1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there

What seemed like an age ago I promised to trace each 1483 rebel because I'm so tired of historian after historian claiming that these rebellions were all to do with dislike of Richard's so-called usurpation and the popular will to put Edward's sons back on the throne. Or with north/south divides (Horrox).I've now looked at some 80% of the 200-odd rebels named in the Parliament of 1484 and, by looked at, I mean traced who they really were, not whether they were an 'esquire' or a 'leading rebel' or whether, because they'd served, Edward they must have loved him and by default his children. When I've finished the lot I'll upload my data spreadsheets, which group them, and also follow them through to exile (perhaps) and to Bosworth. At first it was a bit like cracking enigma; but with each one it becomes more clear.So here are the results so far:Our rebels fall into three groups:a. Woodville supporters - no surprise thereb. old Lancaster from 'De Vere' land around Oxfordshire and Northantsc. the grudge brigade in the South West - important families punished and subject to attainder by the House of York (yes they really loved Edward!). In these I'll include MB, HT, Buckingham. You might call them old Lancaster too. The South West is traditional Lancaster territory - MOA chose to land there. Even more than the North East it's a very closed community - intermarriage outside the area is rare. Both the Woodvilles (through Joan Bittlesgate) and MB have strong influence there. Upset my friend, he's also my cousin etc. etc. That's part of the clue to cracking the code, and repercussions from Tewkesbury also feature.So no real surprises. It doesn't take a master strategist to envisage a Woodville amnesty - support our new young king and you can have your lands and Offices back. Richard was part of the regime that took them, you'll never be restored to favour with him. Look at his motto!But what about the non-barking dogs?a. no unique Buckingham supporters (in fact hard to find anyone north of about Northants)b. no idealists shouting we must restore dear Edward's sons (Sorry!!)c. no real sign of MB mobilising her internal networks which, as we know, are huge. Yes she used Reggie Bray and her messengers but perhaps at this stage she was keeping her powder dry?d. no intervention by the clergy. Every book that claims that Richard seized the Crown doesn't explain how he got the pre-contract story by the clergy when his great-nephew couldn't get his divorce through! Surely someone would have gone running to the Pope?e. No Bretons - sorry David, I did lookf. No hoards rushing to join HT - I make it about a dozen so far, and the usual brigade g. Hardline Lancaster in the SW who just didn't participate - why not, too risky? As for 'ruthless Richard', well he was mighty lenient with this lot. Very few executions and a lot of the attainders later reversed. Horrox criticises him for imposing Halnath Mauleverer as Sheriff of Cornwall.He was married to a Carminowe and had moved there for years! Yet he still made it back to Bosworth.Finally there is one intriguing little clutch of ex-Clarence supporters. Still working on that.I'd also like to express my thanks to a couple of things. One is the marvellous website www.historyofparliamentonline.org which really does explain people's friendships and views as well as their offices and relationships, and secondly the hundreds of people on the web researching their own family history. The level of debate is now very impressive. It must have been nigh on impossible to do this so fast without such resources even though of course you do have to test them.Back to work:) H

Sounds intriguing looking forward to you posting it.Mary

That is very interesting, and a lot of scholarly digging and work.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 9:43 AM
To:
Subject: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there



What seemed like an age ago I promised to trace each 1483 rebel because I'm so tired of historian after historian claiming that these rebellions were all to do with dislike of Richard's
so-called usurpation and the popular will to put Edward's sons back on the throne. Or with north/south divides (Horrox).
I've now looked at some 80% of the 200-odd rebels named in the Parliament of 1484 and, by looked at, I mean traced who they
really were, not whether they were an 'esquire' or a 'leading rebel' or whether, because they'd served, Edward they must have loved him and by default his children. When I've finished the lot I'll upload my data
spreadsheets, which group them, and also follow them through to exile (perhaps) and to Bosworth. At first it was a bit like cracking enigma ; but with each one it becomes more clear.
So here are the results so far:

Our rebels fall into three groups:

a. Woodville supporters - no surprise there
b. old
Lancaster from 'De Vere' land around Oxfordshire and Northants
c. the grudge brigade in the South West - important families punished and subject to attainder by the House of York (yes they really loved Edward!). In these I'll include MB, HT, Buckingham.
You might call them old Lancaster too. The South West is traditional
Lancaster territory - MOA chose to land there. Even more than the North East it's a very closed community - intermarriage outside the area is rare. Both the Woodvilles (through Joan Bittlesgate)
and MB have strong influence there. Upset my friend, he's also my cousin etc. etc. That's part of the clue to cracking the code, and repercussions from
Tewkesbury also feature.

