Cicely

Has anybody any idea why Cicely Neville was buried with a papal pardon around her neck..what could it mean? Eileen

I wonder if it was an indulgence - you know, so she could turn up to Purgatory with just so there would be no misunderstanding about the fact that she'd paid for an early release

It's actually a Papal Indulgence, which gives remission for our sins committed on earth. It either lessens our suffering on earth or our time in purgatory, it's not unusual to any Catholic, particularly one as devout as her. We can still earn these indulgences today.

On a wet afternoon I would stress that this is pure speculation!! There were two powerful women who stood to gain absolutely nothing from a Woodville monarchy - Anne Beauchamp and Cis. The original Yorkist monarchy (it didn't matter whether Edward was legitimate or not he'd taken the throne by conquest) was undoubtedly Neville. But the Neville/Beauchamps had been side-lined, even more so with Clarence's attainder. If the Woodville boys could be side-lined in some way then both women would potentially have a more malleable and dutiful king in Richard and a chance down the line to reverse the Clarence attainder. If Edward was indeed illegitimate then this could also ease Cis's conscience given her role as matriarch to the House of York and Queen by Right.It wouldn't be that difficult to engineer the Eleanor story and Richard, as someone who thought everyone adhered to his values, wouldn't be that difficult to convince if the 'right' people swore it was true. The fly in the ointment would be Hastings of course, with his great friendship and loyalty to Edward and an unpredicted one would be Buckingham who would throw everything up in the air and provide opportunities for 'Lancaster' where none had been predicted.I begin to have a real problem with the Eleanor story. What did she actually gain - the Wiltshire manners already belonged to her family? What did Stillington actually gain - he'd been Beckynton's deputy for years since Oxford and didn't get a pay rise? Why did Eleanor's family, stauch old Lancaster, say nothing, not even her feisty sister? There actually isn't a shred of evidence except what Parliament was led to believe by 'someone'? That doesn't mean for a minute I think it was engineered by Richard - quite the opposite - but someone wanted the boys gone and for once I don't think it was MB.As I said, just a scenario. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2016, 15:09 Subject: Re: Cicely
I wonder if it was an indulgence - you know, so she could turn up to Purgatory with just so there would be no misunderstanding about the fact that she'd paid for an early release

Morton? On 3 Sep 2016, at 15:33, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
On a wet afternoon I would stress that this is pure speculation!! There were two powerful women who stood to gain absolutely nothing from a Woodville monarchy - Anne Beauchamp and Cis. The original Yorkist monarchy (it didn't matter whether Edward was legitimate or not he'd taken the throne by conquest) was undoubtedly Neville. But the Neville/Beauchamps had been side-lined, even more so with Clarence's attainder. If the Woodville boys could be side-lined in some way then both women would potentially have a more malleable and dutiful king in Richard and a chance down the line to reverse the Clarence attainder. If Edward was indeed illegitimate then this could also ease Cis's conscience given her role as matriarch to the House of York and Queen by Right.It wouldn't be that difficult to engineer the Eleanor story and Richard, as someone who thought everyone adhered to his values, wouldn't be that difficult to convince if the 'right' people swore it was true. The fly in the ointment would be Hastings of course, with his great friendship and loyalty to Edward and an unpredicted one would be Buckingham who would throw everything up in the air and provide opportunities for 'Lancaster' where none had been predicted.I begin to have a real problem with the Eleanor story. What did she actually gain - the Wiltshire manners already belonged to her family? What did Stillington actually gain - he'd been Beckynton's deputy for years since Oxford and didn't get a pay rise? Why did Eleanor's family, stauch old Lancaster, say nothing, not even her feisty sister? There actually isn't a shred of evidence except what Parliament was led to believe by 'someone'? That doesn't mean for a minute I think it was engineered by Richard - quite the opposite - but someone wanted the boys gone and for once I don't think it was MB.As I said, just a scenario. H From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> To: Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2016, 15:09 Subject: Re: Cicely
I wonder if it was an indulgence - you know, so she could turn up to Purgatory with just so there would be no misunderstanding about the fact that she'd paid for an early release

RonandMary..thanks for that..you answered my next question which was how commonplace were these 'indulgences'..Marie..I wonder if you guessed what Im leading to....was this indulgence given to Cicely, who undoubtedly as we all know was extremely pious, especially in her later years, because there may have been some guilt hanging around on her part if Edward was indeed illegitimate..? I may well be up wrong tree barking but it does me wonder..although I am the suspicious type I must add..Hilary..who can say for 100% but imho the Eleanor marriage did take place as Stillington said. As to why certain people, Eleanor herself, her family, including her sister, as far as we know, did not create a furor, well again we can only guess but my money would be on that it would be enormous as well as extremely dangerous to take on Edward who obviously was unwilling to own up to said marriage. They would all have their own personal reasons but in Eleanor's case maybe she just wanted it all to go away..perhaps a change of heart quite soon after the event..or the shame of being taken in and deceived ..JAH suggests it might be because Edward had a same sex relationship with another man..i can't recall his name at this particular moment..but I don't know about that. He also points out that two of the Duchess' servants were executed ..perhaps as a warning..but in any event it would probably have been signing your own death warrant. We also have EW's behaviour to consider..that she was worried that her children were going to be disinherited..why would she feel like that unless she knew about the pre contract..I do feel that Catesby and Stillington..oh yes add Hastings to that too.. knew..espececially Stillington..and he had to come forward once Edward had died because of the enormity of letting young Edward be crowned when he was in fact illegitimate. All in all I guess they were just human beings who have the same emotions we do today, fear, self interest, waiting to see how things pan out etc.etc., Eileen

Oh yes..wanted to add..as you said Hilary "What did Stilington have to gain'?..good question..prior to Edward's death he ended up in in trouble and in prison..his life in danger no doubt.. its obvious from that he knew something and was being warned to keep mouth firmly shut. In fact there are several indicators that would make the pre contract story plausible..Im inclined to speculate thought that George didn't know..because he is the one that I cannot see keeping quiet..but again..who can say..maybe he was waiting for the right time? As you say Hilary Edward was king by conquest so nothing was worth being risked as long as he lived..?Off to find Eleanor book for name of the man Edward was having an 'affair' with..Eileen

Oh..just wanted to say..again..MB's tomb/coffin has never been investigated..I wonder if she would have had an indulgence..I would have thought her need would have been greater than Cicely's..although tis true she did do many good deeds Eileen

Hilary wrote:Marie..I wonder if you guessed what Im leading to....was this indulgence given to Cicely, who undoubtedly as we all know was extremely pious, especially in her later years, because there may have been some guilt hanging around on her part if Edward was indeed illegitimate..? I may well be up wrong tree barking but it does me wonder..although I am the suspicious type I must add..Marie:If this was indeed an indulgence, as RonandMary seem to have confirmed, then no. An indulgence wasn't a pardon in the sense of being a pardon for a sin, quite the reverse in fact. It was an official remission of time to be spent in Purgatory which could be earned by pious deeds. I'm no longer practising, but when I was a child certain prayers in the prayer book had notes by them telling you how many years' indulgence you could earn by saying them. In the late 15th century the Church was handing out written indulgences in return for monetary gifts to good causes - Caxton was even printing them on his press. Funding military expeditions against the Turks was one cause they were definitely being given for. A little bit later, of course, it was the cost of St. Peter's.

That was me Marie..Eileen..thank you for the explanation...all these years I had wondered about that ...I should have asked sooner,,Eileen

