Matching 1483 rebels

Now I have a pretty large database, I'm in the (rather tedious) process of matching those attainted in the 1484 Parliament to their relationship with MB and others. Not surprisingly, most stack up and it's the less well-known that are harder (but not impossible) to track down. If I set MB as my 'file root' and try to match her with them then I would say that, so far, the thing that hits you most (apart from those whose parents have been executed for treason by Edward) is that quite a lot of matches are through her husbands - and I don't mean Tudor. So one question is:

Was Buckingham's rebellion really about him and not Henry Tudor, because there are an awful lot of Stafford (and Stanley) supporters in there? Once they had declared their hand and he had failed, they were destined to the 'last chance saloon' of HT. So how had Buckingham persuaded them given his flimsy public record?

One interesting character is Michael Skilling. He isn't any old yeoman/courtier. His family 'own' Draycot Fitzpayne in Dorset (yes the Eleanor place) and he is allied to Sir William Stonor and Thomas Milbourne who both have a history of Lancastrian support. And then there's Sir Roger Tocotes, who is allied through marriage to the Beauchamps of Powick, also attainted. Everything so far, and there's a good forty more to track down, points to a network, not random discontented Edward-admirers. But whose network?

Incidentally, looking at MB's will and the properties it mentions (some of which concern Stillington and is another topic) Thomas Stanley was quite active on her behalf in the West Country. Interesting that. H

Hi Hilary,

When you say Stafford supporters did you mean something else, because obviously that suggests Buckingham?

Have you played Devil's Advocate / controlled the experiment by looking for links between:

a) attainted rebels and household of EIV; and

b) attainted rebels and Buckingham?

I think all anyone's ever suggested is that Tudor may not have been the original pretender. His mother was clearly deeply involved, and being an effective networker would obviously have mobilised as many of her contacts as possible. The aims at any particular stage are difficult to assess, given that we have lost almost all the trial records. Buckingham and MB may have been deceiving each other but the rebels must have had a name to rally behind, even if the name changed at a late stage.

It's interesting to me that both families attacked by Clarence in 1477 - i.e. Twynyho and Tocotes - joined the rebellion against Richard. It's very likely that one motivation was that for them Richard represented what had been Clarence's side in the court rivalry. But also, as you point out, their social networks were so closely interwoven with families like the Cheyneys and Stonors. Maybe the Cheyney network is more important to the southern risings than links with MB?

The Beauchamps of Powick weren't themselves involved or attainted, only Tocotes' stepson, Richard Beauchamp Lord St. Amand. Tocotes' wife, Lady St Amand, was just the widow of William Beauchamp, Lord St Amand, who had been a cousin of the Beauchamps of Powick.* The Beauchamp with whom Tocotes actually developed a working relationship by virtue of his marriage was his wife's brother-in-law the Bishop of Salisbury.

*William, Lord St Amand (Tocotes's wife's first husband, d. 1457) was 1st cousin to John, 1st Lord Beauchamp of Powick (d. 1475). Tocotes' stepson, Richard Lord St Amand, was the therefore a 2nd cousin of Richard, the Lord Beauchamp of Powick in 1483. Different circles - Richard Lord B. of Powick was married to a sister of Humphrey Stafford of Grafton and had also been a very close neighbour of Thomas Burdet.

Hilary wrote:

"Re Richard Beauchamp of Powick, he was also the grandson of Gerard Braybrooke, one of the Harcourt/Doyley/Danvers/Greene (Bucks/Beds/Northants) Lancastrian clan. He married a West you probably know and was therefore related to the Guildfords and indeed a cousin of the attainted Sir Thomas Delamere."

Marie here:

I'm afraid you're still confusing the St Amand Beauchamps with their kinsfolk the Beauchamps of Powick. The Richard Beauchamp who was the grandson of Gerard Braybroke was Richard of St. Amand, Tocotes' stepson, not Richard Lord Beauchamp of Powick. The Powick and St. Amand Richard Beauchamps were second cousins. Richard Beauchamp of Powick's mother was Margaret Ferrers. The Richard Beauchamp attainted in 1484 was Tocotes' stepson Richard of St Amand - the Act of Attainder is quite explicit.

I also discovered, from correspondence with the author of a 'Ricardian' article on one of the Cheyneys that the West Country branch had split off a couple of hundred years before this period and had no real connections with their more illustrious namesakes, so we need to be careful about which Cheyneys we are looking at.