So no real surprises. It doesn't take a master strategist to envisage a Woodville amnesty - support our new young king and you can have your lands and Offices back. Richard was part of
the regime that took them, you'll never be restored to favour with him. Look at his motto!

But what about the non-barking dogs?

a. no unique Buckingham supporters (in fact hard to find anyone north of about Northants)
b. no idealists shouting we must restore dear Edward's sons (Sorry!!)
c. no real sign of MB mobilising her internal networks which, as we know, are huge. Yes she used Reggie Bray and her messengers but perhaps at this stage she was keeping her powder dry?
d. no intervention by the clergy. Every book that claims that Richard seized the Crown doesn't explain how he got the pre-contract story by the clergy when his great-nephew couldn't get
his divorce through! Surely someone would have gone running to the Pope?
e. No Bretons - sorry David, I did look
f. No hoards rushing to join HT - I make it about a dozen so far, and the usual brigade
g. Hardline Lancaster in the SW who just didn't participate - why not, too risky?

As for 'ruthless Richard', well he was mighty lenient with this lot. Very few executions and a lot of the attainders later reversed. Horrox criticises him for imposing Halnath Mauleverer
as Sheriff of Cornwall.
He was married to a Carminowe and had moved there for years! Yet he still made it back to Bosworth.
Finally there is one intriguing little clutch of ex-Clarence supporters. Still working on that.

I'd also like to express my thanks to a couple of things. One is the marvellous website www.historyofparliamentonline.org which really does explain people's friendships and views as well
as their offices and relationships, and secondly the hundreds of people on the web researching their own family history. The level of debate is now very impressive. It must have been nigh on impossible to do this so fast without such resources even though
of course you do have to test them.

Back to work:) H

This is fascinating. Have you thought of publishing it?Sent from my iPad On Jun 10, 2016, at 9:42 AM, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
What seemed like an age ago I promised to trace each 1483 rebel because I'm so tired of historian after historian claiming that these rebellions were all to do with dislike of Richard's so-called usurpation and the popular will to put Edward's sons back on the throne. Or with north/south divides (Horrox).I've now looked at some 80% of the 200-odd rebels named in the Parliament of 1484 and, by looked at, I mean traced who they really were, not whether they were an 'esquire' or a 'leading rebel' or whether, because they'd served, Edward they must have loved him and by default his children. When I've finished the lot I'll upload my data spreadsheets, which group them, and also follow them through to exile (perhaps) and to Bosworth. At first it was a bit like cracking enigma; but with each one it becomes more clear.So here are the results so far:Our rebels fall into three groups:a. Woodville supporters - no surprise thereb. old Lancaster from 'De Vere' land around Oxfordshire and Northantsc. the grudge brigade in the South West - important families punished and subject to attainder by the House of York (yes they really loved Edward!). In these I'll include MB, HT, Buckingham. You might call them old Lancaster too. The South West is traditional Lancaster territory - MOA chose to land there. Even more than the North East it's a very closed community - intermarriage outside the area is rare. Both the Woodvilles (through Joan Bittlesgate) and MB have strong influence there. Upset my friend, he's also my cousin etc. etc. That's part of the clue to cracking the code, and repercussions from Tewkesbury also feature.So no real surprises. It doesn't take a master strategist to envisage a Woodville amnesty - support our new young king and you can have your lands and Offices back. Richard was part of the regime that took them, you'll never be restored to favour with him. Look at his motto!But what about the non-barking dogs?a. no unique Buckingham supporters (in fact hard to find anyone north of about Northants)b. no idealists shouting we must restore dear Edward's sons (Sorry!!)c. no real sign of MB mobilising her internal networks which, as we know, are huge. Yes she used Reggie Bray and her messengers but perhaps at this stage she was keeping her powder dry?d. no intervention by the clergy. Every book that claims that Richard seized the Crown doesn't explain how he got the pre-contract story by the clergy when his great-nephew couldn't get his divorce through! Surely someone would have gone running to the Pope?e. No Bretons - sorry David, I did lookf. No hoards rushing to join HT - I make it about a dozen so far, and the usual brigade g. Hardline Lancaster in the SW who just didn't participate - why not, too risky? As for 'ruthless Richard', well he was mighty lenient with this lot. Very few executions and a lot of the attainders later reversed. Horrox criticises him for imposing Halnath Mauleverer as Sheriff of Cornwall.He was married to a Carminowe and had moved there for years! Yet he still made it back to Bosworth.Finally there is one intriguing little clutch of ex-Clarence supporters. Still working on that.I'd also like to express my thanks to a couple of things. One is the marvellous website www.historyofparliamentonline.org which really does explain people's friendships and views as well as their offices and relationships, and secondly the hundreds of people on the web researching their own family history. The level of debate is now very impressive. It must have been nigh on impossible to do this so fast without such resources even though of course you do have to test them.Back to work:) H

