood for Richard to have favoured him, or that this would have been the sort of background you'd expect for a duke's secretary. Perhaps a comparison would be useful. Does anyone know anything about the background of Clarence's secretary William Molyneux?

Marie

Hilary, yes - and a bunch of Tongs were buried in the Hospitaller Priory of Clerkenwell, William Tong among them. But the thing is, I don't think we actually know where this particular Tong family came from. There was a Thweng family in Yorkshire - a Hospitaller family - and I originally assumed these Tongs must be related to them, though there doesn't seem to be any record of these particular Tong/Thwengs anywhere. No specific persons that fit the bill; nothing that points towards a potential connection to John Kendal. The Plumptons were John Tong's godparents, but the Plumptons were an Hospitaller family with Norfolk connections as well, so that doesn't automatically mean the Tongs originated from Yorkshire. Tongs also occur in Kent, for example. Not to mention, of course, that the Yorkshire family's name was more likely to be spelt Thweng(e) or Thwing(e) (but spelling means nothing in the 15th century, I know).
Then I came across Ton g in Salop, Shropshire. Sir Fulke Pembrigge of Tong Castle had joined the fight against the Turks in person, so that would qualify as a Hospitaller connection as well. And his first wife just happened to be Margaret Trussell, so I'm not ready to bury my Philippa Trussell/Jean de Foix theory for Prior Kendal just yet ;)
I think we need much more information to establish the identity of either John Kendall. Though, as an aside, the more I look into things, the more evident it becomes that the Warwick inheritance came with a really heavy network of Hospitallers which went way back into the days of the Beauchamps.
L.

Hi Hilary,

Very interesting about your early find of John Kendall - I'd be interested in the details. 1466 is a little early, since Richard didn't get livery of his estates until late 1468, but perhaps he had household officers assigned to him in a sort of practice capacity in readiness for the day. I do suspect that most of his household officers had been working for him since his teens - the same pattern you find with Clarence, really.

I think the 'cofferer' is probably someone else. There was certainly at least one John Kendall working directly for Edward IV long term, so he can't also be Richard's man, and I doubt that Richard's secretary was a lawyer. One reference I found to Richard's John Kendall late in Edward's reign was a royal grant to him, and it describes him as a servant of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, which pretty much clinches it for me. If he also worked for the King, he would have been so described in the grant. I think that terms like 'secretary' and 'servant to Richard Duke of Gloucester' were meant to distinguish him from the John Kendal(s) working for the king.

There were also Kendals in York, and I think Gloucester has also been suggested as a place of origin for him. Basically, anywhere you look you can find Kendals, which doesn't exactly make the problem any easier.

There were also Tongs in York, and a John Tong was Mayor of the city in 1477. The name seems to be quite distinct from Thweng.

Thanks very much for this, Hilary. Abbot Whetehamsted's register is available to download, and I had already done so, so I have taken a look. Sadly, as so often, the author seems to have made careless use of his sources. The 1466 grant (p. 59) was not to Richard Duke of Gloucester at all, but was the appointment to the church of East Barnet of one Richard Benet, a servant of Lord Wenlock, the appointment having been made following the death of the previous rector, at the special instance of Lord Wenlock.

The first grant of the next presentation to Richard & John Kendall, therefore, is that of 1476/1477 (pp. 166-7). I'll perhaps translate it and post it up. It's not actually dated, but the preceding item is dated August 1476 and the one following is 7 March 1476/7.

Funnily enough, I've just "done" the will of a priest named Richard Benet as part of the Society's new wills project - this one died in April 1486 and was rector of a church in Wiltshire. He doesn't make any mention of Barnet.

Marie

Another slightly interesting development. The Tynemouth presentation interested me because in March 1487 the Prior of Tynemouth was seen meeting some Yorkist conspirators at the Sign of the Boar in York. So I checked,: the man Richard appointed was Nicholas Boston, one of the senior monks at St Albans, and he was the Prior of Tynemouth in 1487.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Thanks very much for this reference - it explains a lot more. But Boston hadn't been moved to Tynemouth in 1477 - that was just when Richard got permission from the Abbot of St Albans for Boston to have the priorship when it next fell vacant. Not sure what you mean by a naughty boy. This is the entry in 'Heads of Religious Houses' retyped:

"Nicholas Boston 1483-1494 Gt of priory of Tynemouth for life. His former deposition by William Dixwell who succeeded him but now repents and effects his reinstatment 8 March 1483 (Ibid. II, 254). Gt of a perpetuity to pr. Nicholas for life, at the instance of Richard III, 19 Nov. 1483 (Ibid., II, 262-3). A reconciliation made through the abb. between Nicholas Boston, pr. of Tynemouth, and William Dixwelle, pr. of Binham 12 Sept. 1485 (Ibid. II, 273-4). Occ. 24 May 1492 (Herts RO ASA.7/6). D. 12 June 1494, bur. London Greyfriars (CTG, V (1838), 288)."

