Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Happy New Year, All!
I was suddenly struck today with a curiosity as to what, if anything, John Moreton/Morton did while archdeacon of Leicester from January 1477/8 to January 1478/9. Did he ever so much as visit the archdeacon's quarters? I get the strong impression that he did not.
Tamara
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
It could be something, it could be nothing. Certainly the East Harptree dates would be about right for the conception of his daughter Juliana, so did his partner come from East Harptree? And who was she? I find it strange that someone with the wealth and connections of John Hampton would choose an illegitimate bride, even if she was the daughter of a bishop. Did Juliana's mother have significant connections herself? H
(Sorry to digress into Stillington again)
From: "khafara@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 9 January 2016, 7:02
Subject: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Happy New Year, All!
I was suddenly struck today with a curiosity as to what, if anything, John Moreton/Morton did while archdeacon of Leicester from January 1477/8 to January 1478/9. Did he ever so much as visit the archdeacon's quarters? I get the strong impression that he did not.
Tamara
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Marie said, WRT John Moreton's one-year tenure as Archdeacon of Leicester:
"I bet he was too busy being Master of the Rolls."
That's what I was thinking, too. Especially since there seems to be a tradition of that post's holders treating it as a cash cow as opposed to an actual job.
Thanks!
Tamara
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
To be honest I have a couple of scenarios. The first is the straightforward one; that Father Ingleby (the brother of Stillington's nephew by marriage), or Sir John Newton, Eleanor's brother in law, told Stillington about the pre contract in 1483 because by acknowledging an illegitimate king they were putting their souls in peril. I honestly don't think Stillington would have been chosen by Edward to witness it, he was too clever and far too much of a risk.
But there is another scenario which is about grudges. We know from Stillington's correspondence with the Pope that he was one to bear a grudge - cross Stillington and he'd find a way to get back at you. And Edward did cross Stillington when he put him in the Tower in 1476. The Talbots were also no great admirers of Edward; he failed to sort out the Berkeley inheritance and he robbed Elizabeth of her Mowbray inheritance when he married his son to her daughter. And they may well have believed he mistreated Eleanor
I don't believe in James Bond type world domination plots but I can see how the early unexpected death of Edward would provide a way of getting back at the House of York, perhaps without even thinking through the consequences. It wouldn't take a soothsayer to predict that Hastings and the Woodvilles would fall out and then you are left with an earnest, but handicapped, king with a barren wife and a fragile son. I doubt they even thought that far forward unless egged on by MB.
At the moment I would like to go for the straightforward scenario but Stillington's contacts with the West Country and Wales, let alone possibly Brittany, just can't be ignored. You can't unknown what you know. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 January 2016, 17:44
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: //snip// It could be something, it could be nothing. Certainly the East Harptree dates would be about right for the conception of his daughter Juliana, so did hi s partner come from East Harptree? And who was she? I find it strange that someone with the wealth and connections of John Hampton would choose an illegitimate bride, even if she was the daughter of a bishop. Did Juliana's mother have significant connections herself? Doug here: Didn't bishops rank just below the royal family in precedence? Then there's the fact that many (most?) bishops were also employed in various high governmental positions, as well as having to manage their diocese. And while said bishop was either managing his diocese or employed in some great office of state, wouldn't he be in a position to, um, assist the husband of his daughter? Two other possibilities that come to mind are that it was a love match or perhaps it was the best match available at that time. Marriages of the former type certainly weren't unknown, even if they weren't the norm. As for the latter possibility, we'd have to know the situation in that part of the country at that time, who was available for marriage, what property they'd bring and, possibly most important, when the marriage would be able to be consummated which is when the property would be transferred, wouldn't it? Or have I gotten that last bit wrong? Personally, I'd think that a direct connection to one of the Lords Spiritual, even via marriage to an illegitimate offspring of said Lord, wouldn't be something to sneeze at... Doug (Who doesn't mind the strayings into Stillington territory at all after all, you never know who, or what, you'll find!)
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
"I agree with your para one Doug and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to have children in the late 1460s -"
Carol responds:
If she was born in 1426 (could have been 1427 if she was a posthumous child), whe would have turned 34 in 1460--not too old to have a child even at that time. So she *could have been Stillington's much younger sister. Not that it matters to me one way or the other, but I do think it's important to be careful with generalizations
Carol
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 January 2016, 18:38
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote:
"I agree with your para one Doug and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to have children in the late 1460s -"
Carol responds:
If she was born in 1426 (could have been 1427 if she was a posthumous child), whe would have turned 34 in 1460--not too old to have a child even at that time. So she *could have been Stillington's much younger sister. Not that it matters to me one way or the other, but I do think it's important to be careful with generalizations
Carol
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi all,
On the Eleanor Butler front, it occurred to me very recently whilst rereading More's claims about Cecily claiming that Edward had made a contract of marriage with 'Dame Elizabeth Lucy' , and she then being interrogated by the council and denying the whole thing.
Is it possible that the Eleanor Butler story was well known to Edward's inner circle because *she* had been interrogated by the council on that basis?? If so, and if she had affirmed that it was true but no witnesses had been prepared to back her up, then the council - if they followed the rules observed by the bishops' courts - would have had to rule against her. But suppose that then, after Edward's death, a witness or two was finally prepared to come forward, the council would have had all the evidence for the marriage required by canon law.
Highly speculative, I realise, but if the real precontract lady had been questioned and denied the marriage, as per More, the claim could surely never have been brought forward again. Perhaps More's whole story is nonsense, but then they do often turn out to have been spun up from the twisting of some real fact into a false yarn.
What might Cecily have felt about Edward acknowledging Eleanor Butler instead of Elizabeth Woodville? Would she have minded the fact that she appeared to be barren, or seen it as an opportunity for sweet little George to succeed Edward?
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Mary
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Mary
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Mary wrote:
Doug something else that struck me about Tudor getting French help. If he considered that he had a claim to the English throne, he may well have considered that he had a claim to the French throne too. His grandmother Catherine of Valois was much closer to the French throne than MB was to the English throne and at the time of Tudor's invasion of England there was a young boy on the French throne wasn't there? He may have threatened them that if they didn't help him he would make a claim to the French throne. The downside of course is that he didn't have a very big army in France and could not rely on much help from England as his eventual supporters were too busy hedging their bets there.
Mary
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re the 'housekeeper' (and you're right the Pope did pardon many a priest and his housekeeper so long as they said they hadn't had carnal relations) there is one puzzling person mentioned to me originally by Stephen. That's Jenet Percival 'of Ripon'. She appears in some Visitations as the wife of one of Stillington's brothers. But he only had one brother, Thomas, who married Agnes Bigod before 1445 and had a daughter Katherine about 1445. Agnes survived him and went on to marry Marmaduke Vavasour. All this can be verified from various sources. Now I'd normally have discarded Jenet, but the main Percival family came from Eastbury near East Harptree and Richard Percival married John Hampton's sister, so was uncle to Stillington's grandchildren. So far though I can't link Jenet and the Eastbury gang. Secondly, we could look at the name Juliana and say it's not a Stillington name. The family were quite traditional and named their children after their parents, John and Katherine, and after that Joan or Johanna, after their benefactor Joan de Holme. So was Stillington's partner called Julian?
Re the confessional, I'm sure Marie will know more about this than me, but my understanding is that a priest could break it in exceptional circumstances only to someone of a higher level, which Stillington was. I agree with what Marie says and these two are just some of quite a few candidates who could have known - add Elizabeth Talbot, who was close to her sister, and what about Anne Beauchamp/Neville who met Eleanor just before her death when they attended the funeral of her mother, Anne's sister? Anne is another person with a grudge and a lot to gain if a Beauchamp finally sits on the throne. As we've said before, no point in bringing it up during Edward's life. He could divorce and rectify things. Stillington is a good candidate for these people to approach because most of them are related to him, he's an elder statesman who's served both Lancaster and York at a high level, he's a lawyer and he's a bishop. He'd 'know what to do and how to do it'. The one person I wouldn't count in is Catesby; the Plantagenets didn't ennoble civil servants, that came with the Tudors. And he'd worked for Rivers as well as Richard. In fact he had a large client base.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I could buy that Stillington was the one who was approached and asked to present this evidence to the Council but insofar as I know we don't know what was actually said and who the witnesses claimed to be. Perhaps they asked for their names not to be in the public domain but the fact that a senior bishop agreed with them fulfilled your snobbery bit and endorsed that it was true. Interesting that the bishop wasn't Morton or indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury? Perhaps Stillington, because of his grudge against Edward, was the one prepared to bring it into the open.
Finally France. I agree again with Marie. Once Richard was on the throne he was a serious threat because of his declarations in 1476. Anything which diverted him was a godsend. If some wet behind the ears adventurer could keep him running round the Welsh hills for half a decade whilst they got on with their European ambitions then that would be great. Same with Scotland who knew his abilities. I doubt they interfered before that. Richard's accession would have been a rather nasty shock to a dying Louis.
Phew! Sorry it's so long but there were a lot of questions. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 16:16
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: I agree with your para one Doug and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to have children in the late 1460s - we know their births because their ages are stated in Cholke's will. He certainly had more than one child; a son George is buried at Wells in 1492/3, which implies a long term relationship and hence a real tie-in with that part of the country. Doug here: I seem to recall reading somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for a priest to have a housekeeper who would serve as a surrogate wife, in all respects. Are there any candidates for such a person in regards to Stillington? Hilary continued: To be honest I have a couple of scenarios. The first is the straightforward one; that Father Ingleby (the brother of Stillington's nephew by marriage), or Sir John Newton, Eleanor's brother in law, told Stillington about the pre contract in 1483 because by acknowledging an illegitimate king they were putting their souls in peril. I honestly don't think Stillington would have been chosen by Edward to witness it, he was too clever and far too much of a risk. Doug here: In the same vein, what are the rules about revealing what is heard in the confession booth? Of course, and presuming that the confessional seal could be broached, that could open up the filed quite a bit! However, wouldn't it still require that the person confessing to witnessing a marriage between Edward and Eleanor to have been someone of some standing, wouldn't it? I'm not a snob, you understand, but we are talking about the 15th century... Hilary continued: But there is another scenario which is about grudges. We know from Stillington's correspondence with the Pope that he was one to bear a grudge - cross Stillington and he'd find a way to get back at you. And Edward did cross Stillington when he put him in the Tower in 1476. The Talbots were also no great admirers of Edward; he failed to sort out the Berkeley inheritance and he robbed Elizabeth of her Mowbray inheritance when he married his son to her daughter. And they may well have believed he mistreated Eleanor. Doug here: If it was a case of Stillington repaying a grudge, wouldn't the good Bishop still have to deliver some sort of convincing proof to back up his claim? If Stillington was known to carry grudges, wouldn't there have to be something more than the Bishop's word to support his assertions? Otherwise, or it seems to me, we would have to accept that the Three Estates, or at least a good majority of them, knowing the Bishop's reputation for grudges, likely knew what the Bishop asserted to be false, but still supported removing Edward IV's children from the line of succession by knowingly supporting a false charge of illegitimacy against them. However, if Stillington was the type to hold grudges, I can certainly see him enjoying(?) the thought of the children of someone he considered to have wronged him being publicly humiliated, but that's not the same as committing treasonous perjury. As for the Talbots' role in this; could they have served as the conduit whereby the information, and proof, of Edward's marriage to Eleanor was sent to Stillington? After all, wouldn't the Talbots have even a greater problem with believability in regards to claims against Edward than Stillington? Hilary concluded: I don't believe in James Bond type world domination plots but I can see how the early unexpected death of Edward would provide a way of getting back at the House of York, perhaps without even thinking through the consequences. It wouldn't take a soothsayer to predict that Hastings and the Woodvilles would fall out and then you are left with an earnest, but handicapped, king with a barren wife and a fragile son. I doubt they even thought that far forward unless egged on by MB. At the moment I would like to go for the straightforward scenario but Stillington's contacts with the West Country and Wales, let alone possibly Brittany, just can't be ignored. You can't unknown what you know. Doug here: I'm in full agreement with you that there wasn't any over-arching conspiracy that commenced in April of 1483 and concluded in August 1485. Buckingham's Rebellion certainly was a conspiracy, but it's aims , in my view, were to put Buckingham on the throne occupied by Richard. It failed because its' avowed reason, returning Edward's children to legitimacy (and the succession), conflicted too deeply with it's actual aim. The same applies, I think, to August 1485. Tudor got the support from France Buckingham failed to get because the French government's aims included the further subordination of Brittany and Burgundy to French royal authority and it was well-known that Richard, and the Yorkists on the whole, supported the continuing independence of both. Doug, with apologies for the delay in replying
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Doug here: I'd forgotten that Louis died just before or after Richard became king, which would explain the lack of French support for Buckingham (assuming he even tried to get any). I also tend to think that Richard's dealings with Brittany in trying to get Tudor back, might very well have caused the French to increase their support of Tudor, believing him to be a greater threat to Richard than he actually was. After all, unless the French masterminded the whole thing, how were they to know MB had, most likely, made some sort of arrangement with Stanley and Northumberland? Doug who has a copy of Jones' Bosworth 1485 and is already starting to wonder if he hadn't mis-spent the price...