Wonderful work. Looking forward to the full final version.A bit of a non-sequitur, but maybe not, are you planning to attend the Society's AGM this year? I am hoping to make it there.A J

I've never done it but I would be interested. When is it?Many thanks for your kind words H From: "ajhibbard@... []" <> To: Sent: Sunday, 12 June 2016, 20:29 Subject: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
Wonderful work. Looking forward to the full final version.A bit of a non-sequitur, but maybe not, are you planning to attend the Society's AGM this year? I am hoping to make it there.A J

October 1st in York.A J

Hilary wrote:"I'd also like to express my thanks to a couple of things. One is the marvellous website www.historyofparliamentonline.org which really does explain people's friendships and views as well as their offices and relationships"Carol responds:First, thanks for your interesting summary of your findings. You really should submit an article to the Ricardian--the myth that all of England was up in arms against the murdering usurper needs to be toppled.But regarding historyofparliamentonline: Where is the 1422-1508 volume? The very one we need is the one that's missing!Carol

Thanks Carol. Yes that volume is frustratingly under preparation. But - you can look forward and you can look back and it tells you a lot. For example, I was looking at the biography of Thomas Fogge, John Fogges's grandfather. He seems to have been quite a lad. You could probably call him a henchman for John of Gaunt (Gaunt and Bedford feature in there a lot) and he did a fair bit of soldiering for John of Brittany - the Bretons at last!Also quite a few of our naughty boys or their sons went on to be MPs under Henry VII/VIII and they are there. It's most valuable to me about friendships; it gives you a good feel for where people were coming from and whether they were in debt. One or two of our rebels seem to have been in debt according to some sources. H From: "justcarol67@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 14 June 2016, 0:04 Subject: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
Hilary wrote:"I'd also like to express my thanks to a couple of things. One is the marvellous website www.historyofparliamentonline.org which really does explain people's friendships and views as well as their offices and relationships"Carol responds:First, thanks for your interesting summary of your findings. You really should submit an article to the Ricardian--the myth that all of England was up in arms against the murdering usurper needs to be toppled.But regarding historyofparliamentonline: Where is the 1422-1508 volume? The very one we need is the one that's missing!Carol

Oh great York! My daughter lives there, how convenient - I'll book my room with her. H From: "ajhibbard@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 13 June 2016, 14:18 Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
October 1st in York.A J

Can anyone out there help me on a couple of things?1. In the early 1470s, after Barnet and Tewkesbury, De Vere and/or his troops seem to have got holed up at St Michael's Mount in Cornwall. Edward sent the High Sheriff, a reluctant Sir William Godolphin, to sort them out and he was either killed or died of his wounds. Richard then did a year's stint as High Sheriff of Cornwall. Has anyone any more knowledge of this? For a start how did De Vere get there, by land or sea? How close was he (De Vere) to the Cornish gentry?2. As you know there are a little group of Clarence former officials who also rebelled. Were they promised the lifting of Warwick's attainder? I was reading an article in the Ricardian Register which claimed that Clarence was still in touch with Louis XI in 1476. Anyone know anything about this? H

Hi Hilary,The hapless Sheriff sent to winkle Oxford out of St Michael's Mount was Sir John Arundell of Lanherne. He was replaced by John Fortescue, esquire. I see the claim that Edward then made Richard High Sheriff of Cornwall comes from Polwhele's 'The Civil and Military History of Cornwall', vol 1. It sounds extremely fishy to me since this was an office normally reserved for the gentry class and Richard didn't have any real links with the county. Oxford got to St. Michael's Mount by sea, and took the place by some subterfuge of which we don't have the details. I personally think he may have got blown off course. It was Bodrugan who got him out in the end. Oxford doesn't seem to have benefited from any local support, and unfortunately for him found that Edward hadn't kept the Mount properly victualled.So far as I'm aware we have no proof that Clarence was still in touch with Louis, but after Oxford took the Mount and found himself short of supplies he sent his brother Sir Richard de Vere to Louis to beg for supplies, and he showed Louis the seals of various important folks who had sworn support, and those included a duke. By the by, Warwick was never attainted but his estates were confiscated anyway which, given his acknowledged treason seems to have been legal. He and Montagu were, however, outlawed during the course of 1472-3 by the subterfuge of having them summoned to appear before county sheriffs, and then outlawed when they failed to show up.Marie