No idea what "Ibid.'" refers back to.

Judging from Dixwell's entry (which I'm not going to type up), the priorship of Tynemouth fell vacant in 1480 and the Abbot wrote to the Bishop of Durham presenting Dixwell (who appears to have been Northumberland's man) despite the written promise he had already given Richard. So the dispute was probably as much between Richard and the Earl of Northumberland as it was between Dixwell and Boston.

No idea about Nicholas Boston's origins as I've never researched him before. It can sometimes be hard to tell with churchmen because so many of them went out of their way to make no mention of family in their wills, etc. BUt my guess is that, if he started out at St Albans Abbey, he was probably a Hertfordshire man.

But it should be posible to find out more. There may be a will, and there is certainly at least one Chancery petition - the reference can be got from TNA website, and the original doc is on the AALT website. And more entries in Whethamstede's register.

Marie

Okay, Hilary, now I've managed to get the whole page on screen I see what you mean, but I wonder if we can take Dixwell's charges against Boston at face value given that after Hatfield's enquiry he was reinstated, and he had been Almoner at St. Albans Abbey for donkeys years, and then Archdeacon. This is my summary of the entries on the priors of Tynemouth from 'Heads of Religious Houses', III, p. 152:

May 1478  Appointed Prior of Tynemouth for life on the removal of John Langton

14 September 1478  Resigned his offices of Archdeacon and Almoner of St Albans Abbey

23 October (?  10 days bef All Saints) 1478  He reached Tynemouth

8 May 1480  William Dixwell, Prior of Binham, appointed as prior of Tynemouth in his place

17 May 1480  He resigned the priorship of Tynemouth in favour of Northumberland's man, William Dixwell

18 May 1480  William Dixwell, the new prior, granted him an annuity

9 June 1480  The Earl of Northumberland granted Prior Dixwell an annuity of £10

29 June 1480  Letter of presentation from the Abbot of St Albans to the Bship of Durham to admit William Dixwell

24 July 1480  The Abbot of St Albans confirmed the annuity

5 September 1480  The Abbot of St Albans commissioned Prior William to take and examine Nicholas Boston, accused of certain excesses

16 September 1480  He was cited by the Abbot of St. Albans to appear before Prior William

16 September 1480  Request to the Bishop of Durham that he will aid in the capture of Nicholas Boston

10 December 1480  The Abbot of St Albans nominated John Hatfield, Prior of Belvoir, to visit Tynemouth by reason of the disputes between Nicholas Boston and William Dixwell

1481  William Dixwell removed from Tynemouth and again made Prior of Binham

8 March 1483  William Dixwell repented and effected Nicholas Boston's reinstatement

19 November 1483  Grant of a perpetuity to Prior Nicholas for life, at the instance of Richard III

17 March 1485  William Dixwell promised to discharge the debts incurred by the Priory of Tynemouth during the time he was Prior there

12 September 1485  A reconciliation made through the Abbot of St Albans between Nicholas Boston, Prior of Tynemouth, and William Dixwelle, Prior of Binham

24 May 1492  Occ. (Anyone know what this is short for?)

12 June 14894  Died.

Buried at London Greyfriars.

I'd love to buy that book, but it is SO expensive, even the e book version.

Hi Hilary,

Discovered a bit more in the Abbots' registers. Very interesting! In November 1462 Nicholas Boston and a colleague were appointed by the Abbot to carry out a visitation of Binham Priory to look into and correct any excesses. Two months later, the Abbot was writing to the King telling him that Prior Dixwell, had left his priory and was wandering about as an apostate, son of perdition, etc., and asking Edward to issue a proclamation for his arrest. So this is why 'The Heads of Religious Houses' shows two sets of dates for Dixwell at Binham - he evidently took time to get himself reinstated.

Si if we assume that letter to King Edward to have been the direct result of Boston's Visitation, then Dixwell's behaviour towards Boston when he was appointed as a prior himself becomes simply the settling of an old score. Dixwell's intervention was probably highly welcome to the Earl of Northumberland, who must have been miffed by Richard getting himself the presentation to Tynemouth Priory, which lay in his own patch.

Yes, I agree, Richard obviously did think highly of Boston. He had been Almoner at St. Albans since at least 1462 (I'd have to look at volume 1 of the Abbots' registers to see just how long), and is mentioned at other times as Cellarer and Archdeacon. He was appointed to carry out Visitations on more than one occasion. So he was evidently highly thought of by the various abbots. Richard would have stayed at St. Albans Abbey on many occasions as he travelled between London and the North, and no doubt knew not only the abbots but also many of the more senior monks. Nicholas Boston must have impressed him.