Are you sure Sir William Courtenay of Powderham was a supporter of HT? There was one notable member of that family who was an enemy of RIII, and that is Peter, Bishop of Exeter, (and the Edward Courtenay whom Henry VII created Earl of Devon may have belonged to the Powderham branch) but in general the family were on the other side, retainers first of Warwick and then of Clarence - one of the sisters was indeed godmother to Clarence's last baby, Richard. Sir William Courtenay remained in favour throughout Buckingham's Rebellion; indeed, he and three of his brothers were granted annuities by Richard on 1 March 1484, and the grant describes Sir Philip Courtenay as a knight of the body, John as an esquire of the body, and Humphrey and William as king's servants. WC was being appointed to commissions throughout 1484. He died in September 1485 so never got much chance to show how well he would have got on with Henry VII.

Hi AJ,

Do you mean rebels against Richard?

Any examples?

Marie

Hi Hilary,

I agree with your analysis about old Lancastrrians. From what I've been able to see, there were two main groups: old Lancastrians and people who'd had jobs in Edward IV's household and either feared the new order or regarded Richard as a usurper. Others were probably retainers of bigger men who'd already joined. For instance, Sir W. Berkeley of Beverstone's about-turn from Ricardian hero during the protectorate, chasing Edward Woodville's fleet, to rebel against Richard in October, can probably be explained by the fact that he was a retainer of Buckingham and a member of his council. I studied him once for fun, and came away with the idea that he may have remained mixed up about his loyalties right to the end, despite apparently fighting for Henry at Bosworth.

The thing with Clarence's lands is that - partly thanks to deliberate policy on the part of Edward IV - these had been hemmed in by the estates, or areas of influence, of magnates whom Edward trusted to keep him down: Hastings to the north and east (Edward actually deprived Clarence of the beating heart of his original patrimony, the lordship of Tutbury, and gave it to Hastings), Rivers at Ludlow to the west, and finally Dorset to the south. These people would have competed with Clarence for retainers and the loyalty of the gentry within their sphere of magnetism. Perhaps this is what was going on with Tocotes and the Twynyhos: i.e. being pulled across by Dorset? So a lot of Clarence's manors are inevitably in areas where there were other, hostile, influences.

But wasn't Bodrugan loyal to Richard?

Marie

Agree.

I've also been looking at the Garter records for Richard's reign, and they are suspiciously patchy. There are other missing accounts, but not on this scale.

Edward V's stall that he had held as PoW would have automatically been freed up when he became king, and he would have moved up to the Sovereign's stall, yes? And then when he was deposed that would have gone to Richard.

But it would be nice to know for sure whether the stall held by RDoY was granted away during Richard's reign, and if so what reason was given.

Marie

There were heard the Letters which the Sovereign had then sent to his Deputy and the rest of the Knights, in which they were required to take the Ensigns of the late King out of the Choir, and hang up those of the King now reigning: Which they who were present readily took Care to have done. For the King's Herald by Order of the Nobles taking away those of the former Sovereign, carried them into the Vestry, and hung up the new Ones of our now most dread King in their Stead. By Authority of the same Letters, also the Ensigns of the Earl of Wylschyre and Lord Wells were taken down and carried out of the Choir.

In the Mass the next Day for the Dead, the Swords and Helmets with the Appurtenances of the Knights who were now dead, viz of the Dukes of York and Buckyngham, of the Earls of Salisbury and Shrewsbury, Viscount Beaumond and Lord Scales were offered, according to ancient Usage, and because there no more present, the Deputy himself with his Collegue performed the whole Office.

Moreover it was there also by Authority of the Sovereign enacted by the Knights, That the Swords and Helmets with the Appurtenances that were taken down for any Cause whatsoever, and carried out of the Choir, should be converted to the Use and Profit of the Hospital or College of St George in the same Manner, as the Ensigns of the deceased Companions, which were offered by the Survivors on the Day after the Feasts, though some of them opposed this Determination, and desired the contrary. [the author or editor's translation of the original Latin]

To come at your question another way, as far as I can tell, there are 4 possibilities.

1. The Order had certain knowledge of the deaths of Edward IV's sons. In which case they would have been included in the Requiem mass said the day after the observation of St George's feast, and their Achievements would have been offered on the altar as part of that mass. There were also specific rules about how many masses should be said for each deceased knight according to his rank. By the Statutes, this would have been recorded in the Order's annals. I cannot imagine such information not being used against Richard if it had been found by HT's agents.

2. The boys were degraded (although on what grounds is questionable). This too, along with the offering of their Achievements, should have been recorded in the accounts (now lost) of the Chapters held during Richard's reign. This would not have settled the question of whether they were alive or dead when HT came to power, but would suggest that they had been alive at the time of any such chapter.