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 16:16
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: I agree with your para one Doug and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to have children in the late 1460s - we know their births because their ages are stated in Cholke's will. He certainly had more than one child; a son George is buried at Wells in 1492/3, which implies a long term relationship and hence a real tie-in with that part of the country. Doug here: I seem to recall reading somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for a priest to have a housekeeper who would serve as a surrogate wife, in all respects. Are there any candidates for such a person in regards to Stillington? Hilary continued: To be honest I have a couple of scenarios. The first is the straightforward one; that Father Ingleby (the brother of Stillington's nephew by marriage), or Sir John Newton, Eleanor's brother in law, told Stillington about the pre contract in 1483 because by acknowledging an illegitimate king they were putting their souls in peril. I honestly don't think Stillington would have been chosen by Edward to witness it, he was too clever and far too much of a risk. Doug here: In the same vein, what are the rules about revealing what is heard in the confession booth? Of course, and presuming that the confessional seal could be broached, that could open up the filed quite a bit! However, wouldn't it still require that the person confessing to witnessing a marriage between Edward and Eleanor to have been someone of some standing, wouldn't it? I'm not a snob, you understand, but we are talking about the 15th century... Hilary continued: But there is another scenario which is about grudges. We know from Stillington's correspondence with the Pope that he was one to bear a grudge - cross Stillington and he'd find a way to get back at you. And Edward did cross Stillington when he put him in the Tower in 1476. The Talbots were also no great admirers of Edward; he failed to sort out the Berkeley inheritance and he robbed Elizabeth of her Mowbray inheritance when he married his son to her daughter. And they may well have believed he mistreated Eleanor. Doug here: If it was a case of Stillington repaying a grudge, wouldn't the good Bishop still have to deliver some sort of convincing proof to back up his claim? If Stillington was known to carry grudges, wouldn't there have to be something more than the Bishop's word to support his assertions? Otherwise, or it seems to me, we would have to accept that the Three Estates, or at least a good majority of them, knowing the Bishop's reputation for grudges, likely knew what the Bishop asserted to be false, but still supported removing Edward IV's children from the line of succession by knowingly supporting a false charge of illegitimacy against them. However, if Stillington was the type to hold grudges, I can certainly see him enjoying(?) the thought of the children of someone he considered to have wronged him being publicly humiliated, but that's not the same as committing treasonous perjury. As for the Talbots' role in this; could they have served as the conduit whereby the information, and proof, of Edward's marriage to Eleanor was sent to Stillington? After all, wouldn't the Talbots have even a greater problem with believability in regards to claims against Edward than Stillington? Hilary concluded: I don't believe in James Bond type world domination plots but I can see how the early unexpected death of Edward would provide a way of getting back at the House of York, perhaps without even thinking through the consequences. It wouldn't take a soothsayer to predict that Hastings and the Woodvilles would fall out and then you are left with an earnest, but handicapped, king with a barren wife and a fragile son. I doubt they even thought that far forward unless egged on by MB. At the moment I would like to go for the straightforward scenario but Stillington's contacts with the West Country and Wales, let alone possibly Brittany, just can't be ignored. You can't unknown what you know. Doug here: I'm in full agreement with you that there wasn't any over-arching conspiracy that commenced in April of 1483 and concluded in August 1485. Buckingham's Rebellion certainly was a conspiracy, but it's aims , in my view, were to put Buckingham on the throne occupied by Richard. It failed because its' avowed reason, returning Edward's children to legitimacy (and the succession), conflicted too deeply with it's actual aim. The same applies, I think, to August 1485. Tudor got the support from France Buckingham failed to get because the French government's aims included the further subordination of Brittany and Burgundy to French royal authority and it was well-known that Richard, and the Yorkists on the whole, supported the continuing independence of both. Doug, with apologies for the delay in replying
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Yes, Edward was actually sitting on a veritable powder keg of grudges (can you say that?). What I find strange is the silence of the Talbots in 1483 - you would have thought they would have spoken up to verify or defend their wronged sister; instead there is nothing. And Humphrey is knighted by HT after Bosworth. The AOC was Thomas Bourchier, who seems to have been a fan of HT and had been in the job since 1454. The 'wiki' belief is that he plotted against Richard. Certainly his predecessor Kempe was no fan of Stillington; he was one of the people Stillington complained about to the Pope when he was Archbishop of York.
I rather like 'Bosworth'. Yes there are bits of it I find difficult to digest but it's good on Cis and on Richard's psychology around his father. One of the better books, I think. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016, 10:45
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: Re the 'housekeeper' (and you're right the Pope did pardon many a priest and his housekeeper so long as they said they hadn't had carnal relations) there is one puzzling person mentioned to me originally by Stephen. That's Jenet Percival 'of Ripon'. She appears in some Visitations as the wife of one of Stillington's brothers. But he only had one brother, Thomas, who married Agnes Bigod before 1445 and had a daughter Katherine about 1445. Agnes survived him and went on to marry Marmaduke Vavasour. All this can be verified from various sources. Now I'd normally have discarded Jenet, but the main Percival family came from Eastbury near East Harptree and Richard Percival married John Hampton's sister, so was uncle to Stillington's grandchildren. So far though I can't link Jenet and the Eastbury gang. Secondly, we could look at the name Juliana and say it's not a Stillington name. The family were quite traditional and named their children after their parents, John and Katherine, and after that Joan or Johanna, after their benefactor Joan de Holme. So was Stillington's partner called Julian? Doug here: Very interesting! My thought was that any such housekeeper wouldn't likely have come from the gentry, but more likely be the daughter of a small farmer or a tradesman (blacksmith, innkeeper?) to which such an arrangement, while not really approved might still be a step up. It would be any offspring from this arrangement that would marry into the gentry and bring a Bishop, however irregularly, into the family. So, if Stillington's partner wasn't from the gentry, would there be any records about her or her family? At least until after she became Stillington's partner? Hilary wrote: Re the confessional, I'm sure Marie will know more about this than me, but my understanding is that a priest could break it in exceptional circumstances only to someone of a higher level, which Stillington was. I agree with what Marie says and these two are just some of quite a few candidates who could have known - add Elizabeth Talbot, who was close to her sister, and what about Anne Beauchamp/Neville who met Eleanor just before her death when they attended the funeral of her mother, Anne's sister? Anne is another person with a grudge and a lot to gain if a Beauchamp finally sits on the throne. As we've said before, no point in bringing it up during Edward's life. He could divorce and rectify things. Stillington is a good candidate for these people to approach because most of them are related to him, he's an elder statesman who's served both Lancaster and York at a high level, he's a lawyer and he's a bishop. He'd 'know what to do and how to do it'. The one person I wouldn't count in is Catesby; the Plantagenets didn't ennoble civil servants, that came with the Tudors. And he'd worked for Rivers as well as Richard. In fact he had a large client base. Doug here: Well, if he was merely the conduit for the information about Edward's marriage to Eleanor and if the information did come from someone's confession, that that would certainly explain why it's so difficult to tie Stillington directly to Edward and Eleanor's marriage! I hadn't stopped and thought about the fairly large number of possible informants (?) before! I really can't think of any way to thin the numbers either, since the knowledge of the marriage could easily be passed verbally from anyone involved to someone who wasn't and without written proof of some sort, how are we to know who was involved? Other than Edward and Eleanor, of course! Hilary continued: I suppose what I'm saying is that I could buy that Stillington was the one who was approached and asked to present this evidence to the Council but insofar as I know we don't know what was actually said and who the witnesses claimed to be. Perhaps they asked for their names not to be in the public domain but the fact that a senior bishop agreed with them fulfilled your snobbery bit and endorsed that it was true. Interesting that the bishop wasn't Morton or indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury? Perhaps Stillington, because of his grudge against Edward, was the one prepared to bring it into the open. Doug here: Morton, if I recall correctly, was known for his strong support of the Lancastrians and if we add to that the fact that the ones making the claim were also Lancastrians, it wouldn't have been to hard to see that the claim would have been dismissed as merely a ploy to discredit the Yorkists. Stillington, on the other hand, was known as a supporter of the House of York, even though he'd quarreled with Edward, and his presentation and support of the claim would have, I think, added to the claim being accepted as true. Sorry to say, I can't recall who the Archbishop of Canterbury was, Rotherham/a Neville(?), but the same might likely apply there, too. Hilary conclude: Finally France. I agree again with Marie. Once Richard was on the throne he was a serious threat because of his declarations in 1476. Anything which diverted him was a godsend. If some wet behind the ears adventurer could keep him running round the Welsh hills for half a decade whilst they got on with their European ambitions then that would be great. Same with Scotland who knew his abilities. I doubt they interfered before that. Richard's accession would have been a rather nasty shock to a dying Louis. Phew! Sorry it's so long but there were a lot of questions.
Doug here: I'd forgotten that Louis died just before or after Richard became king, which would explain the lack of French support for Buckingham (assuming he even tried to get any). I also tend to think that Richard's dealings with Brittany in trying to get Tudor back, might very well have caused the French to increase their support of Tudor, believing him to be a greater threat to Richard than he actually was. After all, unless the French masterminded the whole thing, how were they to know MB had, most likely, made some sort of arrangement with Stanley and Northumberland? Doug who has a copy of Jones' Bosworth 1485 and is already starting to wonder if he hadn't mis-spent the price...
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 16:16
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: I agree with your para one Doug and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to have children in the late 1460s - we know their births because their ages are stated in Cholke's will. He certainly had more than one child; a son George is buried at Wells in 1492/3, which implies a long term relationship and hence a real tie-in with that part of the country. Doug here: I seem to recall reading somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for a priest to have a housekeeper who would serve as a surrogate wife, in all respects. Are there any candidates for such a person in regards to Stillington? Hilary continued: To be honest I have a couple of scenarios. The first is the straightforward one; that Father Ingleby (the brother of Stillington's nephew by marriage), or Sir John Newton, Eleanor's brother in law, told Stillington about the pre contract in 1483 because by acknowledging an illegitimate king they were putting their souls in peril. I honestly don't think Stillington would have been chosen by Edward to witness it, he was too clever and far too much of a risk. Doug here: In the same vein, what are the rules about revealing what is heard in the confession booth? Of course, and presuming that the confessional seal could be broached, that could open up the filed quite a bit! However, wouldn't it still require that the person confessing to witnessing a marriage between Edward and Eleanor to have been someone of some standing, wouldn't it? I'm not a snob, you understand, but we are talking about the 15th century... Hilary continued: But there is another scenario which is about grudges. We know from Stillington's correspondence with the Pope that he was one to bear a grudge - cross Stillington and he'd find a way to get back at you. And Edward did cross Stillington when he put him in the Tower in 1476. The Talbots were also no great admirers of Edward; he failed to sort out the Berkeley inheritance and he robbed Elizabeth of her Mowbray inheritance when he married his son to her daughter. And they may well have believed he mistreated Eleanor. Doug here: If it was a case of Stillington repaying a grudge, wouldn't the good Bishop still have to deliver some sort of convincing proof to back up his claim? If Stillington was known to carry grudges, wouldn't there have to be something more than the Bishop's word to support his assertions? Otherwise, or it seems to me, we would have to accept that the Three Estates, or at least a good majority of them, knowing the Bishop's reputation for grudges, likely knew what the Bishop asserted to be false, but still supported removing Edward IV's children from the line of succession by knowingly supporting a false charge of illegitimacy against them. However, if Stillington was the type to hold grudges, I can certainly see him enjoying(?) the thought of the children of someone he considered to have wronged him being publicly humiliated, but that's not the same as committing treasonous perjury. As for the Talbots' role in this; could they have served as the conduit whereby the information, and proof, of Edward's marriage to Eleanor was sent to Stillington? After all, wouldn't the Talbots have even a greater problem with believability in regards to claims against Edward than Stillington? Hilary concluded: I don't believe in James Bond type world domination plots but I can see how the early unexpected death of Edward would provide a way of getting back at the House of York, perhaps without even thinking through the consequences. It wouldn't take a soothsayer to predict that Hastings and the Woodvilles would fall out and then you are left with an earnest, but handicapped, king with a barren wife and a fragile son. I doubt they even thought that far forward unless egged on by MB. At the moment I would like to go for the straightforward scenario but Stillington's contacts with the West Country and Wales, let alone possibly Brittany, just can't be ignored. You can't unknown what you know. Doug here: I'm in full agreement with you that there wasn't any over-arching conspiracy that commenced in April of 1483 and concluded in August 1485. Buckingham's Rebellion certainly was a conspiracy, but it's aims , in my view, were to put Buckingham on the throne occupied by Richard. It failed because its' avowed reason, returning Edward's children to legitimacy (and the succession), conflicted too deeply with it's actual aim. The same applies, I think, to August 1485. Tudor got the support from France Buckingham failed to get because the French government's aims included the further subordination of Brittany and Burgundy to French royal authority and it was well-known that Richard, and the Yorkists on the whole, supported the continuing independence of both. Doug, with apologies for the delay in replying
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016, 12:11
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
I don't think Stillington was any old priest Doug, so I don't think he'd stoop to the innkeeper's daughter. His family were wealthy York mercers and I can trace them back to about 1330. The Holmes were also mercers (two were mayors) who had significant business dealings in Calais. They were also very close to the Constables (who came from Holme on Spalding Moor). There's an interesting IPM of Sir John Constable who died of the Black Death in 1349. His widow claimed that he had given land to William de Holme (and the local priest) in his delirium. By the mid-1440s Stillington was already an Oxford scholar of note. And I don't reckon Hampton (who was a great nephew of Cis Neville) would have married anyone with a poor pedigree. It was all about pedigrees - like horses.
Yes, Edward was actually sitting on a veritable powder keg of grudges (can you say that?). What I find strange is the silence of the Talbots in 1483 - you would have thought they would have spoken up to verify or defend their wronged sister; instead there is nothing. And Humphrey is knighted by HT after Bosworth. The AOC was Thomas Bourchier, who seems to have been a fan of HT and had been in the job since 1454. The 'wiki' belief is that he plotted against Richard. Certainly his predecessor Kempe was no fan of Stillington; he was one of the people Stillington complained about to the Pope when he was Archbishop of York.
I rather like 'Bosworth'. Yes there are bits of it I find difficult to digest but it's good on Cis and on Richard's psychology around his father. One of the better books, I think. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016, 10:45
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: Re the 'housekeeper' (and you're right the Pope did pardon many a priest and his housekeeper so long as they said they hadn't had carnal relations) there is one puzzling person mentioned to me originally by Stephen. That's Jenet Percival 'of Ripon'. She appears in some Visitations as the wife of one of Stillington's brothers. But he only had one brother, Thomas, who married Agnes Bigod before 1445 and had a daughter Katherine about 1445. Agnes survived him and went on to marry Marmaduke Vavasour. All this can be verified from various sources. Now I'd normally have discarded Jenet, but the main Percival family came from Eastbury near East Harptree and Richard Percival married John Hampton's sister, so was uncle to Stillington's grandchildren. So far though I can't link Jenet and the Eastbury gang. Secondly, we could look at the name Juliana and say it's not a Stillington name. The family were quite traditional and named their children after their parents, John and Katherine, and after that Joan or Johanna, after their benefactor Joan de Holme. So was Stillington's partner called Julian? Doug here: Very interesting! My thought was that any such housekeeper wouldn't likely have come from the gentry, but more likely be the daughter of a small farmer or a tradesman (blacksmith, innkeeper?) to which such an arrangement, while not really approved might still be a step up. It would be any offspring from this arrangement that would marry into the gentry and bring a Bishop, however irregularly, into the family. So, if Stillington's partner wasn't from the gentry, would there be any records about her or her family? At least until after she became Stillington's partner? Hilary wrote: Re the confessional, I'm sure Marie will know more about this than me, but my understanding is that a priest could break it in exceptional circumstances only to someone of a higher level, which Stillington was. I agree with what Marie says and these two are just some of quite a few candidates who could have known - add Elizabeth Talbot, who was close to her sister, and what about Anne Beauchamp/Neville who met Eleanor just before her death when they attended the funeral of her mother, Anne's sister? Anne is another person with a grudge and a lot to gain if a Beauchamp finally sits on the throne. As we've said before, no point in bringing it up during Edward's life. He could divorce and rectify things. Stillington is a good candidate for these people to approach because most of them are related to him, he's an elder statesman who's served both Lancaster and York at a high level, he's a lawyer and he's a bishop. He'd 'know what to do and how to do it'. The one person I wouldn't count in is Catesby; the Plantagenets didn't ennoble civil servants, that came with the Tudors. And he'd worked for Rivers as well as Richard. In fact he had a large client base. Doug here: Well, if he was merely the conduit for the information about Edward's marriage to Eleanor and if the information did come from someone's confession, that that would certainly explain why it's so difficult to tie Stillington directly to Edward and Eleanor's marriage! I hadn't stopped and thought about the fairly large number of possible informants (?) before! I really can't think of any way to thin the numbers either, since the knowledge of the marriage could easily be passed verbally from anyone involved to someone who wasn't and without written proof of some sort, how are we to know who was involved? Other than Edward and Eleanor, of course! Hilary continued: I suppose what I'm saying is that I could buy that Stillington was the one who was approached and asked to present this evidence to the Council but insofar as I know we don't know what was actually said and who the witnesses claimed to be. Perhaps they asked for their names not to be in the public domain but the fact that a senior bishop agreed with them fulfilled your snobbery bit and endorsed that it was true. Interesting that the bishop wasn't Morton or indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury? Perhaps Stillington, because of his grudge against Edward, was the one prepared to bring it into the open. Doug here: Morton, if I recall correctly, was known for his strong support of the Lancastrians and if we add to that the fact that the ones making the claim were also Lancastrians, it wouldn't have been to hard to see that the claim would have been dismissed as merely a ploy to discredit the Yorkists. Stillington, on the other hand, was known as a supporter of the House of York, even though he'd quarreled with Edward, and his presentation and support of the claim would have, I think, added to the claim being accepted as true. Sorry to say, I can't recall who the Archbishop of Canterbury was, Rotherham/a Neville(?), but the same might likely apply there, too. Hilary conclude: Finally France. I agree again with Marie. Once Richard was on the throne he was a serious threat because of his declarations in 1476. Anything which diverted him was a godsend. If some wet behind the ears adventurer could keep him running round the Welsh hills for half a decade whilst they got on with their European ambitions then that would be great. Same with Scotland who knew his abilities. I doubt they interfered before that. Richard's accession would have been a rather nasty shock to a dying Louis. Phew! Sorry it's so long but there were a lot of questions.