Thanks Marie. I thought it odd indeed. The only tenuous connection I can find between Richard and Cornwall is through Halnath Mauleverer who was married to a Carminow and a friend of Bodrugan. Our friend wiki which is actually quite good on High Sheriffs has him in office in 1475 between the two terms of office of Fortescue who succeeded Arundel from 1471. There is a lot of 'legend' around Cornwall. I think the Godolphins creep in because they were Keepers of the Mount. I can find no mention in Ross apart from the de Vere debacle, but he does mention in passing a possible connection between Clarence, de Vere and Louis XI, but we know Louis loved to stir up trouble (though by autumn 1483 he had 'departed'). Other than that I've located most Cornish folk and understand where they're coming from. No big shocks yet. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2016, 16:30 Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
Hi Hilary,The hapless Sheriff sent to winkle Oxford out of St Michael's Mount was Sir John Arundell of Lanherne. He was replaced by John Fortescue, esquire. I see the claim that Edward then made Richard High Sheriff of Cornwall comes from Polwhele's 'The Civil and Military History of Cornwall', vol 1. It sounds extremely fishy to me since this was an office normally reserved for the gentry class and Richard didn't have any real links with the county. Oxford got to St. Michael's Mount by sea, and took the place by some subterfuge of which we don't have the details. I personally think he may have got blown off course. It was Bodrugan who got him out in the end. Oxford doesn't seem to have benefited from any local support, and unfortunately for him found that Edward hadn't kept the Mount properly victualled.So far as I'm aware we have no proof that Clarence was still in touch with Louis, but after Oxford took the Mount and found himself short of supplies he sent his brother Sir Richard de Vere to Louis to beg for supplies, and he showed Louis the seals of various important folks who had sworn support, and those included a duke. By the by, Warwick was never attainted but his estates were confiscated anyway which, given his acknowledged treason seems to have been legal. He and Montagu were, however, outlawed during the course of 1472-3 by the subterfuge of having them summoned to appear before county sheriffs, and then outlawed when they failed to show up.Marie