Eileen
wrote:
//snip//
Hilary..who can say for 100% but imho the Eleanor marriage did take place
as Stillington said. As to why certain people, Eleanor herself, her
family, including her sister, as far as we know, did not create a
furor, well again we can only guess but my money would be on that it would be
enormous as well as extremely dangerous to take on Edward who obviously was
unwilling to own up to said marriage. They would all have their own
personal reasons but in Eleanor's case maybe she just wanted it all to go
away..perhaps a change of heart quite soon after the event..or the shame of
being taken in and deceived ..JAH suggests it might be because Edward had a same
sex relationship with another man..i can't recall his name at this particular
moment..but I don't know about that. He also points out that two of the
Duchess' servants were executed ..perhaps as a warning..but in any event it
would probably have been signing your own death warrant.
Doug here:
FWIW, I agree that going up against a crowned monarch with a tale of his
being still married when he'd married his current spouse would have bee
suicide. Nor would the Talbot's support of the Lancastrians have worked to their
advantage in getting anyone to believe that claim.
Your wrote that JAH wrote that two of <b>the Duchess'</b>
servants were executed... Which Duchess?
Eileen continued:
We also have EW's behaviour to consider..that she was worried that her
children were going to be disinherited..why would she feel like that unless she
knew about the pre contract.
Doug here:
Perhaps It's only me, but I don't see where the idea that EW was worried
about her children being disinherited comes from; at least before that May
meeting of the Council. That she was worried about <i>her and her family
retaining control of Edward</i> seems much more to describe her, and her
relations' actions, but that's not the same as worrying about the children being
denied their inheritance.
And, as best I can see, her actions after Edward's death fully support that
idea. The one way for the Woodvilles to retain the power and positions they'd
held under Edward IV was to, first, pack the Council with supporters (or at
least people who wouldn't oppose them) and, second, to get Edward V crowned as
quickly as possible so as to be able to project a united front to any demands
from the Protector-designate when he arrived in London to take up his duties.
Eileen concluded:
I do feel that Catesby and Stillington..oh yes add Hastings to that
too.. knew..espececially Stillington..and he had to come forward once
Edward had died because of the enormity of letting young Edward be crowned when
he was in fact illegitimate. All in all I guess they were just human
beings who have the same emotions we do today, fear, self interest, waiting to
see how things pan out etc.etc.
Doug here:
Well, the most likely number of participants in that clandestine marriage
ceremony would be four: Edward, Eleanor, a priest and a witness, but there's
also the potential for a fifth.
We have no record of Edward telling anyone. We also have no record of
Eleanor doing so, but she, when on her deathbed, may have confessed to her
marriage to the priest giving her her final rites. So, to me, there are two
possible avenues for Stillington to have been informed about the marriage, the
priest who officiated at the ceremony itself and another priest who possibly
heard Eleanor's final confession. Actually, of course, there might even be a
<b>third</b> priest involved if, as was possible with Eleanor, the
witness confessed on his/her deathbed to have been a witness to the marriage. A
deathbed confession, when the dying person was facing their final judgment
would, I imagine, be considered especially truthful. And, most likely, be
accepted as the truth when provided to the Council, and later to the Three
Estates.
Any hesitation in passing such information on, to Stillington say, would be
solely due to a reluctance to break that seal between a dying person and the
priest who'd given them last rites. But that reluctance would have to be
balanced against allowing an illegitimate child to be crowned as the true son
of Edward IV.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re your last para Doug, one thing in favour of another priest informing Stillington is that you could break the confession to a priest higher in the hierarchy than you. I don't know about Eleanor, but we have two priests who were confessors/chaplains to Edward - one was John Ingleby, the other Hugh Pavy - and both were linked to Stillington. It would after all be quite a sin to die knowing your heirs were not your real heirs, particularly where the Crown was concerned. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Sunday, 4 September 2016, 16:51 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Eileen
wrote:
//snip//
Hilary..who can say for 100% but imho the Eleanor marriage did take place
as Stillington said. As to why certain people, Eleanor herself, her
family, including her sister, as far as we know, did not create a
furor, well again we can only guess but my money would be on that it would be
enormous as well as extremely dangerous to take on Edward who obviously was
unwilling to own up to said marriage. They would all have their own
personal reasons but in Eleanor's case maybe she just wanted it all to go
away..perhaps a change of heart quite soon after the event..or the shame of
being taken in and deceived ..JAH suggests it might be because Edward had a same
sex relationship with another man..i can't recall his name at this particular
moment..but I don't know about that. He also points out that two of the
Duchess' servants were executed ..perhaps as a warning..but in any event it
would probably have been signing your own death warrant.
Doug here:
FWIW, I agree that going up against a crowned monarch with a tale of his
being still married when he'd married his current spouse would have bee
suicide. Nor would the Talbot's support of the Lancastrians have worked to their
advantage in getting anyone to believe that claim.
Your wrote that JAH wrote that two of <b>the Duchess'</b>
servants were executed... Which Duchess?
Eileen continued:
We also have EW's behaviour to consider..that she was worried that her
children were going to be disinherited..why would she feel like that unless she
knew about the pre contract.
Doug here:
Perhaps It's only me, but I don't see where the idea that EW was worried
about her children being disinherited comes from; at least before that May
meeting of the Council. That she was worried about <i>her and her family
retaining control of Edward</i> seems much more to describe her, and her
relations' actions, but that's not the same as worrying about the children being
denied their inheritance.
And, as best I can see, her actions after Edward's death fully support that
idea. The one way for the Woodvilles to retain the power and positions they'd
held under Edward IV was to, first, pack the Council with supporters (or at
least people who wouldn't oppose them) and, second, to get Edward V crowned as
quickly as possible so as to be able to project a united front to any demands
from the Protector-designate when he arrived in London to take up his duties.
Eileen concluded:
I do feel that Catesby and Stillington..oh yes add Hastings to that
too.. knew..espececially Stillington..and he had to come forward once
Edward had died because of the enormity of letting young Edward be crowned when
he was in fact illegitimate. All in all I guess they were just human
beings who have the same emotions we do today, fear, self interest, waiting to
see how things pan out etc.etc.
Doug here:
Well, the most likely number of participants in that clandestine marriage
ceremony would be four: Edward, Eleanor, a priest and a witness, but there's
also the potential for a fifth.
We have no record of Edward telling anyone. We also have no record of
Eleanor doing so, but she, when on her deathbed, may have confessed to her
marriage to the priest giving her her final rites. So, to me, there are two
possible avenues for Stillington to have been informed about the marriage, the
priest who officiated at the ceremony itself and another priest who possibly
heard Eleanor's final confession. Actually, of course, there might even be a
<b>third</b> priest involved if, as was possible with Eleanor, the
witness confessed on his/her deathbed to have been a witness to the marriage. A
deathbed confession, when the dying person was facing their final judgment
would, I imagine, be considered especially truthful. And, most likely, be
accepted as the truth when provided to the Council, and later to the Three
Estates.
Any hesitation in passing such information on, to Stillington say, would be
solely due to a reluctance to break that seal between a dying person and the
priest who'd given them last rites. But that reluctance would have to be
balanced against allowing an illegitimate child to be crowned as the true son
of Edward IV.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

If we're talking Eleanor's deathbed confession, then what we need is a priest who was living in or close to Norwich when Eleanor died, rather than one at court.It was highly unusual for any but the absolute top tier of society to have their bodies brought a great distance for burial - very very expensive - so it makes sense to suppose that Eleanor died fairly close to where she was buried.

Doug..Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk..EB's sister. According to JAH two of her servants were executed John Poyntz and William Alsford. This was a short time after EB's death and her sister's return from Flanders where she had attended the marriage of Margaret of Burgundy. JAH speculates as to whether these executions were carried out as a warning because EB had been murdered..poisoned..and her sister was asking questions. HE points out that ET would have been alone and unprotected at the time with both her sister and brother abroad. It's all very intriguing,,Re EW's fears that her children would be disinherited..1483 Mancini 'the queen, EW, then remembered the insults to her family and the calumnies with which she was reproached, namely that according to established usage she was not the legitimate wife of the King. Thus she concluded that her offspring by the King would never come to the throne unless the DoC was removed...'. You've done it again Doug..suggested something I had never thought of before and by golly it makes complete sense ..that EB may have confessed to her marriage on her deathbed,,come to think of it it's pretty certain isn't that someone of Eleanor's piety would do just that..if it were the case!Eileen

So..even more likely Edwards deathbed confession leaked by either Pavey or Ingleby..who as Hilary says had links to Stillington...by George I think we've solved it! Eileen