Doug here: I'd forgotten that Louis died just before or after Richard became king, which would explain the lack of French support for Buckingham (assuming he even tried to get any). I also tend to think that Richard's dealings with Brittany in trying to get Tudor back, might very well have caused the French to increase their support of Tudor, believing him to be a greater threat to Richard than he actually was. After all, unless the French masterminded the whole thing, how were they to know MB had, most likely, made some sort of arrangement with Stanley and Northumberland? Doug who has a copy of Jones' Bosworth 1485 and is already starting to wonder if he hadn't mis-spent the price...
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 16:16
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: I agree with your para one Doug and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to have children in the late 1460s - we know their births because their ages are stated in Cholke's will. He certainly had more than one child; a son George is buried at Wells in 1492/3, which implies a long term relationship and hence a real tie-in with that part of the country. Doug here: I seem to recall reading somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for a priest to have a housekeeper who would serve as a surrogate wife, in all respects. Are there any candidates for such a person in regards to Stillington? Hilary continued: To be honest I have a couple of scenarios. The first is the straightforward one; that Father Ingleby (the brother of Stillington's nephew by marriage), or Sir John Newton, Eleanor's brother in law, told Stillington about the pre contract in 1483 because by acknowledging an illegitimate king they were putting their souls in peril. I honestly don't think Stillington would have been chosen by Edward to witness it, he was too clever and far too much of a risk. Doug here: In the same vein, what are the rules about revealing what is heard in the confession booth? Of course, and presuming that the confessional seal could be broached, that could open up the filed quite a bit! However, wouldn't it still require that the person confessing to witnessing a marriage between Edward and Eleanor to have been someone of some standing, wouldn't it? I'm not a snob, you understand, but we are talking about the 15th century... Hilary continued: But there is another scenario which is about grudges. We know from Stillington's correspondence with the Pope that he was one to bear a grudge - cross Stillington and he'd find a way to get back at you. And Edward did cross Stillington when he put him in the Tower in 1476. The Talbots were also no great admirers of Edward; he failed to sort out the Berkeley inheritance and he robbed Elizabeth of her Mowbray inheritance when he married his son to her daughter. And they may well have believed he mistreated Eleanor. Doug here: If it was a case of Stillington repaying a grudge, wouldn't the good Bishop still have to deliver some sort of convincing proof to back up his claim? If Stillington was known to carry grudges, wouldn't there have to be something more than the Bishop's word to support his assertions? Otherwise, or it seems to me, we would have to accept that the Three Estates, or at least a good majority of them, knowing the Bishop's reputation for grudges, likely knew what the Bishop asserted to be false, but still supported removing Edward IV's children from the line of succession by knowingly supporting a false charge of illegitimacy against them. However, if Stillington was the type to hold grudges, I can certainly see him enjoying(?) the thought of the children of someone he considered to have wronged him being publicly humiliated, but that's not the same as committing treasonous perjury. As for the Talbots' role in this; could they have served as the conduit whereby the information, and proof, of Edward's marriage to Eleanor was sent to Stillington? After all, wouldn't the Talbots have even a greater problem with believability in regards to claims against Edward than Stillington? Hilary concluded: I don't believe in James Bond type world domination plots but I can see how the early unexpected death of Edward would provide a way of getting back at the House of York, perhaps without even thinking through the consequences. It wouldn't take a soothsayer to predict that Hastings and the Woodvilles would fall out and then you are left with an earnest, but handicapped, king with a barren wife and a fragile son. I doubt they even thought that far forward unless egged on by MB. At the moment I would like to go for the straightforward scenario but Stillington's contacts with the West Country and Wales, let alone possibly Brittany, just can't be ignored. You can't unknown what you know. Doug here: I'm in full agreement with you that there wasn't any over-arching conspiracy that commenced in April of 1483 and concluded in August 1485. Buckingham's Rebellion certainly was a conspiracy, but it's aims , in my view, were to put Buckingham on the throne occupied by Richard. It failed because its' avowed reason, returning Edward's children to legitimacy (and the succession), conflicted too deeply with it's actual aim. The same applies, I think, to August 1485. Tudor got the support from France Buckingham failed to get because the French government's aims included the further subordination of Brittany and Burgundy to French royal authority and it was well-known that Richard, and the Yorkists on the whole, supported the continuing independence of both. Doug, with apologies for the delay in replying
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Doug here: I rather think it's that psychology that's bugs me the most! Or, rather, the certainty with which the author's deductions(?) are made. Anyway, I'll keep plodding along and hope for the best! Doug
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re grudges, I forgot to add in all that hatred of the Woodvilles. It was getting harder to marry off your son or daughter if they weren't the eldest. Take Hastings. For all his KG and closeness to the King, he only managed to marry of one son and one daughter into the nobility. The rest ended up marrying into the Leics and Northants squirarchy. The Woodvilles made a clean sweep of most of the eligible nobility and they had been virtual nobodies. There must have been a lot of resentment there.
Finally on Bosworth, I agree it's more of a psychology of Richard than of the battle plan. I wonder what Jones would have made of the scoliosis? That can't have failed to have an effect on Richard, however well he coped. It was, after all, a sign from God that he was different and he must have asked why he had been singled out. Incidentally, the Barnet/Tewkesbury campaign must have been incredibly gruelling for him. Do I recall Barnet was fought on foot? No wonder he was wounded and so many of his squires died. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 January 2016, 16:17
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: I don't think Stillington was any old priest Doug, so I don't think he'd stoop to the innkeeper's daughter. His family were wealthy York mercers and I can trace them back to about 1330. The Holmes were also mercers (two were mayors) who had significant business dealings in Calais. They were also very close to the Constables (who came from Holme on Spalding Moor). There's an interesting IPM of Sir John Constable who died of the Black Death in 1349. His widow claimed that he had given land to William de Holme (and the local priest) in his delirium. By the mid-1440s Stillington was already an Oxford scholar of note. And I don't reckon Hampton (who was a great nephew of Cis Neville) would have married anyone with a poor pedigree. It was all about pedigrees - like horses. Doug here: I was thinking more along the lines of how the housekeeper herself would view her position, rather than whether the Bishop would view her as a social equal and thus worthy of his attentions and suitable to be in the position of his un-official wife. Surely a female from the gentry, or higher, wouldn't look on being what was, according to canon (and civil?) law, nothing more than a Bishop's mistress as being a socially acceptable position? It would be one thing to recognize that a member of the clergy, forbidden by the Church to marry, might ease his life (and the life of his partner?) by maintaining a relationship with a woman of good character, even if that woman wasn't of the best breeding. Conversely, a female from a lower level of society might very well think such a position was an improvement on anything else available to her and wouldn't be the object of society's displeasure (if any) for the irregularity of her relationship. Or am I being too class conscious about this? Hilary continued: Yes, Edward was actually sitting on a veritable powder keg of grudges (can you say that?). What I find strange is the silence of the Talbots in 1483 - you would have thought they would have spoken up to verify or defend their wronged sister; instead there is nothing. And Humphrey is knighted by HT after Bosworth. The AOC was Thomas Bourchier, who seems to have been a fan of HT and had been in the job since 1454. The 'wiki' belief is that he plotted against Richard. Certainly his predecessor Kempe was no fan of Stillington; he was one of the people Stillington complained about to the Pope when he was Archbishop of York. Doug here: The Talbot's silence might be put down to their not being directly involved in Eleanor's marriage (as participants)? Thus they wouldn't have had any more evidence of what had occurred than was available to Stillington. Since we don't know just those proofs were, isn't it possible they included sworn statements from various Talbots as to what they had been told, presumably by Eleanor, about the matter? To a certain extent, there'd be no need to further publicize what had happened to Eleanor. By declaring that Edward couldn't legally marry Elizabeth Woodville because he was already married to Eleanor, Titulus Regius made it clear that Eleanor was blameless in the matter and, whether or not it had been publicly recognized, it was she who was lawfully married to Edward. I'd think that would smooth a lot ruffled feathers; even Lancastrian ones! Hilary concluded: I rather like 'Bosworth'. Yes there are bits of it I find difficult to digest but it's good on Cis and on Richard's psychology around his father. One of the better books, I think.
Doug here: I rather think it's that psychology that's bugs me the most! Or, rather, the certainty with which the author's deductions(?) are made. Anyway, I'll keep plodding along and hope for the best! Doug
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Doug, I agree with what you say about 'lower class' women not minding but it's when you come to marry the child on. John Hampton was a 'catch' and medieval grooms (and their fathers) looked for their wife's mother to have breeding and prospects as well as her father; it really was a business transaction and in Hampton's case she wouldn't inherit from Stillington because she was both a woman and illegitimate. (There was quite a fight over his lands between his relatives, the Colviles and Reggie Bray who bought them out and passed them on to MB). But a girl's father, or the husband of her mother, might settle something on her. It was interesting that in a programme I was watching the other evening the historian said that royalty and the upper classes usually chose married women as mistresses so that the husband could bring up the child as his. It was a sort of honour. That could, I suppose, also apply to the child of someone favoured by Henry VI (he wasn't a bishop then)? Hampton and Stillington would have served in the same Court. Doug here: Would a marriage to Hampton have given the Hamptons greater, or more regular perhaps, access to circles they usually didn't have? As you say, marriages were often as much, if not more, business than affection (at least at the time of the wedding), and if there wasn't a great chance of either a substantial dowry or inheritance then, or it seems to me anyway, that perhaps the Hamptons considered the marriage to be advantageous because it gave them a close affinity, albeit one on the wrong side of the blanket, to one of the nation's Lord Spiritual and the circles in which he moved. Could (would) that have been enough to overcome any lack of breeding and prospects in the spouse's mother? I guess the best way to put it is: Were the Hamptons on the way up and could they have looked on an alliance with the Bishop as a means to enlarge their prospects further on down the road? Otherwise, I got nothin'. Hilary continued: Re grudges, I forgot to add in all that hatred of the Woodvilles. It was getting harder to marry off your son or daughter if they weren't the eldest. Take Hastings. For all his KG and closeness to the King, he only managed to marry of one son and one daughter into the nobility. The rest ended up marrying into the Leics and Northants squirarchy. The Woodvilles made a clean sweep of most of the eligible nobility and they had been virtual nobodies. There must have been a lot of resentment there. Doug here: Other than Hastings who, going by his later actions, seems to have overcome any public dislike of the Woodvilles, do we have any case/s of someone being forced to cancel arrangements already made in order that a Woodville could be, um, "substituted? I have no doubt there were quite a few families that would have wished to marry into the nobility, but how real were their chances? Hilary concluded: Finally on Bosworth, I agree it's more of a psychology of Richard than of the battle plan. I wonder what Jones would have made of the scoliosis? That can't have failed to have an effect on Richard, however well he coped. It was, after all, a sign from God that he was different and he must have asked why he had been singled out. Incidentally, the Barnet/Tewkesbury campaign must have been incredibly gruelling for him. Do I recall Barnet was fought on foot? No wonder he was wounded and so many of his squires died. Doug here: I think it's the psychology that I find so off-putting! How can anyone be certain where the subject died over five centuries earlier and has left so little in the way of personal letters, diaries, etc. so as to give actual insight into that person's personality? We don't even have second-person accounts by those who knew Richard giving their beliefs as to why Richard did a particular thing! I suppose it's possible that some of Richard's actions were as they were because of his scoliosis; IOW, he did X to show that, while perhaps his body was different from others', he himself wasn't. Further than that, and lacking further information, I don't think anyone can safely go. As for Barnet, I a quick wiki check and found that the Nevilles fought on foot, but found no mention of whether Edward, George or Richard also did so. Doug
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
There is more information about what Stillington actually said. Commynes gives us more than is often quoted. There is a translation made by Prof M C E Jones available through the R3 Society.
http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=2026
He says that Stillington claimed actually have married Edward and Eleanor in secret when there was only the three of them present. So it seems more of a secret marriage than a betrothal.
But there is actually much more in the oldest French version. The R3 article by Prof Jones mentions the Denis Sauvage edition, which is the fullest available. It seems to be a shame the earliest transcription was not translated, because it includes relevant information.
If you find the Sauvage version of Commynes, you will discover it contains much more about what Stillington says and his motives.
Very briefly, the additional text repeats that it was Stillington who claimed to have married the couple - the marriage was made between the hands of the bishop and there was no evidence.
On the matter of motive, Commynes seems to agree with you that Stillington was motivated by revenge. He points out (as we know) that he had been in the highest position in the land; he had fallen out of favour with Edward and ended up in prison.
He goes on to give a further motive. He had a son whom he loved greatly. Richard had promised Stillington's son land, wealth and the hand of Elizabeth Woodville. Richard could not fulfil his promise because Stillington's son was serving Richard on a ship in the channel when he was captured by the French. He was taken from the coast to the Petit Châtelet in Paris and imprisoned. His treatment there was such that it unintentionally caused his death.
There certainly was a lot of naval activity in the channel at the time. Does this biographical information match any of Stillington's known offspring?
The Sauvage edition of Commynes is available online. I can make a reasonable stab at translation, but it would really benefit from an expert in French of the period.