Richard III captures the political moment - BBC NewsSo here we go again - this is a bit of Ralph Fiennes and what I was going to write about under this banner. Firstly, please Society why don't you patrol this? Thanks Pamela for your kind comments.So to my bit which should have been headed 'how the Woodvilles captured the political moment'. I'm now near the end of researching the 1483 rebels and the one thing which I hadn't predicted was just how far Woodville influence had spread. It raises a number of questions.Who was able to mobilise both the beliefs and the logistics of these rebels given that Rivers was dead and EW in sanctuary? MB and her messengers? Not Buckingham methinks. Not only did it mean appealing to those with deep-seated grievances but it also meant making sure they were distributed in several places (our friends the Kentish Cheneys were deployed in Berkshire, St Leger in the South West). The political 'moment' makes people jittery (as we well know). How could they be relied upon to act in unison, or to act at all? It is actually a huge strategic operation and we are to believe it was all drummed up in the space of a couple of months?It has the hallmarks of something which has been in the planning for years not months. Did the Woodvilles know that Edward was dying? Was it a well thought out contingency measure? Did they definitely know he was going to die, as per Carson and Collins's suggestions? I've been sceptical about that conspiracy theory but then I hadn't come up with so much Woodville evidence before. Certainly if you think it through, by 1482 EW was quite vulnerable. She was pushing 50, she only had two sons one of whom was rumoured to be ailing. She'd just lost a teenage daughter which indicated that the family were not robust. If she also knew of the pre-contract she'd know that Edward could put her aside quite easily and have other sons to secure the dynasty.From what I've found I think we cannot also afford to discard Richard of Eastwell (forget the wandering carpenter). He is much too close to all this for comfort. H From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2016, 17:04 Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
Thanks Marie. I thought it odd indeed. The only tenuous connection I can find between Richard and Cornwall is through Halnath Mauleverer who was married to a Carminow and a friend of Bodrugan. Our friend wiki which is actually quite good on High Sheriffs has him in office in 1475 between the two terms of office of Fortescue who succeeded Arundel from 1471. There is a lot of 'legend' around Cornwall. I think the Godolphins creep in because they were Keepers of the Mount. I can find no mention in Ross apart from the de Vere debacle, but he does mention in passing a possible connection between Clarence, de Vere and Louis XI, but we know Louis loved to stir up trouble (though by autumn 1483 he had 'departed'). Other than that I've located most Cornish folk and understand where they're coming from. No big shocks yet. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2016, 16:30 Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
Hi Hilary,The hapless Sheriff sent to winkle Oxford out of St Michael's Mount was Sir John Arundell of Lanherne. He was replaced by John Fortescue, esquire. I see the claim that Edward then made Richard High Sheriff of Cornwall comes from Polwhele's 'The Civil and Military History of Cornwall', vol 1. It sounds extremely fishy to me since this was an office normally reserved for the gentry class and Richard didn't have any real links with the county. Oxford got to St. Michael's Mount by sea, and took the place by some subterfuge of which we don't have the details. I personally think he may have got blown off course. It was Bodrugan who got him out in the end. Oxford doesn't seem to have benefited from any local support, and unfortunately for him found that Edward hadn't kept the Mount properly victualled.So far as I'm aware we have no proof that Clarence was still in touch with Louis, but after Oxford took the Mount and found himself short of supplies he sent his brother Sir Richard de Vere to Louis to beg for supplies, and he showed Louis the seals of various important folks who had sworn support, and those included a duke. By the by, Warwick was never attainted but his estates were confiscated anyway which, given his acknowledged treason seems to have been legal. He and Montagu were, however, outlawed during the course of 1472-3 by the subterfuge of having them summoned to appear before county sheriffs, and then outlawed when they failed to show up.Marie

Perfectly feasible suggestions about EW. What if E IV had hinted that he could put her aside? My " theory" regarding MB being the plotter has been that she would have to get rid of a few people before she could realize her ambitions for HT, however, the same thing would apply to EW wouldn't it? Mary

I (and it is just me) think that at this point MB was just interested in getting HT home. I've only found 2 Stanley connections so far - Christopher Urswick, who just happens to come from Staffs and Hugh Conwy's mother-in-law, which is hardly a strong connection.If EW had succeeded in disposing of Edward, then to her Rivers would have been a natural guardian of her son and his control would have been accepted in the short-term. We've said on here that she was not the brightest. She reckoned without Hastings (did he know about the pre-contract he was Edward's buddy?) and probably thought that Richard was too dutiful and in love with the North to be bothered.Whatever the reason, the rebellions were a well-planned exercise which centred on some key towns on the wool route. To mobilise and distribute all these folk in unison took some doing. None of these had been mobilised since at least 1475 - was their armour ready, did it still fit? It was hardly the sort of rebellion where they stormed the barricades. I reckon some had been waiting for this moment for years. Is it the hand of De Vere? H From: "maryfriend@... []" <> To: Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2016, 18:41 Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
Perfectly feasible suggestions about EW. What if E IV had hinted that he could put her aside? My " theory" regarding MB being the plotter has been that she would have to get rid of a few people before she could realize her ambitions for HT, however, the same thing would apply to EW wouldn't it? Mary

Hilary
wrote:
I (and it is just me)
think that at this point MB was just interested in getting HT home. I've only
found 2 Stanley connections so far - Christopher Urswick, who just happens to
come from Staffs and Hugh Conwy's mother-in-law, which is hardly a strong
connection.
Doug here:
It's not just you in regards to that
first sentence!
Hilary continued:
If EW had succeeded in
disposing of Edward, then to her Rivers would have been a natural guardian of
her son and his control would have been accepted in the short-term. We've said
on here that she was not the brightest. She reckoned without Hastings (did he
know about the pre-contract he was Edward's buddy?) and probably thought that
Richard was too dutiful and in love with the North to be bothered.
Doug here:
Edward IV was, for the Woodvilles, the
goose that laid the golden eggs. Disposing of Edward IV would place all their
gains in jeopardy, unless they could Edward V crowned and in
place as head of the government well before Richard arrived in London. Not only
did the Woodvilles not accomplish that aim, they didn't even try. Their actions
were, in my opinion anyway, those of people who think they've got the king
and that was all that mattered. They made no attempt to hasten
Edward's journey from Wales to London.
The Woodvilles, and again it's only my
impression, acted as if Edward V was either going to be able to rule in the same
manner as his father had or if not, then they (the Woodvilles) would be in a
position to either control the Council.or prevent anyone else from doing so and
as long as the latter two conditions were met, they were satisfied. After all,
Edward would be free of any control in only a few years anyway.
Hilary concluded:
Whatever the
reason, the rebellions were a well-planned exercise which centred on some key
towns on the wool route. To mobilise and distribute all these folk in unison
took some doing. None of these had been mobilised since at least 1475 - was
their armour ready, did it still fit? It was hardly the sort of rebellion where
they stormed the barricades. I reckon some had been waiting for this moment for
years. Is it the hand of De Vere? H