Hilary
wrote:
On a wet afternoon I would stress
that this is pure speculation!! There were two powerful women who stood to gain
absolutely nothing from a Woodville monarchy - Anne Beauchamp and Cis. The
original Yorkist monarchy (it didn't matter whether Edward was legitimate or not
he'd taken the throne by conquest) was undoubtedly Neville. But the
Neville/Beauchamps had been side-lined, even more so with Clarence's attainder.
If the Woodville boys could be side-lined in some way then both women would
potentially have a more malleable and dutiful king in Richard and a chance down
the line to reverse the Clarence attainder. If Edward was indeed illegitimate
then this could also ease Cis's conscience given her role as matriarch to the
House of York and Queen by Right 
Doug here:
I'm going from memory here, I've probably gotten
some of this wrong but, didn't that Neville connection for Edward, George and
Richard originally come via the Duchess of York, their mother? Which would mean
<i>any</i> child of Edward, Richard or George would be Neville
equally? By marrying Warwick's daughters, George and Richard, already being of
Neville descent via their parents, would also have a Neville link via their
marriages, as well as a Beauchamp one via Isabel's and Anne's
mother.
The thus the only other links any child of Edward
IV would lack have would be that Beauchamp one; while acquiring the Woodville
link. Or, very probably, have I missed something?
<b>If</b> my above is correct, then
what you propose is a plot to substitute a York/Neville monarch (Richard) for a
York/Neville/Woodville monarch (Richard's nephew) with the former being followed
on the throne by a York/Neville/Beauchamp monarch (Richard's son).
Considering that Edward V was only 11 when his
father died, wouldn't simply backing Richard as Protector for a five to seven
years, while limiting the young king's contacts with his mother's family been
simpler? The Protectorate would end at the earliest after five years when Edward
would be 16 or, at most, after seven when he reached 18.
Because, otherwise, all that plotting and
scheming and, yes, lying, just to keep one's grandson off the throne because one
didn't approve of the marriage your son had made? It's certainly possible, and
it wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken about something to do with the
15th century, but still...
Hilary continued:
It wouldn't be that
difficult to engineer the Eleanor story and Richard, as someone who thought
everyone adhered to his values, wouldn't be that difficult to convince if the
'right' people swore it was true. The fly in the ointment would be Hastings of
course, with his great friendship and loyalty to Edward and an unpredicted one
would be Buckingham who would throw everything up in the air and provide
opportunities for 'Lancaster' where none had been predicted.
Doug here:
How were the Talbots and Butlers to be
bought off? They would be the people most involved but, as far as I can tell,
<i>never</i> raised their voices in support of the kinswoman who had
been married and, more importantly, abandoned by Edward. And a kinswoman who
Edward had <b>refused</b> to acknowledge as his legitimate wife and
Queen! I <i>suppose</i> one could get enough people to swear to a
marriage that hadn't taken place, but wasn't perjury a mortal sin? And then one
would have to worry about the perjurers always remaining, um, agreeable and
never divulging they'd lied their immortal souls into Hell for worldly
compensation. Enjoining perjury was also a crime and a sin and would have
applied to both the Countess of Warwick and the Dowager Duchess of York plus,
one supposes, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Ouch!
Hastings, while he certainly was a
companion to Edward during the latters revels, seems to me to have been more
worried about maintaining his status at Court. His position at Edward IV's Court
provided him with money and power and, while his support would likely be
necessary for a Ricardian Protectorate, he'd get short-shrift
<i>if</i> Richard became king.
My opinion of Buckingham is that he was
in over his head and had never had the chance to discover just how little he
knew about affairs of state and those involved. Heaven knows, I might be wrong
 again!
Hilary concluded:
I begin to have a real problem with the Eleanor story. What did
she actually gain - the Wiltshire
manners already belonged to her family? What did Stillington actually gain - he' d been
Beckynton's deputy for years since Oxford and didn't get a pay rise? Why did
Eleanor's family, stauch old Lancaster, say nothing, not even her feisty sister?
There actually isn't a shred of evidence except what Parliament was led to
believe by 'someone'? That doesn't mean for a minute I think it was engineered
by Richard - quite the opposite - but someone wanted the boys gone and for once
I don't think it was MB.
As I said, just a scenario.
H
Doug here:
I tend to view Eleanor as someone who may
very well have been swept of her feet by the promises of king six years her
junior who had chosen her to be his queen. That Edward may have gone through the
ceremony solely in order to bed her, may never have crossed her mind  until
well after it was too late, so to speak. We know the uproar and problems
Edward's announcement of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville caused; wouldn't
the <i>same</i> uproar and problems have occurred with the
announcement of his marriage to Eleanor? Thus her silence, possibly in agreement
with Edward, until  again  it was too late. Then there's the problem of
<b>openly</b> opposing the King. <b>If</b>, as was quite
likely, there were only three people present at the ceremony, it would be the
word of Eleanor and the officiating priest against the King's. And how long do
you think that priest would have continued to maintain, yes, he
<i>had</i> performed a wedding between Eleanor and Edward once he'd
been dragged off to be questioned?
Edward took the crown after the Battle of
Towton in March 1461. He married Elizabeth
Woodville sometime during the spring of 1464. Which leaves two years for him to
be roving around the English countryside, sampling the delights therein. That
one of those delights could have included Lady Eleanor Butler seems, to me
anyway, entirely likely.
As for what Stillington gained;
couldn't it simply have been that he'd been entrusted with information about the
legitimacy of Edward's children and simply didn't know <i>how many other
people also knew</i>? IOW, he may felt it was best he come forward
<i>before</i> Edward was crowned, thus preventing anyone from using
that information against Edward afterwards.
When it comes to Eleanor's family, the
presumption to be made from their actions, or rather lack of actions, is that
they didn't know. Once again, if there were only three people involved in the
ceremony and, especially, if Edward had asked to keep it a secret until he could
get the agreement of his Council, why would she say anything to anyone? And,
when Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, what
<b>could</b> she say that wouldn't place her and, more importantly,
her family, in grave danger? Not to mention the sheer embarrassment of a woman
in her mid-twenties falling for a ploy any adolescent girl should have balked
at!
I quite agree that MB wasn't behind any
plots to remove Edward from the throne; in fact, she supported him as a means of
getting her son back into England (without his having to spend any time as a
guest in the Tower), until after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion. I
really think that what happened in 1483 was a series of events where the
responses of those involved were ad hoc decisions made <i>at that
time</i> and <i>solely<i/> in response to those event/s and
not as part of some previously thought-out plan.
This doesn't mean there weren't any
plots and conspiracies, but rather that such plots and conspiracies that
existed were those inherent in a political system where power was held by a
single person, or someone acting on that person's authority. Where the groups we
now delineate as outs risked their lives in order to become ins as that was
where the power, and money, was. All the method of personal intrigue were
employed as there simply was no other method available. And where personal
intrigue is, there also one will find plots and conspiracies.
To sum up (sorry for taking so long!),
while an interesting scenario, my thoughts are in line with those of William of
Ockham/Occam, presuming I understand him correctly; when faced with two possible
answers to a question, the simplest answer is likely the true one.
Doug
Who apologizes again for the length of
this post.--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Re your last para Doug, one thing
in favour of another priest informing Stillington is that you could break the
confession to a priest higher in the hierarchy than you. I don't know about
Eleanor, but we have two priests who were confessors/chaplains to Edward - one
was John Ingleby, the other Hugh Pavy - and both were linked to Stillington. It
would after all be quite a sin to die knowing your heirs were not your real
heirs, particularly where the Crown was concerned.
Doug here:
When did Ingleby and Pavy serve as chaplains to
Edward? The ceremony would most likely have occurred sometime during the period
between March 1461 and well before the ceremony between Edward and Elizabeth
Woodville in, supposedly, May of 1464. Were either already serving in that
position during that time?
Two other thoughts occurred to me: First, what if
the priest was provided by <i>Eleanor</i>? Do we know who her
chaplain was at that time? The second thought reflects even more badly (?) on
our serial-marriager, but what if there <b>wasn't</b> any priest at
all, but merely someone Edward <i>said</i> was a priest? I believe
the proper phrase is opening a can of worms?
One final thought. What if Edward
<i>did</i> plan on announcing his marriage to Eleanor but, when he
mentioned it as, say, a <b>future</b> prospect to someone such as
his mother, the idea was so vehemently resisted that he put it aside, perhaps
planning on. bringing it up later? After all, Eleanor may not have been royal,
but she certainly was from the nobility; and the old nobility, at
that.
However, before Edward could screw up his
courage to do the right thing by Eleanor, the young man who had so many women
fall in love with <b>him</b>, went and fell in love with Elizabeth
Woodville. The result being that all the uproar and to-do he was unwilling to go
through <b>just</b> to live up to his pledged word to Eleanor,
became something he was more than willing to go through for the woman he
loved?
I doubt the circumstances were exactly similar,
but there <b>is</b> the example of his 20th century
namesake...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
So..even
more likely Edwards deathbed confession leaked by either Pavey or Ingleby..who
as Hilary says had links to Stillington...by George I think we've solved
it!
Doug
here:
To
be honest, I hadn't even considered <i>Edward</i> on his deathbed as
a source. That could be because my opinion of Edward, as a person, leads me to
suspect that any such confession would have occurred years earlier, perhaps
during the Re-Adeption period when he couldn't be certain about his
survival.
Which,
of course, might require yet <i>another</i> hunt for a
priest!
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
Doug..Elizabeth
Duchess of Norfolk..EB's sister. According to JAH two of her servants were
executed John Poyntz and William Alsford. This was a short time after EB's
death and her sister's return from Flanders where she had attended the
marriage of Margaret of Burgundy. JAH speculates as to whether
these executions were carried out as a warning because EB had been
murdered..poisoned..and her sister was asking questions. HE points out
that ET would have been alone and unprotected at the time with both her sister
and brother abroad. It's all very intriguing.
Doug
here:
Let
me see if I've gotten this: EB's younger sister, the Duchess of Norfolk, goes to
Flanders to attend the marriage of Margaret of Burgundy. While the Duchess is
absent from England, her sister Eleanor dies. Upon returning from Flanders, two
servants of the Duchess are executed. And from that JAH discerns the possible
poisoning of Eleanor carried out, presumably, on Edward's orders.
Oh my!
Do
we know what these two were charged with and just what sort of servants they
were? And did they go with the Duchess to Flanders, or did they remain in
England? The possibility that those two servants were involved in some sort of
plotting with Margaret of Anjou or other Lancastrians doesn't seem to have
occurred to him? After all, it wasn't until the death of Edward of Lancaster at
Tewksbury that the Lancastrians were finally left headless. And
<i>that</i> didn't happen until 1471!
Eileen continued:
Re EW's fears that her children would be disinherited..1483 Mancini
'the queen, EW, then remembered the insults to her family and the calumnies with
which she was reproached, namely that according to established usage she was not
the legitimate wife of the King. Thus she concluded that her offspring by the
King would never come to the throne unless the DoC was removed...'.
Doug here:
It sounds suspiciously to me as if Mancini was repeating what he had heard,
or been told a garbled version, of what Stillington had told the Council in May,
1483. Especially that ...according to established usage...; IOW by Church
<i>and</i> Common law, the boys were illegitimate. Of course, it may
not have been phrased exactly that way and thus that established usage.
Eileen concluded:
You've done it again Doug..suggested something I had never thought of
before and by golly it makes complete sense ..that EB may have confessed to her
marriage on her deathbed,,come to think of it it's pretty certain isn't that
someone of Eleanor's piety would do just that..if it were the case!
Doug here:
Unfortunately, as I posted in a reply to Hilary, while a death-bed
confession by Eleanor may very well have been the proofs Stillington presented
to the Council, there are several other possibilities; such as, as you
mentioned, Edward himself. Or it may very well have been that there never was a
priest, only someone pretending to that position.
Why these people couldn't have been considerate enough to leave a nice,
clearly-written paper trail, I do not know!
Doug
Eileen
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I'm in France till Friday but will come back to you afterwards. Certainly Ingleby had been confessor to both at Sheen for nearly ten years. We know Pavy was Edwards chaplain in April 1483. Both became Bishops and remained untouched by HT till they died. HSent from my iPhone On 5 Sep 2016, at 21:28, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Eileen
wrote:
Doug..Elizabeth
Duchess of Norfolk..EB's sister. According to JAH two of her servants were
executed John Poyntz and William Alsford. This was a short time after EB's
death and her sister's return from Flanders where she had attended the
marriage of Margaret of Burgundy. JAH speculates as to whether
these executions were carried out as a warning because EB had been
murdered..poisoned..and her sister was asking questions. HE points out
that ET would have been alone and unprotected at the time with both her sister
and brother abroad. It's all very intriguing.
Doug
here:
Let
me see if I've gotten this: EB's younger sister, the Duchess of Norfolk, goes to
Flanders to attend the marriage of Margaret of Burgundy. While the Duchess is
absent from England, her sister Eleanor dies. Upon returning from Flanders, two
servants of the Duchess are executed. And from that JAH discerns the possible
poisoning of Eleanor carried out, presumably, on Edward's orders.
Oh my!
Do
we know what these two were charged with and just what sort of servants they
were? And did they go with the Duchess to Flanders, or did they remain in
England? The possibility that those two servants were involved in some sort of
plotting with Margaret of Anjou or other Lancastrians doesn't seem to have
occurred to him? After all, it wasn't until the death of Edward of Lancaster at
Tewksbury that the Lancastrians were finally left headless. And
<i>that</i> didn't happen until 1471!
Eileen continued:
Re EW's fears that her children would be disinherited..1483 Mancini
'the queen, EW, then remembered the insults to her family and the calumnies with
which she was reproached, namely that according to established usage she was not
the legitimate wife of the King. Thus she concluded that her offspring by the
King would never come to the throne unless the DoC was removed...'.
Doug here:
It sounds suspiciously to me as if Mancini was repeating what he had heard,
or been told a garbled version, of what Stillington had told the Council in May,
1483. Especially that ...according to established usage...; IOW by Church
<i>and</i> Common law, the boys were illegitimate. Of course, it may
not have been phrased exactly that way and thus that established usage.
Eileen concluded:
You've done it again Doug..suggested something I had never thought of
before and by golly it makes complete sense ..that EB may have confessed to her
marriage on her deathbed,,come to think of it it's pretty certain isn't that
someone of Eleanor's piety would do just that..if it were the case!
Doug here:
Unfortunately, as I posted in a reply to Hilary, while a death-bed
confession by Eleanor may very well have been the proofs Stillington presented
to the Council, there are several other possibilities; such as, as you
mentioned, Edward himself. Or it may very well have been that there never was a
priest, only someone pretending to that position.
Why these people couldn't have been considerate enough to leave a nice,
clearly-written paper trail, I do not know!
Doug
Eileen
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On the matter of the Duchess of Norfolk's servants...It is possible that there had been some sort of contact between Duchess Elizabeth and/or her household and the exiled Somerset during her stay in Burgundy. This may have been personal rather than political, as he was her first cousin. Edward IV would undoubtedly have seen such contact as treasonable. If, that is, it took place.However, the other side of the coin is the Duke of Norfolk, whose servants these ultimately were, was an extreme Yorkist loyalist. He was (apparently) not in good health, was ineffective, and from what I can gather heavily influenced by his wife and certain of his retainers, but he was about as loyal a Yorkist as you can find. It was exceptional, very exceptional, for the King to execute the followers of a loyal noble, because such an action weakened the lord's status as 'protector' of his retinue, and was pretty much an insult. For Edward to do this to Norfolk he must have had (at least in his own eyes) a very, very good reason.Not long after (sorry, my notes are not to hand but the facts are out there) Elizabeth and her brother Humphrey received a royal pardon. It was pretty rare for a married woman to be given a pardon independently of her husband. (In civil matters she was of course under coverture.) There may be a perfectly valid explanation for this, but I haven't seen one yet.I can't help but think there's something unexplained here; albeit it may have nothing to do with Eleanor Talbot.Brian W.