3. The boys were persuaded to voluntarily surrender their status as Knights-Companions. The rest as for No. 2.

4. The boys were still members of the Order at the time of Richard's death, and their Achievements were still in place at St George's. Maybe one or both attended one of the Feasts of St George (unlikely I grant, but in the absence of records, no one can say otherwise). More likely they would have simply been excused from attendance by the king's letters. This scenario would have provided evidence that they were still alive.

A J

Chap. XI.

Sect. VI.

The Removal of Atchievements and Plates.

Besides these particulars before mentioned, there is a Warrant or Scheme prepared for the Soveraign to sign, wherein the order of the Stalls in the Choire at Windesore is set down, according as he appoints them to stand at the ensuing Installation; by virtue of which, Garter is impowered to removed the Plates and Atchievements of the present Knights-Companions, that so way be made for the Elect Knight, or Knights, and to fix the new Plates and Atchievements within and over the Stalls, in such order as they are ranked in the said Scheme.

In reference to this alteration, Garter (so soon as the Soveraign's pleasure is known touching an Installation) brings to the Chancellor of the Order, the Names of the present Knights-Companions, ranked in the order they then sit in, their Stalls (in which the Stalls void are to be so noted) to the end he may present them to the Soveraign; who, upon observing the series wherein they be already placed, may the better consider and determine how to alter and seat both them, and the new Elect Knights.

A J

186 Acta sub Anno duodecimo Edoardi Quarti

[translation from Latin]

In the twelfth Year of the most serene King Edward the Fourth, the twenty third of April, a Chapter was held at Wyndesor, where the Sovereign had with him his Brother Richard

The Duke of Glocester, Lord Bareners,

Earl of Essex, Lord Duras.

Earl of Douglas,

The Duke of Clarence, Earl of Arundell, Earl of Essex, Earl Douglas, Lord Hastyngs, Lord Scrhopp, Lord Sudeley, Lord Beauchamp, Lord Dudeley } were excused for probable Reasons allowed by the King and Knights, some of which Reasons carried with them even the Kings Orders.

Sir John Ascheley by his Letters which he sent by Garter, alledged a sufficient Excuse, but at the End of the Feast, because the number there, was too

187

little to serve for an election, the King sent for him to supply [that Defect] and yet the Election did not come on immediately as far as we have any Account.

i After the Narrative of holding Christmas in 1471. The Words then are,  In the foresaid yere the King our Sovereign Lord kept his fest of St Jorge at his Castell of Wyndsor and kept his Estate in the foresaid Castell, the Bushope of Winchester sat on the ryght hande and the right noble Duke of Glocester and the Earle of Essex on the left hand, There were present Therl of Dougles, the lord Barnes, the lord Dures, and on the morne after the feast come to the Chapter of the Order of the Garter into the Chapter howse come The King, The Duke of Glocester Therle of Essex the Lord Barnes Lieutenant of the Order Therle of Doglas, The Lord Doglas [Duras] and Sir John Asteley, The which Sir John Asteley was sent for to London by Calis Pursuyvant to come to furnish the Chapter in the which chapter were chosen to bretherene of the said Order

My Lord the Prynce }

The K. of P. }

The Duke of Norfolk }

Therle of Wylshere }

The L. Feres }

The Lord Montjoye & }

The Lord Haywarde } VII elected at the Chapter.

and this day thay had a masse of requiem, and at the tyme of offertory the King offered and the Knyghts of the Gartier there being present, when he had offered there one offeringe, The Duke of Gloster and the lord Barnes offered the Sword, bering the Pomel forwarde of the goode of the right feyfull and noble Lord Therle of Wystcester, Therle of Essex and therl Douglas his helme, The Lord Duras and Sir John Asteley the sword of therle of Pembroke, the Duke of Gloscester and the lord Bernes his helme. Therle of Essex and therle of Duglas the sword of therle of Ryvers, The Lord Duras and Sir John Asteley his helme. Also the Duke of Glocester and the Lord Barnes offered the sword of Sir Rob. Harcorte, Therl of Essex therle of Duglees his helm.

This Narrative was wrote by k Bleumantle-Pursuivant, whose Duty it was to attend this Feast; but Mr Ashmole discredits it as an inadvertent Relation which casts in false Lights, because (as he saith) this Feast is placed there in the 11th, which ought to have been in the 12th of Ed. IV. as it would appear by collating some of the Facts here named with those entred in the Black-Book; and he disbelieves the Time of some of these Elections, because as he saith, the Prince of Wales was not elected till the 15th, and the King of Portugal was not elected till the 22d of Edward IV.

A J

How did William Stanley come into possession of Edward V's regalia?