Doug here:
Well, FWIW, the wool route would provide excellent cover for
messengers. Even thought there was a certain seasonal quality associated with
the wool trade, there'd still be valid reasons for people to be traveling along
that route through out the year; paying off the previous year's purchases,
making arrangements for the next crop, etc.
What really struck me, though, were the next two sentences
which lead me back to your post on 5 July where you wrote:
...and the one thing which I hadn't predicted was just how
far Woodville influence had spread. and further on, Was it a well though out
contingency measure?
Surprisingly, the first name that came to my
mind wasn't De Vere, but Edward IV! And the more
I thought about it, the more it seemed to make sense.
In 1475, Edward had just finished adjudicating between his
brothers over their wives' inheritance; in particular, ensuring that George
didn't get control of all those lands formerly controlled by his late
father-in-law, the the Earl of Warwick. However, even with the lands divided
between George's and Richard's respective wives, George still controlled a
dangerously large amount of lands; dangerously large in Edward's likely view.
After all, between George's actions during the Re-Adeption and afterwards,
Edward certainly had little reason to trust George and allow him unopposed sway
over large sections of the country.
Anyway, what if that spread of Woodville influence had been
with the approval of Edward IV as a bulwark against George? Who better than the
Queen's relatives, more importantly relatives of the heir to the throne, to act
as a counter-weight to George? Could that explain the commencement date? And it
would also explain why the rebels were ready to go so quickly; they were there
precisely to protect the King's interests at a moment's notice. Originally those
interests would have been Edward IV's in regards to his brother George, but
when Edward died, while the royal interests remained, those Interests were
now those of Edward V and directed against Richard, not his older brother
George.
All Buckingham had to do in 1483 was activate those
already-placed people in support of Edward V against his usurping uncle. Which
is likely exactly how Buckingham presented it.
At any rate, I hope this makes sense and helps you in any
further delvings...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