Hope this helpsRegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
On Friday, January 15, 2016, 12:11, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
I don't think Stillington was any old priest Doug, so I don't think he'd stoop to the innkeeper's daughter. His family were wealthy York mercers and I can trace them back to about 1330. The Holmes were also mercers (two were mayors) who had significant business dealings in Calais. They were also very close to the Constables (who came from Holme on Spalding Moor). There's an interesting IPM of Sir John Constable who died of the Black Death in 1349. His widow claimed that he had given land to William de Holme (and the local priest) in his delirium. By the mid-1440s Stillington was already an Oxford scholar of note. And I don't reckon Hampton (who was a great nephew of Cis Neville) would have
married anyone with a poor pedigree. It was all about pedigrees - like horses.
Yes, Edward was actually sitting on a veritable powder keg of grudges (can you say that?). What I find strange is the silence of the Talbots in 1483 - you would have thought they would have spoken up to verify or defend their wronged sister; instead there is nothing. And Humphrey is knighted by HT after Bosworth. The AOC was Thomas Bourchier, who seems to have been a fan of HT and had been in the job since 1454. The 'wiki' belief is that he plotted against Richard. Certainly his predecessor Kempe was no fan of Stillington; he was one of the people Stillington complained about to the Pope when he was Archbishop of York.
I rather like 'Bosworth'. Yes there are bits of it I find difficult to digest but it's good on Cis and on Richard's psychology around his father. One of the better books, I think. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []"
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016, 10:45
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote:
Re the 'housekeeper' (and
you're right the Pope did pardon many a priest and his housekeeper so long as
they said they hadn't had carnal relations) there is one puzzling person
mentioned to me originally by Stephen. That's Jenet Percival 'of Ripon'. She
appears in some Visitations as the wife of one of Stillington's brothers.
But he only had one brother, Thomas, who married Agnes Bigod before 1445 and had
a daughter Katherine about 1445. Agnes survived him and went on to marry
Marmaduke Vavasour. All this can be verified from various sources. Now I'd
normally have discarded Jenet, but the main Percival family came from Eastbury
near East Harptree and Richard Percival married John Hampton's sister, so was
uncle to Stillington's grandchildren. So far though I can't link Jenet and the
Eastbury gang. Secondly, we could look at the name Juliana and say it's not a
Stillington name. The family were quite traditional and named their children
after their parents, John and Katherine, and after that Joan or Johanna, after
their benefactor Joan de Holme. So was Stillington's partner called
Julian?
Doug here:
Very interesting! My thought was that any
such housekeeper wouldn't likely have come from the gentry, but more likely be
the daughter of a small farmer or a tradesman (blacksmith, innkeeper?) to which
such an arrangement, while not really approved might still be a step up. It
would be any offspring from this arrangement that would marry into the gentry
and bring a Bishop, however irregularly, into the family.
So, if Stillington's partner
wasn't from the gentry, would there be any records about her or her
family? At least until after she became Stillington's
partner?
Hilary wrote:
Re the confessional, I'm sure
Marie will know more about this than me, but my understanding is that a priest
could break it in exceptional circumstances only to someone of a higher level,
which Stillington was. I agree with what Marie says and these two are just some
of quite a few candidates who could have known - add Elizabeth Talbot, who was
close to her sister, and what about Anne Beauchamp/Neville who met Eleanor just
before her death when they attended the funeral of her mother, Anne's sister?
Anne is another person with a grudge and a lot to gain if a Beauchamp finally
sits on the throne. As we've said before, no point in bringing it up during
Edward's life. He could divorce and rectify things. Stillington is a good
candidate for these people to approach because most of them are related to him,
he's an elder statesman who's served both Lancaster and York at a high level,
he's a lawyer and he's a bishop. He'd 'know what to do and how to do it'. The
one person I wouldn't count in is Catesby; the Plantagenets didn't ennoble civil
servants, that came with the Tudors. And he'd worked for Rivers as well as
Richard. In fact he had a large client base.
Doug here:
Well, if he was merely the conduit for
the information about Edward's marriage to Eleanor and if the
information did come from someone's confession, that that would certainly
explain why it's so difficult to tie Stillington directly to
Edward and Eleanor's marriage! I hadn't stopped and thought about the fairly
large number of possible informants (?) before! I really can't think of any way
to thin the numbers either, since the knowledge of the marriage could easily be
passed verbally from anyone involved to someone who wasn't and
without written proof of some sort, how are we to know who was involved? Other
than Edward and Eleanor, of course!
Hilary continued:
I suppose what I'm saying is that I could buy that Stillington was
the one who was approached and asked to present
this evidence to the Council but insofar as I know we don't know
what was actually said and who the witnesses claimed to be. Perhaps they asked
for their names not to be in the public domain but the fact that a senior bishop
agreed with them fulfilled your snobbery bit and endorsed that it was true.
Interesting that the bishop wasn't Morton or indeed the Archbishop of
Canterbury? Perhaps Stillington, because of his grudge against Edward, was the
one prepared to bring it into the open.
Doug here:
Morton, if I recall correctly, was known
for his strong support of the Lancastrians and if we add to that the fact that
the ones making the claim were also Lancastrians, it wouldn't have been to hard
to see that the claim would have been dismissed as merely a ploy to discredit
the Yorkists. Stillington, on the other hand, was known as a supporter of the
House of York, even though he'd quarreled with Edward, and his presentation and
support of the claim would have, I think, added to the claim being accepted as
true.
Sorry to say, I can't recall who the
Archbishop of Canterbury was, Rotherham/a Neville(?), but the same might likely
apply there, too.
Hilary
conclude:
Finally France. I agree again
with Marie. Once Richard was on the throne he was a serious threat because of
his declarations in 1476. Anything which diverted him was a godsend. If some wet
behind the ears adventurer could keep him running round the Welsh hills for half
a decade whilst they got on with their European ambitions then that would be
great. Same with Scotland who knew his abilities. I doubt they interfered
before that. Richard's accession would have been a rather nasty shock to a dying
Louis.
Phew! Sorry it's so long but
there were a lot of questions.
Doug here:
I'd forgotten that Louis died
just before or after Richard became king, which would explain the lack of French
support for Buckingham (assuming he even tried to get any). I also tend to think
that Richard's dealings with Brittany in trying to get Tudor back, might very
well have caused the French to increase their support of Tudor, believing him to
be a greater threat to Richard than he actually was. After all, unless the
French masterminded the whole thing, how were they to know MB had, most likely,
made some sort of arrangement with Stanley and Northumberland?
Doug
who has a copy of Jones'
Bosworth 1485 and is already starting to wonder if he hadn't mis-spent the
price...
From: "'Doug Stamate'
destama@... []"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January
2016, 16:16
Subject: Re:
Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote:
I agree with your para one Doug
and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their
family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the
dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to
have children in the late 1460s - we know their births because their ages are
stated in Cholke's will. He certainly had more than one child; a son George is
buried at Wells in 1492/3, which implies a long term relationship and hence a
real tie-in with that part of the country.
Doug here:
I seem to recall reading
somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for a priest to have a housekeeper who would
serve as a surrogate wife, in all respects. Are there any candidates for
such a person in regards to Stillington?
Hilary
continued:
To be honest I
have a couple of scenarios. The first is the straightforward one; that
Father Ingleby (the brother of Stillington's nephew by marriage), or Sir John
Newton, Eleanor's brother in law, told Stillington about the pre contract in
1483 because by acknowledging an illegitimate king they were putting their souls
in peril. I honestly don't think Stillington would have been chosen by Edward to
witness it, he was too clever and far too much of a risk.
Doug here:
In the same vein, what are the rules
about revealing what is heard in the confession booth?
Of course, and presuming that the
confessional seal could be broached, that could open up the filed quite
a bit! However, wouldn't it still require that the person confessing to
witnessing a marriage between Edward and Eleanor to have been someone of
some standing, wouldn't it? I'm not a snob, you understand,
but we are talking about the 15th century...
Hilary continued:
But there is another scenario which is about grudges. We know
from Stillington's correspondence with the Pope that he was one to bear a grudge
- cross Stillington and he'd find a way to get back at you. And Edward did cross
Stillington when he put him in the Tower in 1476. The Talbots were also no
great admirers of Edward; he failed to sort out the Berkeley inheritance and he
robbed Elizabeth of her Mowbray inheritance when he married his son to her
daughter. And they may well have believed he mistreated Eleanor.
Doug here:
If it was a case of Stillington repaying a grudge,
wouldn't the good Bishop still have to deliver some sort of convincing
proof to back up his claim? If Stillington was known to carry grudges, wouldn't
there have to be something more than the Bishop's word to support his
assertions? Otherwise, or it seems to me, we would have to accept that the Three
Estates, or at least a good majority of them, knowing the Bishop's reputation
for grudges, likely knew what the Bishop asserted to be false, but still
supported removing Edward IV's children from the line of succession by knowingly
supporting a false charge of illegitimacy against them.
However, if Stillington was the type to
hold grudges, I can certainly see him enjoying(?) the thought of the children of
someone he considered to have wronged him being publicly humiliated, but that's
not the same as committing treasonous perjury.
As for the Talbots' role in this; could
they have served as the conduit whereby the information, and proof, of Edward's
marriage to Eleanor was sent to Stillington? After all, wouldn't the Talbots
have even a greater problem with believability in regards to claims against
Edward than Stillington?
Hilary concluded:
I don't believe in
James Bond type world domination plots but I can see how the early unexpected
death of Edward would provide a way of getting back at the House of York,
perhaps without even thinking through the consequences. It wouldn't take a
soothsayer to predict that Hastings and the Woodvilles would fall out and then
you are left with an earnest, but handicapped, king with a barren wife and a
fragile son. I doubt they even thought that far forward unless egged on by
MB.
At the moment I would like to go for
the straightforward scenario but Stillington's contacts with the West Country
and Wales, let alone possibly Brittany, just can't be ignored. You can't unknown
what you know.
Doug
here:
I'm in
full agreement with you that there wasn't any over-arching conspiracy that
commenced in April of 1483 and concluded in August 1485. Buckingham's Rebellion
certainly was a conspiracy, but it's aims , in my view, were to put Buckingham
on the throne occupied by Richard. It failed because its' avowed
reason, returning Edward's children to legitimacy (and the succession),
conflicted too deeply with it's actual aim.
The same
applies, I think, to August 1485. Tudor got the support from France Buckingham
failed to get because the French government's aims included the further
subordination of Brittany and Burgundy to French royal authority and it was
well-known that Richard, and the Yorkists on the whole, supported the continuing
independence of both.
Doug,
with
apologies for the delay in replying
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Couple of quick things. Stillington wasn't a bishop then and he'd only just crossed over into Edward's camp. Secondly, he did have at least two sons but I just don't buy it. The extract from the COPR doesn't say Stillington actually travelled to Brittany, just that he was one of a number of people involved. Edward and Stillington were two clever people; I doubt they'd trust one another for a moment but I'll read the French and come back to you. And Commynes, like the rest of them, was coloured by personal motive, particularly since he was writing this in retrospect, after he'd transferred his allegiance to France.
I will look at the Sauvage version though H
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2016, 13:04
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
, Hilary,I have been reading the exchanges about Stillington with great interest. I have not been able to find a link between the manor you mentioned and Brittany. It is ironic that one of the earliest examples of Norman architecture in England -Richmond - was built by a Breton. But he named it after an estate he held in Normandy.
There is more information about what Stillington actually said. Commynes gives us more than is often quoted. There is a translation made by Prof M C E Jones available through the R3 Society.
http://newr3.dreamhosters.com/?page_id=2026
He says that Stillington claimed actually have married Edward and Eleanor in secret when there was only the three of them present. So it seems more of a secret marriage than a betrothal.
But there is actually much more in the oldest French version. The R3 article by Prof Jones mentions the Denis Sauvage edition, which is the fullest available. It seems to be a shame the earliest transcription was not translated, because it includes relevant information.
If you find the Sauvage version of Commynes, you will discover it contains much more about what Stillington says and his motives.
Very briefly, the additional text repeats that it was Stillington who claimed to have married the couple - the marriage was made between the hands of the bishop and there was no evidence.
On the matter of motive, Commynes seems to agree with you that Stillington was motivated by revenge. He points out (as we know) that he had been in the highest position in the land; he had fallen out of favour with Edward and ended up in prison.
He goes on to give a further motive. He had a son whom he loved greatly. Richard had promised Stillington's son land, wealth and the hand of Elizabeth Woodville. Richard could not fulfil his promise because Stillington's son was serving Richard on a ship in the channel when he was captured by the French. He was taken from the coast to the Petit Châtelet in Paris and imprisoned. His treatment there was such that it unintentionally caused his death.
There certainly was a lot of naval activity in the channel at the time. Does this biographical information match any of Stillington's known offspring?
The Sauvage edition of Commynes is available online. I can make a reasonable stab at translation, but it would really benefit from an expert in French of the period.
Hope this helpsRegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
On Friday, January 15, 2016, 12:11, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: I don't think Stillington was any old priest Doug, so I don't think he'd stoop to the innkeeper's daughter. His family were wealthy York mercers and I can trace them back to about 1330. The Holmes were also mercers (two were mayors) who had significant business dealings in Calais. They were also very close to the Constables (who came from Holme on Spalding Moor). There's an interesting IPM of Sir John Constable who died of the Black Death in 1349. His widow claimed that he had given land to William de Holme (and the local priest) in his delirium. By the mid-1440s Stillington was already an Oxford scholar of note. And I don't reckon Hampton (who was a great nephew of Cis Neville) would have married anyone with a poor pedigree. It was all about pedigrees - like horses.
Yes, Edward was actually sitting on a veritable powder keg of grudges (can you say that?). What I find strange is the silence of the Talbots in 1483 - you would have thought they would have spoken up to verify or defend their wronged sister; instead there is nothing. And Humphrey is knighted by HT after Bosworth. The AOC was Thomas Bourchier, who seems to have been a fan of HT and had been in the job since 1454. The 'wiki' belief is that he plotted against Richard. Certainly his predecessor Kempe was no fan of Stillington; he was one of the people Stillington complained about to the Pope when he was Archbishop of York.