I opened up The Secret Queen last night looking for answers to Doug's questions i.e.what were the charges against these two servants, what types of servants were they etc...however, while I rummaged through for that info I was sidetracked by the Act of Attainder against George set out in the documentary evidence chapter when lo I came across the the following...'He (George) said and laboured also to be noysed by such his servauntes apte for that werk, that the kyng, oure sovereigne lorde, wrought by nygromancye, and used crafte to poyson his subgettes, such as hymn pleased......'...hmmmmmm..the plot thickens...as per usual...was George telling porkies or had he indeed discovered his brother had certain people removed via poison..if so whom...and if this indeed were true is it indeed possible he also went down that route with ET or was she the original victim...no doubt with his wife helpfully providing the ingredients..I know its rather fanciful but its also possible taking into consideration the desperate circumstances Edward and EW would have been faced living with the constant fear that Edward's secret marriage might come to light and the proverbial hitting the fan...furthermore did Edward himself fall victim to poison..? Oh the irony...Sorry Doug..I will return to JAH's book later today in an attempt to answer your original questions..Eileen

Hilary
wrote:
I'm in France till Friday but will come back to you afterwards. Certainly
Ingleby had been confessor to both at Sheen for nearly ten years. We know Pavy
was Edwards chaplain in April 1483. Both became Bishops and remained untouched
by HT till they died.
Doug here:
First off, hope you're in France for a holiday and that it's very enjoyable
(the latter still applies even should your trip be work-related)!
So, we've got both Pavy and Ingleby available for a death-bed confession by
Edward. Well, <i>that</i> certainly narrows the possibilities,
doesn't it?
Another thought occurred to me after I'd hit Send yesterday: Is a priest
absolutely necessary for a marriage to be considered as having taken place? Of
course, if <i>one</i> of the participants (Edward) wanted to
dispute/deny that the marriage had ever taken place, then the other party
(Eleanor) wouldn't have <b>any</b> proof, would she? Well, except
for the pledged vow of a King, of coursse.
That would certainly explain why Eleanor, seemingly, never raised the
subject, wouldn't it? Or, presuming they knew, any members of her family.
Doug
Who really hopes he's mistaken, because
otherwise...--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Brian
wrote:
On
the matter of the Duchess of Norfolk's servants...
It is possible that there had been
some sort of contact between Duchess Elizabeth and/or her household and the
exiled Somerset during her stay in Burgundy. This may have been personal rather
than political, as he was her first cousin. Edward IV would undoubtedly have
seen such contact as treasonable. If, that is, it took place.
However, the other side of the coin is the Duke of Norfolk, whose servants
these ultimately were, was an extreme Yorkist loyalist. He was (apparently) not
in good health, was ineffective, and from what I can gather heavily influenced
by his wife and certain of his retainers, but he was about as loyal a Yorkist as
you can find. It was exceptional, very exceptional, for the King to execute the
followers of a loyal noble, because such an action weakened the lord's status as
'protector' of his retinue, and was pr etty much an insult. For Edward to do
this to Norfolk he must have had (at least in his own eyes) a very, very good
reason.
Not long after (sorry, my notes are not to hand but the facts are out
there) Elizabeth and her brother Humphrey received a royal pardon. It was pretty
rare for a married woman to be given a pardon independently of her husband. (In
civil matters she was of course under coverture.) There may be a perfectly valid
explanation for this, but I haven't seen one yet.
I can't help but think there's something unexplained here; albeit it may
have nothing to do with Eleanor Talbot.
Doug here:
If, as you write, the Duke of Norfolk was heavily influenced by his wife
and certain of his retainers, that alone might explain what happened to Poyntz
and Alsford if they were using their influence to support the Lancastrians. It
would also explain why the Duchess and her brother later received pardons; not
necessarily for what <i>they</i> personally had done, but for
harboring (?) traitors in their retinues. Do we have a copy of the pardon, or
even a precis of it?
Did the Duke of Norfolk have the right of High Justice which, if I
understand the concept properly, would have been needed for the Duke
<b>himself</b> to properly punish traitors to the King? Otherwise,
that <i>Edward</i> had the two tried and executed for treason would
only be the norm.
I quite agree that there's something unexplained here, but then, there's
so much in that same category...
Doug
Who found a little more information here:
https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/tag/sir-humphrey-talbot/
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
I
opened up The Secret Queen last night looking for answers to Doug's questions
i.e.what were the charges against these two servants, what types of servants
were they etc...however, while I rummaged through for that info I was
sidetracked by the Act of Attainder against George set out in the
documentary evidence chapter when lo I came across the the following...'He
(George) said and laboured also to be noysed by such his servauntes apte for
that werk, that the kyng, oure sovereigne lorde, wrought by nygromancye, and
used crafte to poyson his subgettes, such as hymn pleased......'...hmmmmmm..the
plot thickens...as per usual...was George telling porkies or had he indeed
discovered his brother had certain people removed via poison..if so
whom...and if this indeed were true is it indeed possible he also went
down that route with ET or was she the original victim...no doubt with his wife
helpfully providing the ingredients..I know its rather fanciful but its also
possible taking into consideration the desperate circumstances Edward and EW
would have been faced living with the constant fear that Edward's secret
marriage might come to light and the proverbial hitting the fan...furthermore
did Edward himself fall victim to poison..? Oh the irony...
Sorry Doug..I will return to JAH's book later today in an attempt to answer
your original questions..
Doug here:
First off, thank you for your efforts! I checked my book list and found
JAH's <i>The Secret Queen</i> wasn't on it. It is now. Hopefully I
can get it via Barnes & Noble (bookstore).
Getting back to the subject; didn't George give his reason for hanging
Annette Twynho and John something-or-other was that they had poisoned his wife
and child? IMO, it wouldn't be such a large step for George to imagine Edward
was behind what he'd accused those two of doing. It could also explain why he
attempted to get his remaining son out of the country  away from the man who
was poisoning his (George's) family, one by one. And, of course, to voice such
thoughts would justify the charge of treason.
I really wonder if that bit about the butt of Malmsey and George wasn't
just based on George being a fill-blown alcoholic? I did a quick Google and
found that Malmsey was a fortified, white wine from Greece, at least during
the period we're interested in. Nowadays, apparently, it's grown all over the
place!
At any rate, couldn't adding alcoholism to a general dislike/distrust of
Edward explain an awful lot of George's actions? Especially after the death of
Isobel?
Anyway, thanks again for your troubles!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hols Doug. Photoing birds in the Baie de Somme. Great! Back about rest after Friday. Thanks. HSent from my iPhone On 6 Sep 2016, at 16:04, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary
wrote:
I'm in France till Friday but will come back to you afterwards. Certainly
Ingleby had been confessor to both at Sheen for nearly ten years. We know Pavy
was Edwards chaplain in April 1483. Both became Bishops and remained untouched
by HT till they died.
Doug here:
First off, hope you're in France for a holiday and that it's very enjoyable
(the latter still applies even should your trip be work-related)!
So, we've got both Pavy and Ingleby available for a death-bed confession by
Edward. Well, <i>that</i> certainly narrows the possibilities,
doesn't it?
Another thought occurred to me after I'd hit Send yesterday: Is a priest
absolutely necessary for a marriage to be considered as having taken place? Of
course, if <i>one</i> of the participants (Edward) wanted to
dispute/deny that the marriage had ever taken place, then the other party
(Eleanor) wouldn't have <b>any</b> proof, would she? Well, except
for the pledged vow of a King, of coursse.
That would certainly explain why Eleanor, seemingly, never raised the
subject, wouldn't it? Or, presuming they knew, any members of her family.
Doug
Who really hopes he's mistaken, because
otherwise...--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Ah yes true Doug..George may well have had Isabel and their baby in mind when he had been making those accusations..but still..its very thought provoking. George has always had bad press with accusations of him acting up and an alcoholic to boot. Obviously some of its true (Edward was indeed generous to him) but I do sometimes wonder if he was wholly to blame...and I've often wondered if Ankarette might indeed have had something to do with the demise of Isobel and babe. Just as Ive often wondered if Edward of Middleham was not helped to an early grave. But there..Im off on a tangent now...I have a very suspicious mind...Eileen