That's a brilliant analysis Doug! I would say it certainly applies to the South West (though not so much Cornwall). George was hemmed in at Farleigh by so-called Edward supporters - Stillington's 'friends' the Gorges, Newtons , Chokkes and Twynyhos who all later showed their hands as closet Lancastrians - two of them were related to the Woodvilles in their Lancastrian days. He was also hemmed in by die-hard Lancastrians like the Courtenays and Hungerfords, which no doubt amused Edward! Before the Clarence troubles Edward had given EW Trowbridge, which is right next to Salisbury and we do indeed get at least one rebel from there. He was actually playing a dangerous game though because of course the previously-Lancastrian Woodvilles had big networks in De Vere country - near Berkshire. Kent was 'rent-a-mob' country, a lot of our rebels' families had rebelled before. The Woodvilles weren't really York or Lancaster - they just wanted power and to exploit other peoples' loyalties to hold on to it and a king they could control.What they also seem to be good at doing is digging up resentment against Richard and then using these networks. That wasn't hard. Several of our rebels have relatives who died or were executed after Tewkesbury. Richard, you'll recall, had been left by Edward to pass sentence on them. In another area, someone's forfeited estates had been given to Richard. He'd also allegedly had a brush with one of the Salisbury rebels. I found quite a few instances where they could have 'dug dirt' on Richard, who had actually been acting on Edward's orders.In the end it's ironic because others were to exploit them. I do wonder what Cis made of it all. HPS It's another topic but the fact that they were doing this in the autumn would seem to point to the fact that Edward V was still alive - which kind of kills the Buckingham theory? From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016, 18:11 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - Nearly there
Hilary
wrote:
I (and it is just me)
think that at this point MB was just interested in getting HT home. I've only
found 2 Stanley connections so far - Christopher Urswick, who just happens to
come from Staffs and Hugh Conwy's mother-in-law, which is hardly a strong
connection.
Doug here:
It's not just you in regards to that
first sentence!
Hilary continued:
If EW had succeeded in
disposing of Edward, then to her Rivers would have been a natural guardian of
her son and his control would have been accepted in the short-term. We've said
on here that she was not the brightest. She reckoned without Hastings (did he
know about the pre-contract he was Edward's buddy?) and probably thought that
Richard was too dutiful and in love with the North to be bothered.
Doug here:
Edward IV was, for the Woodvilles, the
goose that laid the golden eggs. Disposing of Edward IV would place all their
gains in jeopardy, unless they could Edward V crowned and in
place as head of the government well before Richard arrived in London. Not only
did the Woodvilles not accomplish that aim, they didn't even try. Their actions
were, in my opinion anyway, those of people who think they've got the king
and that was all that mattered. They made no attempt to hasten
Edward's journey from Wales to London.
The Woodvilles, and again it's only my
impression, acted as if Edward V was either going to be able to rule in the same
manner as his father had or if not, then they (the Woodvilles) would be in a
position to either control the Council.or prevent anyone else from doing so and
as long as the latter two conditions were met, they were satisfied. After all,
Edward would be free of any control in only a few years anyway.
Hilary concluded:
Whatever the
reason, the rebellions were a well-planned exercise which centred on some key
towns on the wool route. To mobilise and distribute all these folk in unison
took some doing. None of these had been mobilised since at least 1475 - was
their armour ready, did it still fit? It was hardly the sort of rebellion where
they stormed the barricades. I reckon some had been waiting for this moment for
years. Is it the hand of De Vere? H

