Is Morton still out there?

Whilst shopping at Tesco I noticed that the latest copy of BBC History magazine had a picture of Henry IV on the cover (though we know it's not his picture) with the caption ' the man who murdered a King' (or something like that). At last thought I, they've been reading this forum and realised other kings committed murder and not our poor Richard.

So I took it to self-checkout and it wouldn't go through. A member of staff tried and sent for the supervisor. I was 'not allowed to buy it' I was told 'it shouldn't be on the shelves' - and it was confiscated. Today when I went all copies had been taken off the shelves. Is Morton still out there shredding? H

Hi,
I have come across quite a few references to HT ordering his minions to destroy documents. I suppose Titulus Regius would have been one of them. It does appear that Stillington may have presented some evidence of the precontract, so that may explain its absence. Does anyone know of any other important documents that went missing, presumably destroyed? Is there any particular type of historical record that is missing, or any time in Henry's reign that he had a tendency to have information destroyed.
Nico




On Wednesday, 3 February 2016, 10:25, "hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


Whilst shopping at Tesco I noticed that the latest copy of BBC History magazine had a picture of Henry IV on the cover (though we know it's not his picture) with the caption ' the man who murdered a King' (or something like that). At last thought I, they've been reading this forum and realised other kings committed murder and not our poor Richard.
So I took it to self-checkout and it wouldn't go through. A member of staff tried and sent for the supervisor. I was 'not allowed to buy it' I was told 'it shouldn't be on the shelves' - and it was confiscated. Today when I went all copies had been taken off the shelves. Is Morton still out there shredding? H

Perhaps the clue is in the word 'clandestine'. Are we to believe that the first thing Eleanor would have done after the King secretly married her is to go and blab the news to her brothers? A sister, close girl friend, maybe....... I certainly wouldn't tell my brother anything like that, and he's my twin. Wouldn't she have been waiting for Edward's permission to tell her family? Edward's mistake with EW was probably marrying her at her parents' home, and my guess is that Elizabeth engineered this.

If Edward had been romantically inclined towards Eleanor, though, I'm sure that was known, and as I suggested earlier, she may for that reason have been questioned by the inner council in late 1464, but if so, and if she claimed there had been words of marriage exchanged, then it must be presumed that she had been unable to produce sufficient evidence (I.e. witnesses) at that time.

The Talbots had always been Lancastrian anyway. My guess is that Gilbert and Humphrey Talbot had no way of knowing whether Eleanor had actually married Edward IV, very possibly didn't like her name being dragged through the mud, and were inclined to back Lancaster anyway.

I'm actually at a bit of a loss to understand how the Talbot men could have positively known there had been no marriage: Eleanor is not likely to have gone to them and said, 'Rotten weather, isn't it? I haven't secretly married the King. Anyone fancy a game of cards?'

Marie

Would the support that *some* of the Herberts gave Tudor not more likely have been the result of Tudor having grown up with them?

Is there evidence that Morton had Turberville blood, or was it simply a case of the Turbervilles being the Morton family's lords?

I agree that there is a connection between Stillington and Morton, but my interpretation is that this is not genealogical but dates back to the time when Morton was Stillington's Master of the Rolls and stood in for him when occasion demanded. Actually, it seems to have been a triumvirate of Stillington, Morton and Alcock, Alcock being Morton's predecessor as Master of the Rolls and described by Crowland as Stillington's pupil. There's a hint in a document from Henry VII's reign that Alcock was also involved in the plotting of June 1483, which would mean that he and Morton had ended up ranged together against their old master.

Pure speculation, but perhaps Stillington's knowledge merely came from being one of the few top ministers of Edward IV in 1464 who were still alive in 1483 and therefore able to remember any 'in camera' discussion of a possible precontract with Eleanor, and this enabled him to solicit statements from witnesses who had been too frightened to give evidence earlier. Morton and Alcock would not have been involved in any such discussions and had reasons to see the new political order rather differently from Stillington.

Hi Mary,

My own feeling is that Edward tended to tire of his women once he'd had his way with them. Before Elizabeth Woodville we have Lady Lucy for sure and possibly also Eleanor Butler - there is no proof but Lucy's daughter, Lady Lumley, was seemingly born in 1462, therefore conceived 1461 or early 1462, which certainly leaves Edward a bit of time in between.

Whether Edward remained besotted with Elizabeth is hard to say. I find it difficult to believe he had intended to make her his queen, and he certainly went back to keeping mistresses during his second reign. What I would say is that he remained very much under her influence. She was probably one of those people who made him think everything she got him to do was his own idea, but the end result was the promotion of her family, the Prince of Wales being raised in isolation by her brother rather than by members of the King's own family, and the execution and attainder of Clarence, the marriage of Clarence's son (and therefore his claim to the throne) being bestowed on her Grey son, Dorset, perhaps by way of insurance should her issue by Edward IV at some point be set aside.