Quick thought; Eleanor had done nothing wrong so nothing to confess. Life had always gone well for Edward. The thought of damnation which we find hard to imagine must have been terrifying when it became clear his luck had run out in his last days. HSent from my iPhone On 6 Sep 2016, at 16:04, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary
wrote:
I'm in France till Friday but will come back to you afterwards. Certainly
Ingleby had been confessor to both at Sheen for nearly ten years. We know Pavy
was Edwards chaplain in April 1483. Both became Bishops and remained untouched
by HT till they died.
Doug here:
First off, hope you're in France for a holiday and that it's very enjoyable
(the latter still applies even should your trip be work-related)!
So, we've got both Pavy and Ingleby available for a death-bed confession by
Edward. Well, <i>that</i> certainly narrows the possibilities,
doesn't it?
Another thought occurred to me after I'd hit Send yesterday: Is a priest
absolutely necessary for a marriage to be considered as having taken place? Of
course, if <i>one</i> of the participants (Edward) wanted to
dispute/deny that the marriage had ever taken place, then the other party
(Eleanor) wouldn't have <b>any</b> proof, would she? Well, except
for the pledged vow of a King, of coursse.
That would certainly explain why Eleanor, seemingly, never raised the
subject, wouldn't it? Or, presuming they knew, any members of her family.
Doug
Who really hopes he's mistaken, because
otherwise...--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Agreed Eileen. It's all very complex and the Twynyhos are everywhere. FWIW I reckon two people at least were set up - George and Hastings. But by whom and proving it ..... H. (Back to holiday)Sent from my iPhone On 6 Sep 2016, at 18:40, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Ah yes true Doug..George may well have had Isabel and their baby in mind when he had been making those accusations..but still..its very thought provoking. George has always had bad press with accusations of him acting up and an alcoholic to boot. Obviously some of its true (Edward was indeed generous to him) but I do sometimes wonder if he was wholly to blame...and I've often wondered if Ankarette might indeed have had something to do with the demise of Isobel and babe. Just as Ive often wondered if Edward of Middleham was not helped to an early grave. But there..Im off on a tangent now...I have a very suspicious mind...Eileen

That was a question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

Very good question Eileen. Over to Marie and back to hols HSent from my iPhone On 6 Sep 2016, at 19:33, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
That was a question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

Hilary...my money would be on Catesby set up Hastings..as we know..he knew a lot ..too much..and was connected to a lot of people via blood/marriage/business...and of course his Will ..his shock, anger and some disgust can be picked up on towards the Stanleys who obviously thought it was a good idea to get shot of him when the opportunity arose...What a Nest of Vipers..

FWIW...say if George had heard a rumour or knew somehow that Edward or EW (which was the same thing basically) used poison in the past..(i.e. Eleanor perchance?) maybe when he lost Isabel and their child he concluded that they too had been murdered...rightly or wrongly. Wasn't it Croyland said that he would not eat anything when he was at court...just saying seems Edward and/or EW seem linked to stories of poisoning...

And what about Elizabeth Woodville's sin of knowing about it and saying nothing? Well, I can't prove she knew about Eleanor, but I would bet my bottom dollar she knew her children were illegitimate and that if the truth came out, they would indeed be set
side. She, like Edward, wanted their baseborn offspring to ascend the throne. What a sinful pair. She must have been very alarmed indeed to realise that someone as straight and honest as Richard was in the offing as Lord Protector. And what could Edward have
been thinking? The more I think of him, the less I like him. Selfish, arrogant, cruel, over-the-hill and didn't give a fig for anyone but himself. I hope the gates of heaven didn't open automatically, and that he had to sweat it out in a hot place before finally
going upstairs'.
So there were definitely two guilty consciences (Edward and Elizabeth), and possibly three (Eleanor). To say nothing of whoever else was present at the Eleanor wedding. There had to be more than just the bridal couple.
I noticed in The White Queen (yes, unloved fiction, I know) that when the Woodville marriage took place and they came out of that little chapel/hut/whatever' in the woods, money was pressed very surreptitiously into the priest's' hand. Not honest money,
that was for sure. So I guess we know Philippa Gregory's thoughts on the matter.
And letting my thoughts run on, I have to wonder what HT knew. He couldn't stand his mother-in-law, and I imagine the dislike was mutual. Did he have her to worry about as well as Simnel, Perkin, the de la Poles, et al? He might not have gone so far as
to exterminate La Woodville, but I'll bet he paced the floor wondering how he could get away with it. One clacking word from her, and bingo, Edward IV's marriage was bigamous. Again. And how much did Elizabeth of York know? Henry couldn't do away with them
all. Besides, he needed his queen. How many sleepless nights did he endure throughout his ill-gotten reign? By the look of him, I'd say an awful lot. Serves him right.
Sandra
From:
mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 6:33 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
That was a question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

Doug wrote:"We know the uproar and problems
Edward's announcement of his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville caused; wouldn't
the same uproar and problems have occurred with the
announcement of his marriage to Eleanor?"Carol responds:I don't think so. Eleanor was a member of the nobility, not the landed gentry, and she didn't have a horde of greedy relatives needing lucrative marriages (though like EW she was a Lancastrian widow whose late husband had presumably been attainted). But her father was not some upstart who had married above his rank in society like EW's (you'll recall that Edward, Warwick, and Salisbury "rated" [berated] EW's father and brother at Calais for their low birth and lack of royal blood). He was John Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, a famous commander in the Hundred Years War.So not the same thing at all. That marriage might even have pacified some rampant Lancastrians. Too bad Edward didn't have the sense to think of that.Carol

Eileen wrote:That was a question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying bigamously..seems harsh...Marie:Difficult one. When they knew the marriage was going to take place (i.e. after publication of banns), people were duty bound to come forward and disclose any impediment of which they knew. But I don't know if there was a rule devised to deal with the circumstance where the person who knew of an impediment to a marriage only found out about the marriage after it had occurred. What does "... speak now or for ever hold your peace" mean in those circumstances? I'll see if I can find out more, but I do think it's a mistake to make too much of the purely legalistic side of things in this case because there was so much else at stake. Eleanor herself may have been confused and sought spiritual advice and been advised to say nothing since the deed was done and she herself could not offer the country the queenship it needed - i.e. foreign alliance and more importantly royal heirs. It could have been suggested to her that, though her marriage was valid, she was reaping the fruits of having failed to marry 'in facie ecclesie' and that would have to weigh up the sin of non-disclosure against the sin of destabilising a realm which had so recently been rent by civil war...... There was also the practical problem that, if no witness would back her up (and who would, against the King?), her claim of a precontract would be thrown out anyway, so she would endanger herself and her family for nothing.Here's another scenario. Edward didn't want to recognise Elizabeth and confessed to a couple of trusted ecclesiastic councillors/ confessors hoping they could find him a way out, but the only impediment to the Woodville marriage was the marriage to Eleanor, and she appeared to be infertile so they suggested the least worst option for the country was that he recognise Elizabeth - once Eleanor had been sounded out to ensure she would continue to keep quiet.To answer Doug's earlier question, no, emphatically the presence of a priest was *not* necessary in order to make a valid marriage. The Church told people to marry in church after publication of banns, but recognised clandestine marriages made with no priest present as valid. I feel I've answered this one a lot of times lately - I'm not sure if people just find it unbelievable or are confused that the Church could forbid clandestine marriages but still recognise them as valid. There were actually a bunch of things you were told not to do marriage-wise but which wouldn't actually nullify the marriage (like marrying during Lent).The reason the Church didn't like clandestine marriages was obvious - before disclosure one party could go on to marry someone else, and then the jilted first bride (it was pretty much always the woman) would claim her marriage before an ecclesiastical court which would have nothing to go on but hearsay evidence. If there were no witnesses there was zero chance of getting the marriage recognised, but even with witnesses if their stories didn't coincide the case could be lost because of suspicion that they were lying. This inevitably made for a situation where true marriages got rejected and bigamous marriages pronounced as valid. But because the marriage was made purely by the couple's promise to each other the Church felt it must continue to recognise clandestine marriages in principle.

Re George. I don't know about poison but someone could have whispered that Ankarette was the granddaughter of two murderers who got away with it. The very famous Lacon murder. I'll write about Catesby and Eleanor's lands when I get back. I am getting to agree that Catesby is in this somewhere though not the Hammond (was it?) version. HSent from my iPhone On 6 Sep 2016, at 19:59, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
FWIW...say if George had heard a rumour or knew somehow that Edward or EW (which was the same thing basically) used poison in the past..(i.e. Eleanor perchance?) maybe when he lost Isabel and their child he concluded that they too had been murdered...rightly or wrongly. Wasn't it Croyland said that he would not eat anything when he was at court...just saying seems Edward and/or EW seem linked to stories of poisoning...