Now really must get back to other things! Just one last thought: Why did Richard ask for the three presentations that he did, since not one of them lay in his own proper territory? viz Barnet, Tenby (belonged to earldom of Pembroke) and Tynemouth? I suppose we'd all guess that Barnet was because of the battle.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

I need to make one slight correction to what I wrote before: it was January 1463 meaning January 1464 when the Abbot wrote to King Edward about Dixwell, so 14 months, not 2 months, after Boston had been appointed to conduct his visitation.

Honestly, it was a very litigious age and you would be very unlucky to find no trace of a person of that level of society in the legal records of the time - try any name you like just for fun. It would be anachronistic to see a couple of Chancery petitions as evidence that anyone particularly had it in for Prior Boston. I also think it's a wee bit unfair to describe a Chancery case that happens to belong to the long period when Morton was Chancellor as "complaints to Morton" as if Morton was a personal choice rather than just the current head of the Court of Chancery.

BTW, cases were brought to Chancery where the documentary evidence to support a case was lacking because it was a court of equity rather than being bound by the rigid application of common law, so people hoped for a verdict that was in line with natural justice. Also, bear in mind that it appears Dixwell had left Tynemouth Priory in debt.

Some quite obscure individuals appear in as many as a dozen separate Chancery petitions. As you may recall from the Bulletin, I even found Chancery cases involving the last Simnels of Kent.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

I shouldn't have, but I've got my teeth into this now so I've carried on with Nicholas Boston. I'll report properly when I've finished, but a picture is starting to emerge of how and why he was really sacked in 1480. There's a glowing report of his good character in his appointment letter in 1478, but the negative view starts to appear only a few months later, the Abbot grumbling about how long he took on the journey north and how much his travel expenses came to (sadly, he doesn't actually tell us how much). It seems harsh in some ways because Boston was having to leave behind his old life and settle his affairs, and that takes time. After taking leave of the Abbot, he first went down to London, with the abbot's permission, where he spent a week. He then took a month doing the 280-mile journey from London to Tynemouth, diverting into Lincolnshire on the way, as the Abbot sourly records. I wonder whether this means he was indeed from Lincs as his name suggests, and as you suggested earlier - the monks tended to ditch their birth surnames for the name of the place they came from.

Anyhow, two years later the Abbot ordered a Visitation of Tynemouth Abbey, and guess who the visitors were to be: yes, William Dixwell, one Thomas Binham who I suppose would have been one of Dixwelle's monks from Binham priory, and John Langton, the old prior whose sacking had freed the post up for Boston. Just ten days later the Abbot appointed Dixwell as the new prior on the ground that bad things had shown up about Boston in the Visitation. But there hadn't been time for Dixwelle to get to Tynemouth, carry out the visitation and get a report back to St. Albans, so clearly the whole Visitation was a set-up.

On 17 May Nicholas Boston made a formal resignation in the Prior's Chamber of Tynemouth Priory, which was written up as a public instrument by a public notary from the diocese of Norwich (ergo, Dixwell's man, I would suggest). The Earl of Northumberland was clearly involved as the witnesses were all his men. The following day Prior Dixwell and the convent gave their consent to the Earl of Northumberland and named officers of his (who just happened to have been the witnesses to Boston's resignation) granting Boston an annuity of £10 for his sustenance. My guess is that Northumberland was personally present at the priory with these officers of his.

This, then, is the annuity that 'Heads of Religious Houses' describes as having been granted to Boston by Dixwell - actually it's from the Earl of Northumberland.

Know what I think? I think that Dixwell was determined to take his revenge on Boston for what had happened to him in the early 1460s as a result of Boston's Visitation, and as soon as Boston was appointed Prior of Tynemouth began working against him. He was surely whispering in the Abbot's ear, but also it looks to me as though he was canny enough to realise (or had heard) that the Earl of Northumberland was displeased with Gloucester's appointee having been placed at Tynemouth, and approached the Earl suggesting a strategy for removing him. So, between Dixwell, Abbot Wallingford and the Earl of Northumberland it was agreed that Dixwell should make a Visitation and claim to have found serious irregularities so that Dixwell could be appointed Prior in his place. No sooner was Dixwell in place than Northumberland granted him an annuity and appointed him to his council.

So that is how it looks at present, but as I say I'm still working on it.

The link between St Albans and Tynemouth is that Tynemouth Priory was a daughter house of St. Albans Abbey, and the Abbot of St Albans therefore had the right to present the Prior of Tynemouth. Same goes for Binham Priory in Norfolk, where Dixwell was Prior.