Doug here:
Well, FWIW, the wool route would provide excellent cover for
messengers. Even thought there was a certain seasonal quality associated with
the wool trade, there'd still be valid reasons for people to be traveling along
that route through out the year; paying off the previous year's purchases,
making arrangements for the next crop, etc.
What really struck me, though, were the next two sentences
which lead me back to your post on 5 July where you wrote:
...and the one thing which I hadn't predicted was just how
far Woodville influence had spread. and further on, Was it a well though out
contingency measure?
Surprisingly, the first name that came to my
mind wasn't De Vere, but Edward IV! And the more
I thought about it, the more it seemed to make sense.
In 1475, Edward had just finished adjudicating between his
brothers over their wives' inheritance; in particular, ensuring that George
didn't get control of all those lands formerly controlled by his late
father-in-law, the the Earl of Warwick. However, even with the lands divided
between George's and Richard's respective wives, George still controlled a
dangerously large amount of lands; dangerously large in Edward's likely view.
After all, between George's actions during the Re-Adeption and afterwards,
Edward certainly had little reason to trust George and allow him unopposed sway
over large sections of the country.
Anyway, what if that spread of Woodville influence had been
with the approval of Edward IV as a bulwark against George? Who better than the
Queen's relatives, more importantly relatives of the heir to the throne, to act
as a counter-weight to George? Could that explain the commencement date? And it
would also explain why the rebels were ready to go so quickly; they were there
precisely to protect the King's interests at a moment's notice. Originally those
interests would have been Edward IV's in regards to his brother George, but
when Edward died, while the royal interests remained, those Interests were
now those of Edward V and directed against Richard, not his older brother
George.
All Buckingham had to do in 1483 was activate those
already-placed people in support of Edward V against his usurping uncle. Which
is likely exactly how Buckingham presented it.
At any rate, I hope this makes sense and helps you in any
further delvings...
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:
That's a brilliant
analysis Doug! I would say it certainly applies to the South West (though not so
much Cornwall). George was hemmed in at Farleigh by so-called Edward supporters
- Stillington's 'friends' the Gorges, Newtons ,Chokkes and Twynyhos who all
later showed their hands as closet Lancastrians - two of them were related to
the Woodvilles in their Lancastrian days. He was also hemmed in by die-hard
Lancastrians like the Courtenays and Hungerfords, which no doubt amused
Edward! Before the Clarence troubles Edward had given EW Trowbridge, which
is right next to Salisbury and we do indeed get at least one rebel from there.
He was actually playing a dangerous game though because of course the
previously-Lancastrian Woodvilles had big networks in De Vere country - near
Berkshire. Kent was 'rent-a-mob' country, a lot of our rebels' families had
rebelled before. The Woodvilles weren't really York or Lancaster - they just
wanted power and to exploit other peoples' loyalties to hold on to it and a king
they could control.
Doug here:
Thank you for the compliment (and
apologies for taking so long to reply)!
It does rather look as if Edward was
expecting those Woodville networks, affinities, what-have-you, to work to his
(Edward's) advantage, if only because of the Prince of Wales relationship to the
Woodvilles, doesn't it? As you say, quite possibly a very weak
reed.
Hilary continued:
What they also seem to be good at doing is digging up resentment
against Richard and then using these networks. That wasn't hard. Several of our
rebels have relatives who died or were executed after Tewkesbury. Richard,
you'll recall, had been left by Edward to pass sentence on them. In another
area, someone's forfeited estates had been given to Richard. He'd also allegedly
had a brush with one of the Salisbury rebels. I found quite a few instances
where they could have 'dug dirt' on Richard, who had actually been acting on
Edward's orders.
Doug here:
It's an old management trick, having
subordinates do the dirty work (or as much as possible), thus allowing the
manager, in this case Edward, to be separated from the responsibility for those
actions. Edward <i>does</i> seem to have good at it.
Hilary concluded:
In the end it's ironic
because others were to exploit them. I do wonder what Cis made of it all.
H
PS It's another topic but
the fact that they were doing this in the autumn would seem to point to the fact
that Edward V was still alive - which kind of kills the Buckingham
theory?
Doug here:
If one believes, as I tend to, that
<b>knowledge</b> of the pre-contract with Dame Eleanor was either
not known by many (even if it was possibly suspected that Edward might very have
done some such thing), I rather think the the Dowager Duchess was, more or less,
satisfied wish how things were going. There <b>was</b> the
problem of What To Do About George, but that had become the norm really. The
succession was taken care of by Edward's two sons and Richard was proving
himself to be a loyal subject and very competent at seemingly every task Edward
gave him.
As regards to your PS,: I
quite agree that it makes no sense to mount a rebellion to return Edward V to
throne if Edward was already dead. Nor do I think that both Buckingham and
Morton weren't well-informed about what happened in London. The slightest hint
of the boys' deaths would have been instantly sent off to Wales! Personally, I'm
still leaning toward Buckingham leading a rebellion to return Edward V to the
throne  only to for him discover that the poor boys, on orders from Richard of
course, were dead! The shock! The horror! Which
would leave Buckingham, whose attempt to save the boys had failed through no
fault of <b>his</b>, as a, if not <u>the</u> contender
for the now-vacant spot of King.
Doug
A PS from me: Also off-topic,
but what do you, or anyone else, think of the idea that Bosworth occurred when
in did because of Richard's negotiations for a marriage for himself and his
niece? After all, the French hadn't provided support to Buckingham's Rebellion
in 1483, yet did for Tudor's in 1485. What was different? Perhaps, besides the
thought of Richard possibly renewing the English claim to the French throne,
there was the idea that, if Richard could get the illegitimate daughter of
Edward IV married into the nobility of Portugal, where would he go to get
husbands for the remaining ones? And what about marriages for his
nephews?Sacre` bleu!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

My turn to apologise this time Doug - I was on hols (reading the Horsepool book for a bit of light reading)!Buckingham still defeats me. Why's he involved, he hasn't rallied any supporters despite potentially huge networks and yet it's called his rebellion? Did EW and MB work on him with promise of some sort of role - after all there was a gap left by Rivers? He was doing pretty well under Richard, but Richard never really delegated power in the way he perhaps wanted. Perhaps he'd thought that Richard would be easy to manipulate - the quiet one who turned out to have views of his own? In terms of support he brought nothing to the plot. He did however have access to the Tower. What if EW used him to get her boys out? I really don't think we should discount her.With regard to your question about the French, the world changed considerably after these rebellions. I've yet to follow that bit up. What I have been doing is matching those attainted under Edward going right back to 1461 against our rebels and of course they do match - that is where they have survived. It's only in doing this that you realise the dreadful toll to old Lancaster that was Tewkesbury; not just for the loss of their heir but for many of the senior heads of traditional support.What is becoming apparent is that the legend of 2500 or even 500 joining HT in Brittany is indeed just that - a legend. It was a handful unless they took their retainers with them and who was going to pay for their upkeep let alone swamp Brittany? As always, researching something on Richard opens up as many questions as it answers. H