Hilary
wrote:
Hols Doug. Photoing birds in the Baie de Somme. Great! Back about
rest after Friday. Thanks.
Doug here:
Enjoy! Just make sure the birds can't here that click  or you'll end up
with a lot of blurred images!
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
Ah
yes true Doug..George may well have had Isabel and their baby in mind when
he had been making those accusations..but still..its very thought
provoking. George has always had bad press with accusations of him acting
up and an alcoholic to boot. Obviously some of its true (Edward was indeed
generous to him) but I do sometimes wonder if he was wholly to blame...and I've
often wondered if Ankarette might indeed have had something to do with the
demise of Isobel and babe. Just as Ive often wondered if Edward of
Middleham was not helped to an early grave. But there..Im off on a tangent
now...I have a very suspicious mind...
Doug
here:
I
thought of alcoholism when I saw that <i>Malmsey</i> was a
<b>fortified</b> wine with the alcohol content upped
somehow.
Wouldn't
Isabel, as the lady of the house, be in charge of who served George and, more
importantly, <i>what</i> he was served? Wasn't wine usually served
watered a bit during this period? Which led me to wonder if George didn't prefer
his wine un-watered  and stronger? So, as long as Isabel was involved in seeing
who the servants were, and likely had the power to dismiss those who failed to
obey her orders about how wine was to be served to <i>everyone</i>,
George would remain more or less sober. Take Isabel away, and add in his grief
at her passing, and we end with someone who let's his pent-up inner fears and
frustrations rum wild.
First
he goes after Ankarette and the man whose name I can't recall, and then, perhaps
to justify his actions, he starts trying to lay the blame on the brother he's
always resented and been jealous of. I think this scenario appeals to me mainly
because of its' simplicity.
Which
is <b>such</b> a change!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

In modern terms I reckon most would agree George had a nervous breakdown after Isabel died. It wouldn't take much to put suggestions into his head and make him lash out. Both he and Richard had had the most unstable of childhoods and losses. Edward had been that little bit older and more robust. You can sometimes see Richard's weakness when he lashes out at Hastings and Buckingham but the paranoia doesn't seem to be there as it was with George. Yes George had taken Warwick's side but then Edward had displayed little respect for Warwick and his own mother when he married EW. The Nevilles had been with him at Towton but he seems quickly to have forgotten their loyalty when a pretty face came along. So I actually think it's easier to make excuses for George than it is for Edward. H. (I have a big lens Doug - but holding it still's another matter. :) )Sent from my iPhone On 7 Sep 2016, at 16:33, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Eileen
wrote:
Ah
yes true Doug..George may well have had Isabel and their baby in mind when
he had been making those accusations..but still..its very thought
provoking. George has always had bad press with accusations of him acting
up and an alcoholic to boot. Obviously some of its true (Edward was indeed
generous to him) but I do sometimes wonder if he was wholly to blame...and I've
often wondered if Ankarette might indeed have had something to do with the
demise of Isobel and babe. Just as Ive often wondered if Edward of
Middleham was not helped to an early grave. But there..Im off on a tangent
now...I have a very suspicious mind...
Doug
here:
I
thought of alcoholism when I saw that <i>Malmsey</i> was a
<b>fortified</b> wine with the alcohol content upped
somehow.
Wouldn't
Isabel, as the lady of the house, be in charge of who served George and, more
importantly, <i>what</i> he was served? Wasn't wine usually served
watered a bit during this period? Which led me to wonder if George didn't prefer
his wine un-watered  and stronger? So, as long as Isabel was involved in seeing
who the servants were, and likely had the power to dismiss those who failed to
obey her orders about how wine was to be served to <i>everyone</i>,
George would remain more or less sober. Take Isabel away, and add in his grief
at her passing, and we end with someone who let's his pent-up inner fears and
frustrations rum wild.
First
he goes after Ankarette and the man whose name I can't recall, and then, perhaps
to justify his actions, he starts trying to lay the blame on the brother he's
always resented and been jealous of. I think this scenario appeals to me mainly
because of its' simplicity.
Which
is <b>such</b> a change!
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Carol wrote:I don't think so. Eleanor was a member of
the nobility, not the landed gentry, and she didn't have a horde of greedy
relatives needing lucrative marriages (though like EW she was a Lancastrian
widow whose late husband had presumably been attainted). But her father was not
some upstart who had married above his rank in society like EW's (you'll recall
that Edward, Warwick, and Salisbury "rated" [berated] EW's father and brother at
Calais for their low birth and lack of royal blood). He was John Talbot, Earl of
Shrewsbury, a famous commander in the Hundred Years War.So not the same
thing at all. That marriage might even have pacified some rampant Lancastrians.
Too bad Edward didn't have the sense to think of that.
Doug here:
Perhaps if I dropped
the uproar and only kept problems?
I can see that marrying
a daughter of an Earl might provoke <i>less</i> opposition, but she
still wasn't royal and that would be a major obstacle in itself, wouldn't it?
Wasn't there talk, literally as soon as he became king, of Edward marrying one
of several available princesses? I would think that for Edward to pass up the
chance of strengthening his position against the Lancastrians by an alliance
with France, Burgundy or some other foreign power would be resisted as stoutly
regardless of the lineage of the lady in question.
I agree with you that
an acknowledged marriage to the daughter of the Lancastrian Earl of Shrewsbury
<b>might</b> have brought some of the more lukewarm Lancastrians
over, but as long as Henry VI was alive, and more importantly, Edward of
Lancaster, Edward would still face some very determined, and able, opposition,
wouldn't he? Still, an interesting thought.
I also heartily agree
that, all things considered, and not being able to go very far with the what
if of an acknowledged Queen Eleanor, that, even with all the drawbacks that
did exist of Edward's marriage to her taken into consideration, Eleanor would
likely have been a better choice than Elizabeth Woodville.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I agree.. certain parties would have initially been miffed that although Eleanor was of noble blood it would have been better for the realm if Edward had married a foreign princess. However having presented them with a fait accompli they may well have shut up and put up as Eleanor did not bring with her a family of scheming, greedy upstarts, Edward would not have upset all and sundry and things would, obviously have turned out a lot different. However as Eleanor does appear to have maybe been barren problems would have arisen no doubt from there...presumably George would not have been executed and maybe there would have been a George l with a Neville queen...and Richard may have happily remained in the north of England..oh good lord..im rambling now..Eileen

Doug I've only time for a quick perusal of The Secret Queen and the chapter covering Eleanor's death and the execution of Poyntz and Alford...Confusingly according to JAH there are 2 sources suggesting they were condemned to death but not actually executed but these sources are unreliable as they have dates wrong. Other reports say they were two gentleman to 'my Lord of Northfolk' and were beheaded on Monday 28 November 1468. It looks as they accompanied Elizabeth Talbot to Flanders and returned with her. As Brian has said the two young gentleman were arrested because at the time of the 'forsaid marriage (Margaret and Charles') they had familiar communication with the Duke of Somerset"...from this JAH goes on to suggest that, as we've already mentioned, Elizabeth, shocked at finding out Eleanor had died while she was away, and guessing who may have been behind it, Eleanor having been poisoned ,may have asked too many questions, perhaps to her uncle, Warwick and her friend and cousin George which led to Edward and EW feeling the need to demonstrate that she should be 'extremely careful' in pursing this. As mentioned by Brian Elizabeth was later granted a general pardon for all offences committed by her prior to 7 December. Hmmmmm...Eileen

Well if George was a heavy drinker or even an alcoholic he certainly gave a good account of himself at his trial...i use the term loosely...where he stood toe to toe with his brother, the king..Croyland wrote 'for not a single person uttered a word against the duke, not one individual made answer to the king accept the duke'..incidentally I wonder if it was Edward who was the alcoholic in the family in actual fact..he certainly gave a good impression of of couch potato..a kind of medieval Nero...probably the most responsible of anyone of the downfall of the Plantagenets..all because he couldnt keep it in his pants. Eileen

Thanks again Marie..you always make such perfect sense. Regarding poor Eleanor's reasons for remaining silent..Im always kind of taken aback when people ask 'why' didn't she come forward...although we'll never exactly know the precise reasons why she chose not to (they must have been numerous) its not at all surprising that she didn't. Poor Eleanor...one of the saddest women of those times..Eileen

Sandra..you have summed it all up neatly..what a nest of vipers!..doh..Eileen

Sorry I can't read your reply Sandra. It's trashed again :). But I'm sure it's good! My doubts about Eleanor stem from the lack of evidence presented to Parliament. This was an age when evidence was meticulously collected - proof of age, assignment of dower, IPM, annulments. Where is the record which says John Brown was tying his shoelace when Edward waltzed by with his arm round Eleanor? Yes it could have been destroyed but like TR there was surely more than one copy? HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 01:18, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Sandra..you have summed it all up neatly..what a nest of vipers!..doh..Eileen

I have also thought about whether the Eleanor/Edward relationship was actually a 'marriage.' For a secret medieval marriage to be valid, the requirements were the promise of marriage plus consummation, with the latter being harder to prove, because it was done in private. Maybe this is where the Eleanor question all went wrong - if she backed out before they got around to consummating the marriage. Something could have gone wrong even in the space of a few hours like a misunderstanding of what was actually intended. Eleanor was from the nobility, and it would have been realistic for her to expect a wedding befitting her status. She may have seen the 'vows' she made with Edward only as an acceptance of his proposal or a private betrothal, but she had no intention of consummating it until the actual wedding. If Edward was being coy about their relationship around other people or indefinite about his intentions, that may have made her uncomfortable. Edward would have just gone on his merry way and found another mistress. He and Eleanor drifted apart and she dies a few years later, never speaking out because there was never anything to actually say.After more than 20 years, Stillington (either having been present or hearing it from someone else) speaks out about the marriage to Eleanor. Knowing Edward, he would have assumed the marriage was consummated, never having considered that Eleanor was the one who rejected him. Richard probably thought the same. I don't think Richard would have been offered the crown, or would have accepted it without a good faith belief in the Eleanor story. Could it have been that the course of history was changed because of what someone thought had happened rather than what actually did happen (the truth of which was known only to the two people involved)? I am also intrigued about J-AH's speculation about Edward IV having a same sex relationship. I have never heard anything about him being gay or bisexual before, only that he was a womanizer. Was he really like that or was it a myth he liked to create around himself. Some men do that to cover up their insecurity about their sexuality. Also, some psychologists believe that men sharing the same women sexually is a sign of latent homosexuality. Who knows, but I would love to know more.Nico On Thursday, 8 September 2016, 8:34, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Sorry I can't read your reply Sandra. It's trashed again :). But I'm sure it's good! My doubts about Eleanor stem from the lack of evidence presented to Parliament. This was an age when evidence was meticulously collected - proof of age, assignment of dower, IPM, annulments. Where is the record which says John Brown was tying his shoelace when Edward waltzed by with his arm round Eleanor? Yes it could have been destroyed but like TR there was surely more than one copy? HSent from my iPhoneOn 8 Sep 2016, at 01:18, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Sandra..you have summed it all up neatly..what a nest of vipers!..doh..Eileen