Re Nykkes, bear in mind that churchmen often came from pretty humble origins. I've done a wildcard search on Nix* in TNA catalogue, and a handful of cases came up. If you then do the same again with Nyx* you should get a few more. If you want to know whether the Bishop's name has been misread, you just need to find him in one of the many original documents online.

Trespass simply meant a class of crime lesser than felony - if these cases have a reference starting C 1, then digital images will be available on the University of Iowa site, AALT.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

No, I suspect Richard's contact with Nicholas Boston was direct - as Abbey Cellarer in particular he would I imagine have had direct contact with important guests. Wherever he came from, he'd been at St Albans for a long number of years when Richard put him forward for Tynemouth.

Even more interesting, this is what Dixwell later confessed (my translation from the Abbey register):

"Memorandum that, on the eighth of March in the year of Our Lord fourteen eighty-two [i.e. 1483], Dom William Dyxwelle, Prior of Bynham, was with the Lord Abbot at Tyttenhanger (Tytenhangre') and, by the urging, labour and intervention made by the said Prior to the Lord Abbot, the Lord Abbot granted to Dom Nicholas, then Prior of Tynemouth, a Perpetuity in the office of Prior there so long as he should live, sealed with the Lord Abbot's seal. And the said Dom William Dixwelle paid for the writing and sealing of the said Perpetuity, at his own cost. And this was the cause of his labour and expenditure made in the premises: - because by his sinister labour made to the said Lord Abbot, in the year of Our Lord fourteen eighty the same Nicholas Bostone, then Prior of Tynemouth aforesaid, was deposed from the foresaid priory, and Dom William Dixwell was created Prior there; and the Perpetuity that the same Prior Nicholas then had, this same William Dixwell then maliciously and violently snatched from him, broke and tore to shreds. And therefore he, moved by conscience on account of the premises, most urgently laboured the Lord Abbot to have the foresaid Perpetuity. Which perpetuity was written in the manner and form as it was first granted on the sixteenth folio from this one counting backwards, etc.

Some months later Richard got another perpetuity grant made out for Boston, sealed by the Abbot and the whole convent this time. Richard was paying £100 to have a watermill built at Tynemouth Priory, which he would place in trust for the monks, and it seems that this rather more secure grant of perpetuity for Boston was something he wanted to have in place before he went ahead. I don't blame him - Abbot Wallingford's role in the whole affair had been dismal.

I note that Wallingford had been elected Abbot for his financial wizardry, because the Abbey was in debt, so I can't help suspecting that there may have been a bribe offered by Northumberland for the Abbey coffers back in 1480 in return for the Abbot's cooperation over replacing Boston. Perhaps that is unworthy of me, but Wallingford had a question mark over his own honesty going back to the death of Abbot Wheathamsted's predecessor - the dying abbot was believed to have handed over £1,000 to Wallingford and another monk, but they were only ever able to account for £250 of it.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

No, indeed, I knew nothing about these particular folk a week or two ago.

I've now looked at the Chancery cases. They probably both date from the couple of years after Stoke, which may be significant given that Henry had received word that Prior Boston had been meeting southern Yorkists at the Boar in York in March 1487.

Anyhow, the first is from the Prioress of St. Batholomew's in Newcastle, and she claimed that the priory had been receiving their 200-yr-old annual pension of 8 quarters of wheat, in 4 quarterly payments of 2 quarters each, until Michaelmas 1487, when Prior Boston stopped payment. She claimed she had gone to Chancery because suing at common law in Northumberland would be pointless as the Prior was too powerful there. A hearing date was set, and there is no written submission in response from Prior Boston, so he may simply have started repaying the corn.

The second one, the 'trespass', was from a London gentleman, John Rokley, whom Prior Boston was suing at the London Counter for £40. Rokely claimed he had never owed the Prior anything, 'by byng or sellyng nor otherwise' and asked the Chancellor to issue a writ of Corpus cum Causa to get him released and force the Prior to come and explain his case. Hearing set for the following Wednesday (sorry, can't switch off italics now).

Looking at the very few indexes for the Common Pleas files on ALLT, I see there is a case in there for the same period, also regarding the Prior's attempt to claim a debt. I wonder if the Priory was perhaps in financial straits and he was trying to get the finances back on track. Also, maybe after Stoke his adversaries knew they would get a sympathetic hearing from Chancellor Morton or King Henry.

If other debt cases turn up for the earlier period of Boston's priorship then it would suggest he was ferocious and probably even unjust in his pursuit of possible debtors, but if it's all complaints by his debtors from the period after Stoke then I'd be a bit more wary.

Anyhow, Prior Boston will have to be set to one side now.

Marie

On Saturday, November 14, 2015, 22:47, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hello!

You have a new message, please read http://appartement-hotel-metz.fr/definitely.php

stephenmlark@...