I rather like 'Bosworth'. Yes there are bits of it I find difficult to digest but it's good on Cis and on Richard's psychology around his father. One of the better books, I think. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []"
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016, 10:45
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: Re the 'housekeeper' (and you're right the Pope did pardon many a priest and his housekeeper so long as they said they hadn't had carnal relations) there is one puzzling person mentioned to me originally by Stephen. That's Jenet Percival 'of Ripon'. She appears in some Visitations as the wife of one of Stillington's brothers. But he only had one brother, Thomas, who married Agnes Bigod before 1445 and had a daughter Katherine about 1445. Agnes survived him and went on to marry Marmaduke Vavasour. All this can be verified from various sources. Now I'd normally have discarded Jenet, but the main Percival family came from Eastbury near East Harptree and Richard Percival married John Hampton's sister, so was uncle to Stillington's grandchildren. So far though I can't link Jenet and the Eastbury gang. Secondly, we could look at the name Juliana and say it's not a Stillington name. The family were quite traditional and named their children after their parents, John and Katherine, and after that Joan or Johanna, after their benefactor Joan de Holme. So was Stillington's partner called Julian? Doug here: Very interesting! My thought was that any such housekeeper wouldn't likely have come from the gentry, but more likely be the daughter of a small farmer or a tradesman (blacksmith, innkeeper?) to which such an arrangement, while not really approved might still be a step up. It would be any offspring from this arrangement that would marry into the gentry and bring a Bishop, however irregularly, into the family. So, if Stillington's partner wasn't from the gentry, would there be any records about her or her family? At least until after she became Stillington's partner? Hilary wrote: Re the confessional, I'm sure Marie will know more about this than me, but my understanding is that a priest could break it in exceptional circumstances only to someone of a higher level, which Stillington was. I agree with what Marie says and these two are just some of quite a few candidates who could have known - add Elizabeth Talbot, who was close to her sister, and what about Anne Beauchamp/Neville who met Eleanor just before her death when they attended the funeral of her mother, Anne's sister? Anne is another person with a grudge and a lot to gain if a Beauchamp finally sits on the throne. As we've said before, no point in bringing it up during Edward's life. He could divorce and rectify things. Stillington is a good candidate for these people to approach because most of them are related to him, he's an elder statesman who's served both Lancaster and York at a high level, he's a lawyer and he's a bishop. He'd 'know what to do and how to do it'. The one person I wouldn't count in is Catesby; the Plantagenets didn't ennoble civil servants, that came with the Tudors. And he'd worked for Rivers as well as Richard. In fact he had a large client base. Doug here: Well, if he was merely the conduit for the information about Edward's marriage to Eleanor and if the information did come from someone's confession, that that would certainly explain why it's so difficult to tie Stillington directly to Edward and Eleanor's marriage! I hadn't stopped and thought about the fairly large number of possible informants (?) before! I really can't think of any way to thin the numbers either, since the knowledge of the marriage could easily be passed verbally from anyone involved to someone who wasn't and without written proof of some sort, how are we to know who was involved? Other than Edward and Eleanor, of course! Hilary continued: I suppose what I'm saying is that I could buy that Stillington was the one who was approached and asked to present this evidence to the Council but insofar as I know we don't know what was actually said and who the witnesses claimed to be. Perhaps they asked for their names not to be in the public domain but the fact that a senior bishop agreed with them fulfilled your snobbery bit and endorsed that it was true. Interesting that the bishop wasn't Morton or indeed the Archbishop of Canterbury? Perhaps Stillington, because of his grudge against Edward, was the one prepared to bring it into the open. Doug here: Morton, if I recall correctly, was known for his strong support of the Lancastrians and if we add to that the fact that the ones making the claim were also Lancastrians, it wouldn't have been to hard to see that the claim would have been dismissed as merely a ploy to discredit the Yorkists. Stillington, on the other hand, was known as a supporter of the House of York, even though he'd quarreled with Edward, and his presentation and support of the claim would have, I think, added to the claim being accepted as true. Sorry to say, I can't recall who the Archbishop of Canterbury was, Rotherham/a Neville(?), but the same might likely apply there, too. Hilary conclude: Finally France. I agree again with Marie. Once Richard was on the throne he was a serious threat because of his declarations in 1476. Anything which diverted him was a godsend. If some wet behind the ears adventurer could keep him running round the Welsh hills for half a decade whilst they got on with their European ambitions then that would be great. Same with Scotland who knew his abilities. I doubt they interfered before that. Richard's accession would have been a rather nasty shock to a dying Louis. Phew! Sorry it's so long but there were a lot of questions.
Doug here: I'd forgotten that Louis died just before or after Richard became king, which would explain the lack of French support for Buckingham (assuming he even tried to get any). I also tend to think that Richard's dealings with Brittany in trying to get Tudor back, might very well have caused the French to increase their support of Tudor, believing him to be a greater threat to Richard than he actually was. After all, unless the French masterminded the whole thing, how were they to know MB had, most likely, made some sort of arrangement with Stanley and Northumberland? Doug who has a copy of Jones' Bosworth 1485 and is already starting to wonder if he hadn't mis-spent the price...
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2016, 16:16
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary wrote: I agree with your para one Doug and I also agree with your view that people liked a lord spiritual in their family tree. In such trees Juliana is described as Stillington's sister, but the dates don't add up - his father died in 1426 so she would be much too old to have children in the late 1460s - we know their births because their ages are stated in Cholke's will. He certainly had more than one child; a son George is buried at Wells in 1492/3, which implies a long term relationship and hence a real tie-in with that part of the country. Doug here: I seem to recall reading somewhere that it wasn't uncommon for a priest to have a housekeeper who would serve as a surrogate wife, in all respects. Are there any candidates for such a person in regards to Stillington? Hilary continued: To be honest I have a couple of scenarios. The first is the straightforward one; that Father Ingleby (the brother of Stillington's nephew by marriage), or Sir John Newton, Eleanor's brother in law, told Stillington about the pre contract in 1483 because by acknowledging an illegitimate king they were putting their souls in peril. I honestly don't think Stillington would have been chosen by Edward to witness it, he was too clever and far too much of a risk. Doug here: In the same vein, what are the rules about revealing what is heard in the confession booth? Of course, and presuming that the confessional seal could be broached, that could open up the filed quite a bit! However, wouldn't it still require that the person confessing to witnessing a marriage between Edward and Eleanor to have been someone of some standing, wouldn't it? I'm not a snob, you understand, but we are talking about the 15th century... Hilary continued: But there is another scenario which is about grudges. We know from Stillington's correspondence with the Pope that he was one to bear a grudge - cross Stillington and he'd find a way to get back at you. And Edward did cross Stillington when he put him in the Tower in 1476. The Talbots were also no great admirers of Edward; he failed to sort out the Berkeley inheritance and he robbed Elizabeth of her Mowbray inheritance when he married his son to her daughter. And they may well have believed he mistreated Eleanor. Doug here: If it was a case of Stillington repaying a grudge, wouldn't the good Bishop still have to deliver some sort of convincing proof to back up his claim? If Stillington was known to carry grudges, wouldn't there have to be something more than the Bishop's word to support his assertions? Otherwise, or it seems to me, we would have to accept that the Three Estates, or at least a good majority of them, knowing the Bishop's reputation for grudges, likely knew what the Bishop asserted to be false, but still supported removing Edward IV's children from the line of succession by knowingly supporting a false charge of illegitimacy against them. However, if Stillington was the type to hold grudges, I can certainly see him enjoying(?) the thought of the children of someone he considered to have wronged him being publicly humiliated, but that's not the same as committing treasonous perjury. As for the Talbots' role in this; could they have served as the conduit whereby the information, and proof, of Edward's marriage to Eleanor was sent to Stillington? After all, wouldn't the Talbots have even a greater problem with believability in regards to claims against Edward than Stillington? Hilary concluded: I don't believe in James Bond type world domination plots but I can see how the early unexpected death of Edward would provide a way of getting back at the House of York, perhaps without even thinking through the consequences. It wouldn't take a soothsayer to predict that Hastings and the Woodvilles would fall out and then you are left with an earnest, but handicapped, king with a barren wife and a fragile son. I doubt they even thought that far forward unless egged on by MB. At the moment I would like to go for the straightforward scenario but Stillington's contacts with the West Country and Wales, let alone possibly Brittany, just can't be ignored. You can't unknown what you know. Doug here: I'm in full agreement with you that there wasn't any over-arching conspiracy that commenced in April of 1483 and concluded in August 1485. Buckingham's Rebellion certainly was a conspiracy, but it's aims , in my view, were to put Buckingham on the throne occupied by Richard. It failed because its' avowed reason, returning Edward's children to legitimacy (and the succession), conflicted too deeply with it's actual aim. The same applies, I think, to August 1485. Tudor got the support from France Buckingham failed to get because the French government's aims included the further subordination of Brittany and Burgundy to French royal authority and it was well-known that Richard, and the Yorkists on the whole, supported the continuing independence of both. Doug, with apologies for the delay in replying
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary,
I don't know what to make of Commines, but you have to wonder whether he really had reliable information. I think the story of Stillington's son dying in a Paris gaol is probably sound, but his tittle-tattle about events over the Channel may be wide of the mark.
Yes, there's no question that Edward and Eleanor were said to have been married, not betrothed - that is clearly stated in Titulus Regius. It is only modern historians who didn't understand the meaning of the word precontract who started the betrothal idea.
I think it's highly unlikely that Richard had tried to marry Elizabeth of York to Stillington's bastard son. There's just no evidence for this idea other than Commines, and it's quite a scandalous idea. Commines' story disparages Richard but also gives credibility to the story of the bastardy of Edward IV's issue - a politically canny stance from the French point of view but to me it seems like a tall story. Surely Commines has just spun up a ripping yarn from the bits and pieces of info that he had on Stillington's role in revealing the precontract, and is making up evidence that Stillington was being rewarded by Richard for what he'd revealed..
Of course, it wouldn't be quite correct to say that Stillington married them but there were no witnesses. In that scenario Stillington himself would have been the witness. Unwitnessed clandestine marriages were those with no one present except the couple. It was actually pretty much unheard of for priests to conduct clandestine marriages because they were forbidden to do so by the Church and their presence wasn't actually necessary to make a marriage. What you needed to make a clandestine marriage stick was the correct form of words, handfasting and a couple of good mates.
I suspect that Stillington, as one of the few elder statesmen who had been in Edward's inner circle in 1464, may have been privy to high-level discussions at that time around Edward's possible commitment to Eleanor Butler, and after Edward's death finally persuaded witnesses to come forward who had been too frightened to do so before. 1478 was a crisis time, and Stillington's brief imprisonment may not have left him desperate for revenge. The evidence suggests he'd had to retire as Lord Chancellor quite some time before because his health wasn't reliable, so I don't think he was looking to make a political comeback.
Commines can't always be relied upon for English affairs, and he was writing in the 1490s. For instance, I've never seen any English document that would tend to support his claim that after Picquigny Edward had his eldest daughter styled as Madame la Dauphine.
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
I've now looked at the Commines in translation and the Sauvage version.
Both are very inaccurate for example Edward only has two daughters!
The English translation has Stillington being the person who performed the marriage - it won't let me copy it I'm afraid.
The Sauvage French version has Edward making the promise to marry Eleanor (who is not named in either version) 'within the hands of the Bishop'. Then the 'bad Bishop' keeps the secret for twenty years until his son, a sailor (!?) is taken prisoner off the coast of Normandy and in return for telling his secret, Richard (who is already described as King Richard) offers him negotiation for his release, lots of goods and marriage with one of Edward's daughters. Is this where the bribe thing on the HT website came from? The footnote describes Stillington as being from a humble background - he certainly wasn't. The son dies in deprivation of course because he isn't freed. And both versions say Parliament accepted the 'marriage' story - so no coup there Richard.
It's pretty clear that Commines, who is by now writing for Louis, hates Richard. It's also pretty clear that, apart from meeting HT at some point during his exile (he was the one who described his lazy eye) it's all hearsay and pretty inaccurate hearsay at that. It would always bepolitic in France to trash Richard and it wouldn't be long before they trashed HT as well.
So I stick by my guns and say Stillington was the last person Edward would choose. What is interesting though is that both versions mention Stillington being imprisoned by Edward but don't say for what. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2016, 17:29
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Sorry Hilary, I think that post might have been David's! It's very hard to see what bits of the threads belong to whom sometimes.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2016, 17:29
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Sorry Hilary, I think that post might have been David's! It's very hard to see what bits of the threads belong to whom sometimes.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Secondly, if HT didn't know, then certainly Morton didn't know. So he couldn't have told More. Did More get this from translating Commines' histories and embroider it, after all he was in to imitating Tacitus. It could have been an intellectual 'exercise'?
The only really good biography of Richard will be the one which challenges these sources and says why. But the challenge alone is a huge exercise. H
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 January 2016, 12:26
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
On reading it again, I think Richard promised child Stillington marriage and goods before he was captured, not that that makes a deal of difference. The whole timeframe is very scrambled. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 January 2016, 17:29
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Sorry Hilary, I think that post might have been David's! It's very hard to see what bits of the threads belong to whom sometimes.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Exactly, Hilary. To be fair, David, you haven't actually discovered anything in Commines that isn't well known, it's just that historians (and I mean proper historians) of all persuasions don't regard these claims as reliable, or even plausible.
It really does seem to be the case that the direct accusation about Richard murdering the Princes first arose in France, seemingly courtesy of Mancini's account. Armstrong's claims notwithstanding, the poor bloke was not a spy, merely in England on his own business, and was not moving in government circles, but when he returned to Cato's household he shot his mouth off on several occasions (probably over a few wines) about all the things he claimed to have witnessed in England. Then, to his horror, Cato demands that he make a written account of these things that Cato can send to Naples to his old patron the Prince of Taranto. Mancini protests that he doesn't really have sound information and this will damage his reputation; he prevaricates, but Cato gets angry and he finally sets pen to paper. If you doubt me, read Mancini's own introduction to his work. Despite the fact that Mancini couldn't provide any proof of the murders for his written account, a month later his new patron Guillaume de Rochefort is announcing Richard's murder of the Princes to the Parlement. Next the story turns up in England, and in Rome (where the Prince of Taranto's brother was a cardinal) .... I don't think you need to be a genius in order to surmise that Mancini had in those early conversations assured his listeners that Richard had murdered the boys.
What is very clear from Henry VII's behaviour is that he was never able to ascertain for certain that both of Edward's sons were dead.
On the other side, the reference to Stillington's role in the precontract affair that occurs in the minutes of the meeting Henry had with his lawyers before repealing Titulus Regius may have understated his involvement in order to avoid direct reference to the precontract. Hence Stillington merely 'made the Bill beginning ....' (i.e. T.R.).
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
"On the matter of motive, Commynes seems to agree with you that Stillington was motivated by revenge. He points out (as we know) that he had been in the highest position in the land; he had fallen out of favour with Edward and ended up in prison.
"He goes on to give a further motive. He had a son whom he loved greatly. Richard had promised Stillington's son land, wealth and the hand of Elizabeth Woodville. Richard could not fulfil his promise because Stillington's son was serving Richard on a ship in the channel when he was captured by the French. He was taken from the coast to the Petit Châtelet in Paris and imprisoned. His treatment there was such that it unintentionally caused his death."
Carol responds:
Just to add to Marie's response to this post: It was, as she indicates, Elizabeth of York, not Elizabeth Woodville, to whom Commines was referring with regard to the supposed promised marriage of Stillington's son. Commines almost certainly knew nothing of Richard's promise to EW to marry her daughters to men of good character who would "lovingly love" them. (Whether that would apply to Stillington's illegitimate son, I have no idea.) And Commines certainly didn't know that Richard had someone very different in mind: Duke Manuel of Portugal.
I agree with Marie that we can dismiss this particular story completely. As for Stillington's role in the secret marriage (and, as Marie stated, it was indeed a marriage and not a betrothal according to the only record we have, Titulus Regius), he may be right. Stillington was almost certainly the chief source of information for TR and may (as the document repealing it implies) have been its author.