Hilary:Sorry I can't read your reply Sandra. It's trashed again :). But I'm sure it's good! My doubts about Eleanor stem from the lack of evidence presented to Parliament. This was an age when evidence was meticulously collected - proof of age, assignment of dower, IPM, annulments. Where is the record which says John Brown was tying his shoelace when Edward waltzed by with his arm round Eleanor? Yes it could have been destroyed but like TR there was surely more than one copy? HMarie:Slight misconception here, I think. The reasons why proof of age and dower rights data survive is that these were things that needed to be collected all the time, and kept for reference, so there was a system for filing them. Even so, an awful lot are missing, eg writs of diem clausit extremum with no corresponding inquisitions post mortem, and vice versa. As for annulments, there are cases recorded in surviving Cause papers but there are very patchy. The cause papers for about half of all dioceses have disappeared, and the surviving cases in the rest are few any far between compared to earlier periods. A very short section from one of the York Act Books which I got a copy of contains references to several annulment cases for which there are no corresponding cause papers surviving. In fact, on the basis of that sample I'd say that 3/4 of all annulment causes papers (case records) from the Consistory Court at York from our period have been lost. One of these cases is that of Cecily Plantagenet and Ralph Scrope - we know about it only because the fact of it is recorded in the Act Book.As for parliamentary records, all that was recorded at this period were the bills that were actually passed, and notes on the dates parliament sat, and the Chancellor's speech, choosing of Speaker, etc. Discussions in parliament and bills that were voted down were *not* included in the rolls.And even with normal legal cases, all that survives are the indictments and, if you're very lucky, the verdict. Evidence was not kept. The only place you will find any is in the Year Books, where discussions of knotty points of law and novel legal rulings were recorded. Again, however, I suspect these don't record all such discussions that took place.There is a note in the surviving Year Books from June 1483 relating to the legality of setting aside a king whose claim had been found to be faulty, but the wording suggests it has been tampered with and - although I would need to check - I think all the copies we have may be later ones - Tudor period or later. This is where you'd expect to find discussion of the precontract, but I'm quite sure if it was there it would have been expunged from the record like TR; no point in destroying one and not the other because copies of the Year Books circulated amongst lawyers and law schools. The fact that the justices were discussing what was right when a king had been found to have a false claim does rather suggest the claim itself had already been discussed and decided on.My usual old maxim applies "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Hilary..im delighted to hear about birds being shot by a camera and not a gun..makes a lovely change..(I live in the midst of shooting country and its not nice)..but I digress...Re evidence shown to Parliament to substantiate the Talbot marriage..do we know what it was? Anyone? (We need JAH here as what he doesn't know about Eleanor you could put on the back of a postage stamp) But whatever it was must have been very, very plausible. Richard didn't always get his way as i recall that on his taking the Protectorship the Council wouldnt let him have his own way with everything. The thought of a child king was probably a not very welcoming one especially a Woodville one but surely they (Parliament) would have been very, very loath to deprive young Edward of his right to the throne if it was indeed a legal one. I feel quite sure that the evidence that was shown, whatever that was must have been substantial and watertight. In any event surely it is not surprising that there is a dearth of evidence on this marriage. It would have been of the utmost urgency/importance to HT that any such evidence was destroyed as it could prove that his wife was a bastard. That a copy of Titulus Regius did survive is nothing more than a miracle. So much of this time doesn't survive..quickly off the top of my head, Richard's will, documentary evidence where his son was buried..and so much more. Further to add to the murk..Edward would have gone to great lengths to ensure that his marriage with Eleanor was kept top secret as its obvious he didn't have any intention of sticking with her..well not after he had slept with her. Its surprising he didn't do the same to EW..something must have gone on there..but who knows what..he doesn't sound like a man capable of deep love. Eileen

I reckon your point about consummation is very valid. This was the daughter of a national hero and a Beauchamp. Marie mentioned Horspool's point about the delay in Edward revealing his EW marriage as a hope that it would be annulled or forgotten. Much as I acknowledge the work JAH does he does sometimes put two and two together and make 6 let alone 5. We don't even know whether Edward actually met Eleanor. All we have on paper at this time is her name in the CPR and the fact that someone must have convinced the powers that be. There isn't even a deed that links them. As for the same sex relationship I'm intrigued but as you say if could be an extension of the rumours around Edward's sexual appetite. Strangely enough to the best of my knowledge it was something never rumoured about Henry VIII. HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 14:17, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:
I have also thought about whether the Eleanor/Edward relationship was actually a 'marriage.' For a secret medieval marriage to be valid, the requirements were the promise of marriage plus consummation, with the latter being harder to prove, because it was done in private. Maybe this is where the Eleanor question all went wrong - if she backed out before they got around to consummating the marriage. Something could have gone wrong even in the space of a few hours like a misunderstanding of what was actually intended. Eleanor was from the nobility, and it would have been realistic for her to expect a wedding befitting her status. She may have seen the 'vows' she made with Edward only as an acceptance of his proposal or a private betrothal, but she had no intention of consummating it until the actual wedding. If Edward was being coy about their relationship around other people or indefinite about his intentions, that may have made her uncomfortable. Edward would have just gone on his merry way and found another mistress. He and Eleanor drifted apart and she dies a few years later, never speaking out because there was never anything to actually say.After more than 20 years, Stillington (either having been present or hearing it from someone else) speaks out about the marriage to Eleanor. Knowing Edward, he would have assumed the marriage was consummated, never having considered that Eleanor was the one who rejected him. Richard probably thought the same. I don't think Richard would have been offered the crown, or would have accepted it without a good faith belief in the Eleanor story. Could it have been that the course of history was changed because of what someone thought had happened rather than what actually did happen (the truth of which was known only to the two people involved)? I am also intrigued about J-AH's speculation about Edward IV having a same sex relationship. I have never heard anything about him being gay or bisexual before, only that he was a womanizer. Was he really like that or was it a myth he liked to create around himself. Some men do that to cover up their insecurity about their sexuality. Also, some psychologists believe that men sharing the same women sexually is a sign of latent homosexuality. Who knows, but I would love to know more.Nico On Thursday, 8 September 2016, 8:34, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Sorry I can't read your reply Sandra. It's trashed again :). But I'm sure it's good! My doubts about Eleanor stem from the lack of evidence presented to Parliament. This was an age when evidence was meticulously collected - proof of age, assignment of dower, IPM, annulments. Where is the record which says John Brown was tying his shoelace when Edward waltzed by with his arm round Eleanor? Yes it could have been destroyed but like TR there was surely more than one copy? HSent from my iPhoneOn 8 Sep 2016, at 01:18, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Sandra..you have summed it all up neatly..what a nest of vipers!..doh..Eileen

I never saw Nico's message attached to your post Hilary..I must say some very good points raised there.Re Edward delaying making his marriage to EW public because he hoped he could get it annulled..love the irony...serve him right. Eileen

Yes I realise of course that there is loads of missing stuff. I was just hoping that somewhere, in someone's proof of age for example, there might be a reference to 'that was the day when King Edward visited Chepyng Darsett, met with Lady Sudeley, etc etc'. A lot of these documents are still being translated as I understand it. Are all the surviving Eschaetors' accounts now with TNA but not all linked individuals listed. You probably know tha York annulment records are now listed in the Cause records of the Borthwick Institute. Sorry about spelling! HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 14:43, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary:Sorry I can't read your reply Sandra. It's trashed again :). But I'm sure it's good! My doubts about Eleanor stem from the lack of evidence presented to Parliament. This was an age when evidence was meticulously collected - proof of age, assignment of dower, IPM, annulments. Where is the record which says John Brown was tying his shoelace when Edward waltzed by with his arm round Eleanor? Yes it could have been destroyed but like TR there was surely more than one copy? HMarie:Slight misconception here, I think. The reasons why proof of age and dower rights data survive is that these were things that needed to be collected all the time, and kept for reference, so there was a system for filing them. Even so, an awful lot are missing, eg writs of diem clausit extremum with no corresponding inquisitions post mortem, and vice versa. As for annulments, there are cases recorded in surviving Cause papers but there are very patchy. The cause papers for about half of all dioceses have disappeared, and the surviving cases in the rest are few any far between compared to earlier periods. A very short section from one of the York Act Books which I got a copy of contains references to several annulment cases for which there are no corresponding cause papers surviving. In fact, on the basis of that sample I'd say that 3/4 of all annulment causes papers (case records) from the Consistory Court at York from our period have been lost. One of these cases is that of Cecily Plantagenet and Ralph Scrope - we know about it only because the fact of it is recorded in the Act Book.As for parliamentary records, all that was recorded at this period were the bills that were actually passed, and notes on the dates parliament sat, and the Chancellor's speech, choosing of Speaker, etc. Discussions in parliament and bills that were voted down were *not* included in the rolls.And even with normal legal cases, all that survives are the indictments and, if you're very lucky, the verdict. Evidence was not kept. The only place you will find any is in the Year Books, where discussions of knotty points of law and novel legal rulings were recorded. Again, however, I suspect these don't record all such discussions that took place.There is a note in the surviving Year Books from June 1483 relating to the legality of setting aside a king whose claim had been found to be faulty, but the wording suggests it has been tampered with and - although I would need to check - I think all the copies we have may be later ones - Tudor period or later. This is where you'd expect to find discussion of the precontract, but I'm quite sure if it was there it would have been expunged from the record like TR; no point in destroying one and not the other because copies of the Year Books circulated amongst lawyers and law schools. The fact that the justices were discussing what was right when a king had been found to have a false claim does rather suggest the claim itself had already been discussed and decided on.My usual old maxim applies "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Hi Eileen. See my reply to Marie. I was just hoping that somewhere out there someone noticed something and it's got recorded in an innocuous document. In fact I should have said to her we are so lucky the lawyers then we're so meticulous so we have so much information that has survived. HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 14:45, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
Hilary..im delighted to hear about birds being shot by a camera and not a gun..makes a lovely change..(I live in the midst of shooting country and its not nice)..but I digress...Re evidence shown to Parliament to substantiate the Talbot marriage..do we know what it was? Anyone? (We need JAH here as what he doesn't know about Eleanor you could put on the back of a postage stamp) But whatever it was must have been very, very plausible. Richard didn't always get his way as i recall that on his taking the Protectorship the Council wouldnt let him have his own way with everything. The thought of a child king was probably a not very welcoming one especially a Woodville one but surely they (Parliament) would have been very, very loath to deprive young Edward of his right to the throne if it was indeed a legal one. I feel quite sure that the evidence that was shown, whatever that was must have been substantial and watertight. In any event surely it is not surprising that there is a dearth of evidence on this marriage. It would have been of the utmost urgency/importance to HT that any such evidence was destroyed as it could prove that his wife was a bastard. That a copy of Titulus Regius did survive is nothing more than a miracle. So much of this time doesn't survive..quickly off the top of my head, Richard's will, documentary evidence where his son was buried..and so much more. Further to add to the murk..Edward would have gone to great lengths to ensure that his marriage with Eleanor was kept top secret as its obvious he didn't have any intention of sticking with her..well not after he had slept with her. Its surprising he didn't do the same to EW..something must have gone on there..but who knows what..he doesn't sound like a man capable of deep love. Eileen