As for Commines's assertion that Richard murdered his nephews, elsewhere he says that Buckingham did it. Conclusion: He didn't know (any more than Mancini dd) what had happened to Edward
s sons. (Oddly, Mancini doesn't even mention Richard of York with regard to the disappearance and posited murder.) See Marie's post for more on these topics.
Carol
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Marie's point about Mancini is interesting. We're at a time when intellectual rivalry was as deadly as brawling nobility. There's a lovely bit in Thomas Penn where he says how much their squabbles all got on HT's nerves. And it's also interesting that in 1484 at a time when 'the world' i.e. France was decrying Richard's dastardly deeds, Sforza of Milan was pouring praise on him to Thomas Langton (it's in the Venetian State Papers). And I seem to recall Sforza married Edward's 'cast off' Bona of Savoy, Louis XI's sister-in-law, so he had no real reason to love England or the Yorkists? H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 January 2016, 21:24
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
David Durose wrote:
"On the matter of motive, Commynes seems to agree with you that Stillington was motivated by revenge. He points out (as we know) that he had been in the highest position in the land; he had fallen out of favour with Edward and ended up in prison.
"He goes on to give a further motive. He had a son whom he loved greatly. Richard had promised Stillington's son land, wealth and the hand of Elizabeth Woodville. Richard could not fulfil his promise because Stillington's son was serving Richard on a ship in the channel when he was captured by the French. He was taken from the coast to the Petit Châtelet in Paris and imprisoned. His treatment there was such that it unintentionally caused his death."
Carol responds:
Just to add to Marie's response to this post: It was, as she indicates, Elizabeth of York, not Elizabeth Woodville, to whom Commines was referring with regard to the supposed promised marriage of Stillington's son. Commines almost certainly knew nothing of Richard's promise to EW to marry her daughters to men of good character who would "lovingly love" them. (Whether that would apply to Stillington's illegitimate son, I have no idea.) And Commines certainly didn't know that Richard had someone very different in mind: Duke Manuel of Portugal.
I agree with Marie that we can dismiss this particular story completely. As for Stillington's role in the secret marriage (and, as Marie stated, it was indeed a marriage and not a betrothal according to the only record we have, Titulus Regius), he may be right. Stillington was almost certainly the chief source of information for TR and may (as the document repealing it implies) have been its author.
As for Commines's assertion that Richard murdered his nephews, elsewhere he says that Buckingham did it. Conclusion: He didn't know (any more than Mancini dd) what had happened to Edward
s sons. (Oddly, Mancini doesn't even mention Richard of York with regard to the disappearance and posited murder.) See Marie's post for more on these topics.
Carol
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Mary
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2016, 22:25
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Actually Commines doesn't name EOY. In both the English and French version he says one of Edward's daughters - and you'll recall he thinks Edward only had two (probably mixing them up with the murdered sons). But certainly not Elizabeth Woodville. Incidentally all Stillington's sons that I can find are in the clergy so it would be a somewhat difficult marriage!
Marie's point about Mancini is interesting. We're at a time when intellectual rivalry was as deadly as brawling nobility. There's a lovely bit in Thomas Penn where he says how much their squabbles all got on HT's nerves. And it's also interesting that in 1484 at a time when 'the world' i.e. France was decrying Richard's dastardly deeds, Sforza of Milan was pouring praise on him to Thomas Langton (it's in the Venetian State Papers). And I seem to recall Sforza married Edward's 'cast off' Bona of Savoy, Louis XI's sister-in-law, so he had no real reason to love England or the Yorkists? H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 January 2016, 21:24
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
David Durose wrote:
"On the matter of motive, Commynes seems to agree with you that Stillington was motivated by revenge. He points out (as we know) that he had been in the highest position in the land; he had fallen out of favour with Edward and ended up in prison.
"He goes on to give a further motive. He had a son whom he loved greatly. Richard had promised Stillington's son land, wealth and the hand of Elizabeth Woodville. Richard could not fulfil his promise because Stillington's son was serving Richard on a ship in the channel when he was captured by the French. He was taken from the coast to the Petit Châtelet in Paris and imprisoned. His treatment there was such that it unintentionally caused his death."
Carol responds:
Just to add to Marie's response to this post: It was, as she indicates, Elizabeth of York, not Elizabeth Woodville, to whom Commines was referring with regard to the supposed promised marriage of Stillington's son. Commines almost certainly knew nothing of Richard's promise to EW to marry her daughters to men of good character who would "lovingly love" them. (Whether that would apply to Stillington's illegitimate son, I have no idea.) And Commines certainly didn't know that Richard had someone very different in mind: Duke Manuel of Portugal.
I agree with Marie that we can dismiss this particular story completely. As for Stillington's role in the secret marriage (and, as Marie stated, it was indeed a marriage and not a betrothal according to the only record we have, Titulus Regius), he may be right. Stillington was almost certainly the chief source of information for TR and may (as the document repealing it implies) have been its author.
As for Commines's assertion that Richard murdered his nephews, elsewhere he says that Buckingham did it. Conclusion: He didn't know (any more than Mancini dd) what had happened to Edward
s sons. (Oddly, Mancini doesn't even mention Richard of York with regard to the disappearance and posited murder.) See Marie's post for more on these topics.
Carol
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
And does anyone know why Henry Percy was in the Tower in 1469? For release he had to take his oath of fidelity in the presence of Richard and Stillington. H
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2016, 23:30
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Sorry I meant the Milanese state papers. It's late!! H
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 January 2016, 22:25
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Actually Commines doesn't name EOY. In both the English and French version he says one of Edward's daughters - and you'll recall he thinks Edward only had two (probably mixing them up with the murdered sons). But certainly not Elizabeth Woodville. Incidentally all Stillington's sons that I can find are in the clergy so it would be a somewhat difficult marriage!
Marie's point about Mancini is interesting. We're at a time when intellectual rivalry was as deadly as brawling nobility. There's a lovely bit in Thomas Penn where he says how much their squabbles all got on HT's nerves. And it's also interesting that in 1484 at a time when 'the world' i.e. France was decrying Richard's dastardly deeds, Sforza of Milan was pouring praise on him to Thomas Langton (it's in the Venetian State Papers). And I seem to recall Sforza married Edward's 'cast off' Bona of Savoy, Louis XI's sister-in-law, so he had no real reason to love England or the Yorkists? H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 23 January 2016, 21:24
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
David Durose wrote:
"On the matter of motive, Commynes seems to agree with you that Stillington was motivated by revenge. He points out (as we know) that he had been in the highest position in the land; he had fallen out of favour with Edward and ended up in prison.
"He goes on to give a further motive. He had a son whom he loved greatly. Richard had promised Stillington's son land, wealth and the hand of Elizabeth Woodville. Richard could not fulfil his promise because Stillington's son was serving Richard on a ship in the channel when he was captured by the French. He was taken from the coast to the Petit Châtelet in Paris and imprisoned. His treatment there was such that it unintentionally caused his death."
Carol responds:
Just to add to Marie's response to this post: It was, as she indicates, Elizabeth of York, not Elizabeth Woodville, to whom Commines was referring with regard to the supposed promised marriage of Stillington's son. Commines almost certainly knew nothing of Richard's promise to EW to marry her daughters to men of good character who would "lovingly love" them. (Whether that would apply to Stillington's illegitimate son, I have no idea.) And Commines certainly didn't know that Richard had someone very different in mind: Duke Manuel of Portugal.
I agree with Marie that we can dismiss this particular story completely. As for Stillington's role in the secret marriage (and, as Marie stated, it was indeed a marriage and not a betrothal according to the only record we have, Titulus Regius), he may be right. Stillington was almost certainly the chief source of information for TR and may (as the document repealing it implies) have been its author.
As for Commines's assertion that Richard murdered his nephews, elsewhere he says that Buckingham did it. Conclusion: He didn't know (any more than Mancini dd) what had happened to Edward
s sons. (Oddly, Mancini doesn't even mention Richard of York with regard to the disappearance and posited murder.) See Marie's post for more on these topics.
Carol
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary?
When you say Stillington had a nice little line in money-lending - you mean he was making a big profit on it (usury)? Most rich people at that period seem to have lent others money, and occasionally had to take a defaulting creditor to court. It was very much a society of living on tick - everybody delaying payment to everybody else, and a physical shortage of coin.
Could you possibly quote the phrase about the pardons in the seal bag? I made notes from these entries but didn't see that.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
972Memorandum, that on 20 September, 12 Edward IV, the king delivered letters under his sign manual and sealed with his signet to Robert, bishop of Bath and Wells, the chancellor, in which is set forth, that whereas the chancellor was detained by his sickness, he could not conveniently attend the business of the chancery, and delivered the great seal then in his custody to John, bishop of Rochester, to be faithfully guarded, in order that the latter might carry out all the duties pertaining to that office, until the said chancellor should recover his health. Wherefore the chancellor by the king's command on 20 September in presence of Simon Reynold and Simon Litster at Chesewick within his hospice in the great chamber by the Thames, delivered the seal to the bishop of Rochester in a certain bag of white leather, and the chancellor's signet, figure of a leopard containing an impression on in white wax: and after, on the 23 September, the bishop of Rochester within his hospice at Lambhithmersshe caused the seal to be extracted, and certain charters of pardon to Richard Forster gentleman, late of Bray co. Buckingham, and Edmund Lamberde esquire of Fowlestone co. Wilts, and divers other letters patent and writs of course, to be sealed in the presence of Richard Martyn archdeacon of London, William Bolton and Richard Wodeward and others of the chancery and so from time to time as need appeared. Foedera XI, p. 764.
I suppose you could read this that Edward sent the pardons to Stillington on 20 Sep, Stillington was too ill to act on them and Rochester didn't open the bag until 23 Sep.
And from Foedera:
De Liberatione Sigilli.
An. 12. E. 4. Claus. 12. E. 4. m. 16. d.
Memorandum quòd, Vicesimo Die Septembris, Anno Regni Regis Edwardi Quarti Duodecimo, idem Dominus Rex Mandavit Literas suas Missivas, ipsius Signo Manuali & Signeto consignatas, Venerabili Patri Roberto Bathoniensi & Wellensi Episcopo Cancellario Angliae, in quibus, inter alia, continebatur,
Quòd pro eo quòd idem Cancellarius, ob diversos Langores & Corporis Infirmitates, quibus adtunc detinebatur, circa Negotia, Officium Cancellariatûs concernentia, commodè ut oportuit vacare & intendere non potuit,
Quòd idem Cancellarius Sigillum Magnum, in Custodia sua existens, Venerabili Patri Johanni Episcopo Roffensi benè & fideliter Custodiendum Deliberaret,
Et ut idem Episcopus Roffensis omnia & singula ad Officium illud pertinentia faceret & exequeretur, quousque idem Cancellarius a dictis Langoribus & Infirmitatibus, Deo dante, Sanitatem recuperaret:
Super quo idem Cancellarius, juxta Mandatum dicti Domini Regis, eodem Vicesimo die Septembris, circa Horam Secundam post Meridiem, in praesentia Simonis Reynold & Simonis Litster, apud Chesewyk infra Hospitium suum in Magnâ Camerâ suâ juxta Thames, adtunc Deliberavit Sigillum praedictum praefato Episcopo Roffensi in quadam Bagâ de albo Corio, & Signeto ipsius Cancellarii (Figuram LE LEOPARD HEED continente) in Cerâ albâ impresso:
Et postea, Vicesimo tertio die Septembris, inter Horam Secundam & Horam Tertiam post Meridiem, praedictus Episcopus Roffensis, infra Hospitium suum juxta Lambethmersh in Magna Camera sua ibidem, Sigillum praedictum extra Bagam praedictam extrahi fecit, & quasdam Cartas de Communi Gratia Ricardo Forster nuper de Bray in Comitatu Buk Gentilman, & Edmundo Lamberde de Fowleston in Comitatu Wiltesiae Armigero, ac diversa alia Literas Patentes & Brevia de Cursu, in Praesentia Magistri Ricardi Martyn Archidiaconi Londoniae, Willielmi Bolton, & Ricardi Wodeward, Clericorum, & aliorum de Curia Cancellariae praedictae, apertè Sigillavit, & sic de tempore in tempus quando necessitas exigebat.
Still ploughing on through about a 1200 page search. Incidentally Stillington certainly wasn't poor, his grandfather was Chancellor of York. Seems still to be a trouble causer though and certainly not a friend of Richard's Thomas Gower who owed him money. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016, 23:40
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary?
When you say Stillington had a nice little line in money-lending - you mean he was making a big profit on it (usury)? Most rich people at that period seem to have lent others money, and occasionally had to take a defaulting creditor to court. It was very much a society of living on tick - everybody delaying payment to everybody else, and a physical shortage of coin.
Could you possibly quote the phrase about the pardons in the seal bag? I made notes from these entries but didn't see that.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
509Memorandum that on Monday, 6 March, 10 Edward IV, Robert bishop of Bath and Wells, the chancellor, in a certain small chapel near the inner chamber of the king near the 'Wyndyngsteyre' in Westminster palace, delivered into the king's hands the Great Seal, enclosed in a leather bag and impressed with the chancery seal, the sign of a leopard's head, in presence of Thomas cardinal archbishop of Canterbury L. bishop of Durham, Thomas bishop of Rochester keeper of the privy seal, John earl of Worcester, William Hastynges, John Howard knights and William Hatclyff the king's secretary. And the king then and there received the seal into his own hands and afterwards on Wednesday, 7 March, at Abbots Waltham he had the seal opened in his presence, and signed letters of pardon made out to Nicholas Gaynesford and other letters patent: and the seal was again enclosed in the bag, and sealed with the privy seal in presence of W. bishop of Ely, the treasurer, John earl of Worcester, William Hastynges, knight, Richard Fryston and William Bolton, clerks. Subsequently the king bade the said Richard Fryston sign all warrants which should be carried out according to the course of chancery, at the king's pleasure, and the said Richard afterwards day by day, as need arose, had divers charters, letters patent, commissions and writs sealed according to the king's command till Thursday, 10 May: on which day the king, in a small chamber next the garden of the palace of the bishop of Salisbury at New Sarum in presence of John earl of Worcester, Anthony earl Ryvers, William Hastynges, John Dudley and William Stanley knights, had the seal produced, and certain letters directed to John duke of Norfolk and John duke of Suffolk were sealed, and the seal replaced in the bag and so sealed delivered to Richard Fryston, who by the king's order delivered it anew to the chancellor on 12 May in his hospice at Cheswyk: and the chancellor duly received the seal from the said Richard.
I don't really understand this. Why did Stillington hand the seal over and then it was sent back to him? H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 25 January 2016, 23:40
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary?
When you say Stillington had a nice little line in money-lending - you mean he was making a big profit on it (usury)? Most rich people at that period seem to have lent others money, and occasionally had to take a defaulting creditor to court. It was very much a society of living on tick - everybody delaying payment to everybody else, and a physical shortage of coin.
Could you possibly quote the phrase about the pardons in the seal bag? I made notes from these entries but didn't see that.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Doug
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Chiswick is on the western outskirts of London - by Putney if you watch the Boat Race. I think the bishops of Bath and Wells had a house there (it doesn't seem part of the Stillington 'estate' ). H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2016, 15:57
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hilary, Regarding your post concerning Memorandum 509 and your question about why Stillington gave the Seal to Edward and then received it back: It appears that Edward was going to do some royal business while outside of Westminster, while Stillington remained in London (or wherever Cheswick is). Thus the need for Stillington to hand the Seal over to Edward and, once Edward had finished using it, the king then returned the Seal to its official guardian Stillington. As to why any business couldn't wait until King and Chancellor were back together, I don't know.
Doug
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary,
This is not how I read it. To me, what it is saying is that:
1) On 20 September Stillington handed over the Great Seal & the Chancellor's Signet, in their respective bags, to the Bishop of Rochester, to act for him until he was better
2) On 23 September the Bishop of Rochester formally made his first use of the Great Seal, in order to seal pardons to Richard Forster & Edmund Lamberde.
I don't see the pardons as having been handed over by Stillington in the bag - it doesn't say so.
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Ditto. What is recorded are two events:
1) Stillington's formal handing over of the Seal
2) The Seal's first official use by the person he handed it to.
The purpose of the handover in 1470 (6 March 10 EIV = 1470 by our reckoning) was that Edward was hurrying north to deal with the Welles rebellion, and Stillington presumably (as was usual) didn't strong enough to make the journey.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Perhaps Stillington was a master at strategic illness - not a good time to be with Edward if things go wrong. Better to stay at St Martins? H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 January 2016, 16:58
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Ditto. What is recorded are two events:
1) Stillington's formal handing over of the Seal2) The Seal's first official use by the person he handed it to.
The purpose of the handover in 1470 (6 March 10 EIV = 1470 by our reckoning) was that Edward was hurrying north to deal with the Welles rebellion, and Stillington presumably (as was usual) didn't strong enough to make the journey.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
I don't know what Stillington's health issues were or weren't. He must have been talented because Edward hung on to him as Chancellor for a long time. That his problem wasn't just with travelling is indicated by Crowland's reference to his having done none of the work of the 1472-4 parliament himself, relying instead on his protégé John Alcock. If he was simply lazy you would think that there would be hints or digs to this effect in the records - things like The Paston Letters, for instance - but not so. The letter about his state of health in York after his arrest, for instance, which indicates that it was not possible to move him south immediately because he was 'sore crazed' (i.e. severely ill). Also, surely Edward would have got fed up with him much sooner if he seemed like a malingerer.
It's too easy for those who are healthy to believe that illnesses hit, and either you kill them or they kill you. There are no end of chronic health conditions, many fluctuating in severity over time, that cause a greater or lesser degree of debility, and my impression of the 15th century is that people were much more tolerant of that idea than we are now - they didn't expect to have an easy test for every illness. It's a bad world to be in at the moment if you have a poorly understood chronic condition. But we actually still have a lot to learn. For instance, it's becoming increasingly clear that past infections can either linger on, lurking in the central nervous system or whatever, and cause long-term symptoms directly, or can damage the immune system in such a way that the person is never well again. Viral heart damage has been recognised for a long time. So if you think about the severity of some of the infectious illnesses 15th-century people were exposed to, it's perhaps not surprising that some of the survivors (Stillington and John, Duke of Suffolk, to name but two) seem to have suffered chronic ill health.
Anyway, I'd rather give the man the benefit of the doubt.
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
BTW I don't think we're dealing with a 'nice' man here. Whilst he's chancellor there are a steady stream of folk summoned for committing trespass against his servants. I haven't found that with any other bishop. And it says a lot that his deputies at Wells who outlived him chose to be buried with Beckynton, not him. But if this is a chronic illness it lasted for twenty years in the fifteenth century and fragilities of bishops were noted - Richard Nykke was the blind bishop.
I'm sorry if this is jumbled - it's awful to type into today. H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2016, 16:29
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
I don't know what Stillington's health issues were or weren't. He must have been talented because Edward hung on to him as Chancellor for a long time. That his problem wasn't just with travelling is indicated by Crowland's reference to his having done none of the work of the 1472-4 parliament himself, relying instead on his protégé John Alcock. If he was simply lazy you would think that there would be hints or digs to this effect in the records - things like The Paston Letters, for instance - but not so. The letter about his state of health in York after his arrest, for instance, which indicates that it was not possible to move him south immediately because he was 'sore crazed' (i.e. severely ill). Also, surely Edward would have got fed up with him much sooner if he seemed like a malingerer.It's too easy for those who are healthy to believe that illnesses hit, and either you kill them or they kill you. There are no end of chronic health conditions, many fluctuating in severity over time, that cause a greater or lesser degree of debility, and my impression of the 15th century is that people were much more tolerant of that idea than we are now - they didn't expect to have an easy test for every illness. It's a bad world to be in at the moment if you have a poorly understood chronic condition. But we actually still have a lot to learn. For instance, it's becoming increasingly clear that past infections can either linger on, lurking in the central nervous system or whatever, and cause long-term symptoms directly, or can damage the immune system in such a way that the person is never well again. Viral heart damage has been recognised for a long time. So if you think about the severity of some of the infectious illnesses 15th-century people were exposed to, it's perhaps not surprising that some of the survivors (Stillington and John, Duke of Suffolk, to name but two) seem to have suffered chronic ill health. Anyway, I'd rather give the man the benefit of the doubt.Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary,
I'm not sure what political advantage there was to Stillington in leaving the parliamentary organisation to Alcock 1472-4, or for being unable to Join Edward IV in 1473. So he lived with an untreated chronic condition for over 20 years. So have I. So have others I know. That's what the word chronic means - it goes on a long time. We have no way of knowing what was or wasn't wrong with Stillington, and if his enemies had reason to think his illness in 1485 was a political ruse they would have ignored him and dragged him straight down to London. The answer is, we just don't know.
It's also hard to make a political case with Russell. Twice sent Richard the Great Seal because he was (allegedly) too ill to travel, then in 1486 he obtained papal permission to reign from being a bishop and take a pension, but never took advantage of this facility. Historians trying to distance him from Richard have claimed the first two cases as political illness, but ignored the fact that after Henry VII came to the throne he considered retiring as bishop completely because of ill health. Bear in mind that some months may have elapsed between his decision to request a faculty to resign and actually receiving this back from Rome, so he could well have picked up a bit. A queen could of course get away with politically-feigned illness, but folk with employers had to be a bit more careful.
I don't know what Stillington's state of health was. He may have been a malingerer; he may have perceived political risks where I can't see them; he may have had a genuine chronic condition; he may have had a genuine chronic condition but played on it occasionally - we just don't have the evidence.
Could you possibly give me the reference(s) for the summonses of folk for committing trespass against his servants? I'd be interested in looking at that.
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Precisely, he was twenty years older than Edward and outlived him.
Similarly, Elizabeth I caught smallpox in 1562 and almost died. Parliament was discussing her successor when she recovered, so I don’t think that was a diplomatic illness.
It seems that far too many assumptions are being made about Stillington, which is what happens when one views him through a “Tudor” prism.
He was a priest, some priests had children, therefore he had several? Evidence?
He claimed to be ill but survived, therefore he was malingering?
He had children and was a malingerer therefore everything he did had an ulterior motive?
Apply the same reasoning to the Mortons and see where it takes us!
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 28 January 2016 12:48
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary,
I'm not sure what political advantage there was to Stillington in leaving the parliamentary organisation to Alcock 1472-4, or for being unable to Join Edward IV in 1473. So he lived with an untreated chronic condition for over 20 years. So have I. So have others I know. That's what the word chronic means - it goes on a long time. We have no way of knowing what was or wasn't wrong with Stillington, and if his enemies had reason to think his illness in 1485 was a political ruse they would have ignored him and dragged him straight down to London. The answer is, we just don't know.
It's also hard to make a political case with Russell. Twice sent Richard the Great Seal because he was (allegedly) too ill to travel, then in 1486 he obtained papal permission to reign from being a bishop and take a pension, but never took advantage of this facility. Historians trying to distance him from Richard have claimed the first two cases as political illness, but ignored the fact that after Henry VII came to the throne he considered retiring as bishop completely because of ill health. Bear in mind that some months may have elapsed between his decision to request a faculty to resign and actually receiving this back from Rome, so he could well have picked up a bit. A queen could of course get away with politically-feigned illness, but folk with employers had to be a bit more careful.
I don't know what Stillington's state of health was. He may have been a malingerer; he may have perceived political risks where I can't see them; he may have had a genuine chronic condition; he may have had a genuine chronic condition but played on it occasionally - we just don't have the evidence.
Could you possibly give me the reference(s) for the summonses of folk for committing trespass against his servants? I'd be interested in looking at tha t.
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
1. I never criticised him for having children, lots of priests before and after, including Wolsey and Cranmer, had mistresses. Evidence, well read the Society's own published paper and match the dates.
2. I never said he was a malingerer; I said he was clever (which he undoubtedly was) and could have used illness for strategic reasons. He could have had a stomach bug on these occasions, I don't know. The illness I was referring to with Elizabeth was not smallpox, but once, I recall when Mary summoned her and on other times when she wanted to put off making decisions. And the person who coped most remarkably with chronic illness was Richard!
3. I did say that there is quite a lot of evidence, both in correspondence with the Pope and in actions concerning his servants, that he was someone who could be, to put it kindly, a nuisance and a bitchy enemy. And there is not one statement anywhere of anyone having regard for him and, although he lived up the road from Richard, he never seems to have got close to him.
Now I don't see how any of this reflects on the credulity of Richard's acceptance of the Eleanor Talbot story. Somebody swore it was true and he believed them. That doesn't mean it was true. There is not one bit of solid evidence, other than the acceptance of Parliament, that the Eleanor Talbot story is true. Why didn't her family leap in to confirm/deny it?
What I do see is that some of the people close to the Talbots and Stillington
1. Boasted of their Tudor descent (after he became king of course) and married his granddaughters to Welshmen
2. Had relatives who had been counsellors to Jasper Tudor
3. Were short of money when they shouldn't have been
Now I never met Stillington and I could be totally wrong. He could have been a nice cuddly person like John Morton. But I believe he and his contacts are worth looking at and I shall continue to look. And if I do find he's cuddly I shall of course tell you. After all you set me on the trail :) H
PS And just remember I've defended him more than once.
From: "'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2016, 13:37
Subject: RE: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Precisely, he was twenty years older than Edward and outlived him. Similarly, Elizabeth I caught smallpox in 1562 and almost died. Parliament was discussing her successor when she recovered, so I don't think that was a diplomatic illness. It seems that far too many assumptions are being made about Stillington, which is what happens when one views him through a Tudor prism. He was a priest, some priests had children, therefore he had several? Evidence? He claimed to be ill but survived, therefore he was malingering? He had children and was a malingerer therefore everything he did had an ulterior motive? Apply the same reasoning to the Mortons and see where it takes us! From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 28 January 2016 12:48
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester Hi Hilary, I'm not sure what political advantage there was to Stillington in leaving the parliamentary organisation to Alcock 1472-4, or for being unable to Join Edward IV in 1473. So he lived with an untreated chronic condition for over 20 years. So have I. So have others I know. That's what the word chronic means - it goes on a long time. We have no way of knowing what was or wasn't wrong with Stillington, and if his enemies had reason to think his illness in 1485 was a political ruse they would have ignored him and dragged him straight down to London. The answer is, we just don't know. It's also hard to make a political case with Russell. Twice sent Richard the Great Seal because he was (allegedly) too ill to travel, then in 1486 he obtained papal permission to reign from being a bishop and take a pension, but never took advantage of this facility. Historians trying to distance him from Richard have claimed the first two cases as political illness, but ignored the fact that after Henry VII came to the throne he considered retiring as bishop completely because of ill health. Bear in mind that some months may have elapsed between his decision to request a faculty to resign and actually receiving this back from Rome, so he could well have picked up a bit. A queen could of course get away with politically-feigned illness, but folk with employers had to be a bit more careful. I don't know what Stillington's state of health was. He may have been a malingerer; he may have perceived political risks where I can't see them; he may have had a genuine chronic condition; he may have had a genuine chronic condition but played on it occasionally - we just don't have the evidence. Could you possibly give me the reference(s) for the summonses of folk for committing trespass against his servants? I'd be interested in looking at tha t. Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary,
Scoliosis isn't an illness. It's a medical condition which does cause fatigue and backache, and if Richard had lived longer it would have started to affect him more severely (he was a much younger man than the Bishop, which would have been a help). But it's not an illness.
Also, you can't simply equate one person's medical problems with another person's and say the one who does more is just tougher-minded. We don't know what Stillington's health issues were so we can't judge. If he was just faking it, why did he resign the chancellorship in 1474?
I really would like to know your sources for his hounding people - as you know, I've got a file going on Stillington as well.
Yes, these SW Stillingtons were very probably his children but we shouldn't forget that we have no definitive proof. And these sons seem to have been priests so if they were his they would have needed dispensations to take holy orders, so perhaps somebody should be looking for those.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
I will let you have the extracts from the Close Rolls. I'm off to York again today and Edge is playing up. We do know that the kinsmen who claimed his estates were not the ones that were named as priests. We know Thomas was his only brother (he is described as such in a deed) and the claimants are almost certainly his children he was dead or nearly dead by then and the Thomas who claims is described as a kinsman, not brother. His widow remarried. We know he had heirs because again they are referred to in the Great Edston settlement.
Have you ever considered whether Stillington might have been a Percy man? Some of those concerned in his estate issues are the Colviles from Aldwark. They, along with the Plumptons, had been supporters of Hotspur in 1405 and were condemned by Sir William Gascoigne, a kinsman of Stillington (and also later of the Percies). I often wonder whether he modelled his career on that of Gascoigne, who would have been alive for the first ten or so years of his life. Being a Percy man would explain his lack of closeness to Richard no mention in Horrox - and why 1469 would have been a particularly uncomfortable year for him as the Nevilles were in ascendance. There is the particularly cringe-worthy episode a couple of years' earlier of George Neville being made to hand back the Seal which is then given to Stillington. And of course earlier in the year, Thomas Hungerford, married to Percy's sister, had been condemned as a traitor. It could well explain illness brought on by stress. H
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 28 January 2016 19:23
To:
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary,
Scoliosis isn't an illness. It's a medical condition which does cause fatigue and backache, and if Richard had lived longer it would have started to affect him more severely (he was a much younger man than the Bishop, which would have been a help). But it's not an illness.
Also, you can't simply equate one person's medical problems with another person's and say the one who does more is just tougher-minded. We don't know what Stillington's health issues were so we can't judge. If he was just faking it, why did he resign the chancellorship in 1474?
I really would like to know your sources for his hounding people - as you know, I've got a file going on Stillington as well.
Yes, these SW Stillingtons were very probably his children but we shouldn't forget that we have no definitive proof. And these sons seem to have been priests so if they were his they would have needed dispensations to take holy orders, so perhaps somebody should be looking for those.
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi Hilary,
Enjoy York. As long as I know the refs are in the CCR I can find them myself - when I started the file they weren't online and I didn't get round to them before moving on to other things.
I might like to try double checking to make sure that brother Thomas didn't die possessed of those estates - you can't be too careful - but I don't really doubt that Stillington had children. It was pretty normal, I think. It's just a matter of bearing in mind that the level of evidence doesn't amount to proof. Similarly I would appear to be descended from a by-blow of Walter Scammel, Bishop of Salisbury (d. 1284), since his estates in Wiltshire were afterwards inhabited by Scammels who'd not been present before, but absolute proof is lacking. I also sometimes wonder whether Robert Morton, Bishop of Worcester, who was a protégé of Cardinal M. but not very talented, may have been his son rather than a nephew as is usually accepted. Why try so hard to promote a thick nephew? What I don't like is Stillington getting singled out as this bad guy for doing things that were venal but normal (no one would dare suggest Morton had bastards because he was on the Tudor side). The adverse publicity started after Bosworth, and was all due to his role in bastardising Edward IV's children. No one was going to ask to be buried beside him because of that fact alone, never mind his apparent involvement in the Lambert Simnel business. People had to be very careful what they put in their wills.
We've agreed that a lot of claims made even early in the Tudor period can be discounted: Commines' claim that he was promised Elizabeth of York for his bastard son, and Vergil's claim that he was the ambassador to Brittany who almost got Henry Tudor handed over to Edward. Both false. By the time the Victorians had finished he was almost a demon incarnate. Beckington leaves a lot of money for building / charitable works, he's a hero. Stillington does it and he has ill-gotten gains and a guilty conscience.
What you say about Stillington and Percy is interesting. At least, the Percys and the Stillingtons in general, because that part of Yorkshire might be thought of as Percy catchment area. But I don't know that the Bishop himself was really still involved with northern affairs, except in so far as he kept in touch with his family. Bishops weren't retained by magnates (indeed, they ranked above them), but may have had a working relationship with those on their patch or those closely related to them. The Percys don't fit into either category with regard to Bishop Stillington. I agree that Edward evidently saw Stillington as not allied to the Nevilles or he wouldn't have chosen him to replace GN; that may have had to do with his family loyalties, or it may have been more personal - you know, perhaps he simply didn't get on with Warwick and his brother. His career kept him firmly in the South, so you wouldn't expect a discernible relationship with Richard, but there were family links because of his brother Thomas' marriage to Agnes Bigod. Incidentally, Thomas Stillington is not mentioned in Northumberland's will although it does list quite a few of the Earl's retainers.
I suppose another possibility is that at the time George Neville was sacked Stillington was perhaps in high favour with Elizabeth Woodville. No evidence that I know of, but since we're speculating.....
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi again,
I've looked through the Close Rolls (found I had 'done' the entries for 1476-85 but not the rest), and I've also looked at TNA catalogue. Conclusions:-
1) The Thomas Stillington to whom in 1468 the bishop remaindered his Yorkshire manors of Northolme and Great Eddeston was his brother. This is specified.
2) The Thomas Stillington, kinsman of the Bishop, who after the Bishop's death sold the Bishop's Essex and Middlesex properties to Reggie Bray et al was a different person. He had a brother Robert still living, whom he authorised to take seisin of the manors in preparation. This Stillington was probably the one who was a priest, protégé of Bishop Stillington's and prebendary of St. Martin Le Grand. These, I think almprobably were sons of Bishop Stillington, as was the priest John Stillington whom the Bishop advanced. The intro to Stillington's register says these priests were not ordained in the diocese of B&W, so if they received dispensations from bastardy we would need to be looking in the records of a different diocese.
3) I wonder if Thomas, the lay son, could have been the one that Commines says died of starvation in a Paris gaol because nobody put up the ransom money. It's just that I can't find any further reference to him after 1491. Everybody's always assumed that his capture by the French and death was supposed to have happened during Richard's reign, but that isn't very plausible as the Bishop could easily have ransomed him. After the Bishop's death, however, he would indeed very likely have been left to rot if he'd got into such a situation: it would have suited the new regime. Of course, the whole story could be Commines' fantasy, but there's usually something behind propaganda tales: when telling a lie, include as much of the truth as possible because that makes the rest seem plausible. Commines would therefore have known that Stillington had a lay son to whom he intended to leave his worldly goods and who would have been in need of a good marriage. Perhaps it's even true that Stillington hope the precontract revelation would help him obtain Richard's help in obtaining such a marriage for Thomas, but that he would have had his eye on Elizabeth of York is crazy - she wasn't even available, she was in sanctuary.
I'll come back again on the question of the litigation for trespass against servants, etc.
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
I agree exactly with what you say in 1 and 2 and that the Thomas claiming his estate was not his brother. I think Thomas senior had three trackable sons -
the Thomas who claimed the estate and married a Johanne (he is mentioned in another deed with her so can't be Thomas senior whose wife Agnes outlived him). They had a daughter Anne who married Sir William Hungate
John who is shown on one occasion to have been married to Elizabeth Fitzhenry but who definitely died in Acaster in Feb 1534 (I will check again whether 4 or 5). It's a long time since I looked at this but I will check whether he left a will. He had a son and several grandchildren one of whom was the Professor of Divinity at Louvain
Robert - who doesn't appear after 1492 but again is quite logically Thomas's son as he's tacked on the end.
There was a mercer William Stillington who died in 1444 who had a wife called Catherine (he was rich, he was called nobleman by the Pope when granted a portable altar) but he doesn't seem to have left any children and was probably bishop Stillington's uncle. I have his will
The Stillingtons in the priesthood are (and again I will look it up) John, William and George (who is buried at Wells).
I'll come back to you though. In the meantime I have found out some interesting information about the history of the Gorges and Newton family which I will come back to you with next week. I agree that the Commines promise thing is mad Regards H
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 30 January 2016, 16:06
Subject: RE: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Hi again,
I've looked through the Close Rolls (found I had 'done' the entries for 1476-85 but not the rest), and I've also looked at TNA catalogue. Conclusions:-
1) The Thomas Stillington to whom in 1468 the bishop remaindered his Yorkshire manors of Northolme and Great Eddeston was his brother. This is specified.
2) The Thomas Stillington, kinsman of the Bishop, who after the Bishop's death sold the Bishop's Essex and Middlesex properties to Reggie Bray et al was a different person. He had a brother Robert still living, whom he authorised to take seisin of the manors in preparation. This Stillington was probably the one who was a priest, protégé of Bishop Stillington's and prebendary of St. Martin Le Grand. These, I think almprobably were sons of Bishop Stillington, as was the priest John Stillington whom the Bishop advanced. The intro to Stillington's register says these priests were not ordained in the diocese of B&W, so if they received dispensations from bastardy we would need to be looking in the records of a different diocese.
3) I wonder if Thomas, the lay son, could have been the one that Commines says died of starvation in a Paris gaol because nobody put up the ransom money. It's just that I can't find any further reference to him after 1491. Everybody's always assumed that his capture by the French and death was supposed to have happened during Richard's reign, but that isn't very plausible as the Bishop could easily have ransomed him. After the Bishop's death, however, he would indeed very likely have been left to rot if he'd got into such a situation: it would have suited the new regime. Of course, the whole story could be Commines' fantasy, but there's usually something behind propaganda tales: when telling a lie, include as much of the truth as possible because that makes the rest seem plausible. Commines would therefore have known that Stillington had a lay son to whom he intended to leave his worldly goods and who would have been in need of a good marriage. Perhaps it's even true that Stillington hope the precontract revelation would help him obtain Richard's help in obtaining such a marriage for Thomas, but that he would have had his eye on Elizabeth of York is crazy - she wasn't even available, she was in sanctuary.
I'll come back again on the question of the litigation for trespass against servants, etc.
Marie
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Sorry, I've been a bit muddled, haven't I?
The Thomas Esquire who had inherited the family seat and was Bishop Stillington's natural heir was his nephew Thomas (not brother - so long since I've looked at this), son of his late brother John. This Thomas also had a brother named John. There was also a Robert Stillington around Selby area in 1440s and 1450s, presumably not the same Robert who was involved with conveying the Bishop's land after his death in 1491. Possibly the future bishop himself? Or not?
According to my notes Thomas Stillington esq of Nether Acaster (the Bishop's nephew) died in 1496 and was succeeded by his eldest son John. Annoyingly, Thomas Esq's will is brief and nuncupative (ie given verbally and relayed to probate officials by witnesses), and refers to children but doesn't name them.
If the Bishop's estates had gone to the legal heir, this would have been nephew Thomas Esq, and after him his son John. From what I can see, the Bishop had had them enfeoffed, and after his death they were settled by the feoffees on a Thomas (who is not described as Esquire), and he roped in a Robert Stillington to take seisin and convey them to Bray and others.
I have Thomas Stillington Esquire married to Joan in 1472, in Yorkshire context (Selby, close to Nether Acaster, which is actually now known as Acaster Selby). I suspect this is nephew Thomas with a first wife, otherwise we have to account for two Thomas Stillington Esquires. I haven't found any reference to wife Joan which overlaps with references to Thomas Esq's wife Agnes, but would be interested in details.
There was a priest Robert Stillington who was a prebendary of St Martin's (2 refs from 1472).
Not sure what you mean by Robert being "logically Thomas' son as he's tacked on the end." I presume this is a reference to a family pedigree?
Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
Firstly, the Percy connection which I admit I just threw in without any real substance. Well:
1. In the 1440s the Percys were at war with Archbishop Kempe, then still at York. He was also, you may recall, an opponent of Beckynton and Stillington because of their religious dogma at Deep Hall (later Lincoln College Oxford). So it's interesting that it was in 1448 that Stillington wrote to the Pope accusing Kempe of nepotism. And Beckynton held a prebandary at York at the same time.
2. The Percys are the first real Yorkshire link with the South West. Our Percy's grandmother was Eleanor Poynings from Okeford Fitzpayne in Dorset and for a time his grandfather styled himself Lord Poynings. Our Percy's sister (some say his aunt) married Thomas Hungerford, who was tried and condemned for treason by Richard in 1469. As a result our Percy ended up in the Tower and was released later in the presence of Stillington and Richard. (Close Rolls)
Moving to the South West:
It was in 1445 that Sir Richard Caradog, Judge, Berkeley arbitrator and friend of the Talbots, moved from Pembrokeshire to Yatton in Somerset and re-styled himself Sir Richard Craddock-Newton. We know this from the churchwarden accounts at Yatton which still exist. It was also in 1445 that Beckynton appointed Stillington to his first prebend post at East Harptree, just up the road. Yatton had a special relationship with the bishops of Bath and Wells which went back to the previous century. The Gorges of Wraxall, who Stillington's grandchildren were also to marry, were not just friends of the Newtons, they were cousins. Their real name was Russell and Nest Russell was Sir Richard's grandmother. This means that both families could boast of tracing their ancestry (true or mythical) back to Rhys ap Tewdwr and Stillington's granddaughters were almost certainly contracted to marry into Tudor families whilst Yorkists were still on the throne. Later Lucy was to marry a Welshman related to Rhys ap Thomas. The girls brought with them quite a substantial inheritance as can be seen from Lucy's IPM and Elizabeth's assignment of dower which didn't allow her to marry outside the Newton family without royal permission.
But that's not all. Richard Caradog's wife was Emmot Perrot, whose father or brother had been a friend of Jasper Tudor. And the Perrots came from Haverfordwest, next to Milford Haven.
I'm not Poirot so I can't give you an exposee on all this. I will however throw in a few other unconnected points.
a. when Hotspur negotiated with Glendower he asked that he be granted the equivalent of Richard's Palatinate in the North, plus Warwickshire and Leicestershire (later Neville and Hastings territory). Could Percy have thought that when Richard became king he would hand the North to him? He had after all been his deputy in Scotland.
b. three months after Tewkesbury, Sir John Newton (son of the above Sir Richard) took out a loan of £600 from Sir Thomas Vaughan, his kinsman and the one executed with Rivers in 1483. That is a large sum of money. What did he need it for? Not the church at Yatton, I checked. Despite their glamorous careers and marriage with the Cheddars which is safeguarded by Henry VI, the Newtons never seem particularly well off and it's clear the Hampton girls' marriage was very important to them.
c. at the moment I'm deep in Welsh connections and it's hard, but one thing that really hits you is the carnage of Edgcote. Was that what really turned the Welsh against the Nevilles and the Yorkists down the line? I imagine several would still link Richard with Richard Neville and his family
d. and then of course we have George sitting in Hungerford's house.
Now all these points could be huge coincidences and there are some on this forum who are much better at Welsh history than me. I would venture, however, that Stillington was Beckynton's protegee and Beckynton recommended him for that particular bishopric (before he died of course).
Any bright ideas? H
From: "Hilary hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>; "" <>
Sent: Friday, 29 January 2016, 10:32
Subject: RE: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester
I will let you have the extracts from the Close Rolls. I'm off to York again today and Edge is playing up. We do know that the kinsmen who claimed his estates were not the ones that were named as priests. We know Thomas was his only brother (he is described as such in a deed) and the claimants are almost certainly his children he was dead or nearly dead by then and the Thomas who claims is described as a kinsman, not brother. His widow remarried. We know he had heirs because again they are referred to in the Great Edston settlement. Have you ever considered whether Stillington might have been a Percy man? Some of those concerned in his estate issues are the Colviles from Aldwark. They, along with the Plumptons, had been supporters of Hotspur in 1405 and were condemned by Sir William Gascoigne, a kinsman of Stillington (and also later of the Percies). I often wonder whether he modelled his career on that of Gascoigne, who would have been alive for the first ten or so years of his life. Being a Percy man would explain his lack of closeness to Richard no mention in Horrox - and why 1469 would have been a particularly uncomfortable year for him as the Nevilles were in ascendance. There is the particularly cringe-worthy episode a couple of years' earlier of George Neville being made to hand back the Seal which is then given to Stillington. And of course earlier in the year, Thomas Hungerford, married to Percy's sister, had been condemned as a traitor. It could well explain illness brought on by stress. H Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 28 January 2016 19:23
To:
Subject: Re: Morton as Archdeacon of Leicester Hi Hilary,Scoliosis isn't an illness. It's a medical condition which does cause fatigue and backache, and if Richard had lived longer it would have started to affect him more severely (he was a much younger man than the Bishop, which would have been a help). But it's not an illness. Also, you can't simply equate one person's medical problems with another person's and say the one who does more is just tougher-minded. We don't know what Stillington's health issues were so we can't judge. If he was just faking it, why did he resign the chancellorship in 1474? I really would like to know your sources for his hounding people - as you know, I've got a file going on Stillington as well. Yes, these SW Stillingtons were very probably his children but we shouldn't forget that we have no definitive proof. And these sons seem to have been priests so if they were his they would have needed dispensations to take holy orders, so perhaps somebody should be looking for those.