If only Eleanor had thought to kept a diary....But further to my belief in the truth of the said marriage...pure speculation on my part but IF Edward had indeed married Eleanor AND consummated it I would think it is a very strong possibility that Edward at some time or other informed Hastings of it..bosom drinking buddies and all that..and I strongly suspect that Catesby knew as well..furthermore for what is worth I suggest that Catesby betrayed Hastings to get him removed..Hastings knew too much..but whether he lied or merely told the truth about Hastings activities I don't know.,and that would account for..among other things..why Catesby was aghast upon the eve of his execution that his 'friends' had failed to help him in his hour of need. Catesby was up to it to his neck another one who knew too much and in any case was untrustworthy...What A Nest Of Vipers..Eileen

Could alcohol have led to Edward's early death do you think, Eileen?From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []Sent: 07/09/2016 23:58To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Well if George was a heavy drinker or even an alcoholic he certainly gave a good account of himself at his trial...i use the term loosely...where he stood toe to toe with his brother, the king..Croyland wrote 'for not a single person uttered a word against the duke, not one individual made answer to the king accept the duke'..incidentally I wonder if it was Edward who was the alcoholic in the family in actual fact..he certainly gave a good impression of of couch potato..a kind of medieval Nero...probably the most responsible of anyone of the downfall of the Plantagenets..all because he couldnt keep it in his pants. Eileen

I wonder if Eleanor realised she had been taken for a fool and was ashamed of what had happened to her. She just kept quiet and got on with her life as if nothing had happened.JessFrom: cherryripe.eileenb@... []Sent: 06/09/2016 18:33To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
That was a question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

Jessie,,could alcohol have led to Edward's early death? GOod question,,there is a difference between a heavy drinker and an alcoholic I think...but casting that aside I believe that someone has to drink heavily for a long time..years..before it kills them by alcohol poisoning etc., Would Edward have been allowed to have drunk heavily for a long period of time before someone mentioned it to him...a brave doctor maybe,,I don't know...because he would have been clearly unfit to rule surely? But yes I do think he was a heavy drinker and a glutton ...I read somewhere that he would feast and then make himself vomit so he could eat even more. Forgot where I read that or if it's an accurate picture. It's still a mystery what killed him isn't it...but it doesn't sound as if he didn't really help himself health wise. Eileen

Re Eleanor..I do think that's very possible Jessie..in fact, for me, it's the most obvious and likely of explanations as to why Eleanor remained silent...along with staying alive of course. Poor Eleanor,,,

I think you are close to the truth.

Some of us seem to be over complicating
the situation, however. A secret marriage doesn't need five or more people to
be present but three or even two will suffice. It doesn't need a chain of
Chinese Whispers across the decades involving just about everyone but the
simplest possible solutions are that:
i) Stillington was present at the wedding.
ii) Edward confessed to Stillington soon
afterwards.

Even the denialists quote that contemporaneous
rhyme about Edward's mistresses and that admission on their part clearly
implies consummation on their part but JA-H has proved the marriage to be a simple
historical fact. He now has the precise date in 1461 on which the wedding took
place, at which they were together. To be either a wife or a mistress necessitates
full mortice-and-tenon sexual intercourse, not heavy breathing over the
telephone or e-mailing photos of their private parts, ergo they met, QED. They
are widely believed to have known each other as children.

Lady Eleanor Talbot was already, by June 1461,
the daughter of an Earl and war hero. In spring 1464, Elizabeth Woodville's
father was a Baron, created an Earl in 1466, so the former was socially
superior to the latter and a more appropriate royal bride.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 08 September 2016 15:39
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely


I wonder if Eleanor realised she had been taken for a fool
and was ashamed of what had happened to her. She just kept quiet and got on
with her life as if nothing had happened.

Jess
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
[]
Sent: 06/09/2016
18:33
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: Cicely

That was
a question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not
coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying
bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

Nico wrote:For a secret medieval marriage to be valid, the requirements were the promise of marriage plus consummation, with the latter being harder to prove, because it was done in private. Marie:Sorry, I'm afraid I'm going to be pedantic again. The requirements for a secret marriage to be valid were the same as for a public one. There were, for either, two possible ways of proceeding:-1) Exchanging a promise in the present tense (eg 'I take thee...'). That was immediately binding and did not require consummation; or2) Exchanging a promise in the future tense (eg 'I will take thee...'). This was not yet a complete marriage but a solemn betrothal, but would become a complete marriage if consummation followed.As it happens, it probably did occur as per option 2 because Commines says: "The bishop said that King Edward had promised to marry an English lady (whom he named) because he was in love with her, in order to get his own way with her, and that he had made this promise in the bishop's presence. And having done so he slept with her....'This may explain the phrase 'married and trothplight' in TR.

Hilary saidYes I realise of course that there is loads of missing stuff. I was just hoping that somewhere, in someone's proof of age for example, there might be a reference to 'that was the day when King Edward visited Chepyng Darsett, met with Lady Sudeley, etc etc'. Marie:Sorry, I was answering your point that you are suspicious bout lack of evidence presented to parliament. This is a different point.Hilary wrote:A lot of these documents are still being translated as I understand it. Are all the surviving Eschaetors' accounts now with TNA but not all linked individuals listed. You probably know tha York annulment records are now listed in the Cause records of the Borthwick Institute. Sorry about spelling! Marie:I am talking about what I know to exist and not exist, not what has been translated - I don't require a translation, fortunately, or a transcription come to that. Yes, indeed I do know the York Cause Papers are in the Borthwick (as are the Act Books, which is where I ordered my copies from).

1. Why have we suddenly taken to believing Commines2. Why would Edward need to confess to Stillington if Stillington had married him?3. Sorry but JAH hasn't proved anything. His book is full of might haves and could haves which is fair enough on here but not to claim as historical truth. I know that sounds harsh and I enjoy his book but sometimes he just goes that bit too farRe Catesby, he had no reason to feel sympathy for Eleanor. His family had been after her Burton Dassett lands for about a hundred years. They were the Mayfair on the Monopoly board of the wool trade. So Catesby could well be in there somewhere. HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 17:16, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


I think you are close to the truth.

Some of us seem to be over complicating
the situation, however. A secret marriage doesn't need five or more people to
be present but three or even two will suffice. It doesn't need a chain of
Chinese Whispers across the decades involving just about everyone but the
simplest possible solutions are that:
i) Stillington was present at the wedding.
ii) Edward confessed to Stillington soon
afterwards.

Even the denialists quote that contemporaneous
rhyme about Edward's mistresses and that admission on their part clearly
implies consummation on their part but JA-H has proved the marriage to be a simple
historical fact. He now has the precise date in 1461 on which the wedding took
place, at which they were together. To be either a wife or a mistress necessitates
full mortice-and-tenon sexual intercourse, not heavy breathing over the
telephone or e-mailing photos of their private parts, ergo they met, QED. They
are widely believed to have known each other as children.

Lady Eleanor Talbot was already, by June 1461,
the daughter of an Earl and war hero. In spring 1464, Elizabeth Woodville's
father was a Baron, created an Earl in 1466, so the former was socially
superior to the latter and a more appropriate royal bride.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 08 September 2016 15:39
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely


I wonder if Eleanor realised she had been taken for a fool
and was ashamed of what had happened to her. She just kept quiet and got on
with her life as if nothing had happened.

Jess
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
[]
Sent: 06/09/2016
18:33
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: Cicely

That was
a question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not
coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying
bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

Stephen wote:[JAH] now has the precise date in 1461 on which the wedding took place, at which they were together. To be either a wife or a mistress necessitates full mortice-and-tenon sexual intercourse, not heavy breathing over the telephone or e-mailing photos of their private parts, ergo they met, QED. They are widely believed to have known each other as children.Marie:I think John has withdrawn that date now, if it was the one in early May, as he has discovered that Edward was still in the far North at that time.Again, sorry to belabour this but sexual intercourse would not have been necessary to make Eleanor Edward's wife if they had exchanged marriage vows in the present tense. Whichever version Edward had used, however, his purpose would have been to get Eleanor to have sex with him so it can be assumed that consummation would indeed have followed.I do agree that we have been overcomplicating things. I wouldn't put John's work as strongly as proof myself, and I reserve the right to keep an open mind, but I think its highly unlikely that this marriage was an invention, particularly given the lengths Henry VII went to in order to prevent Stillington being questioned about it by parliament.

Eleanor Talbot was in a very unenviable position. She was, apparently, a very devout woman. Imagine her embarrassment in finding she had been let down. Almost inevitably a sense of deep guilt and shame - no matter that we as moderns would see it rather differently. In my view it's not surprising if she decided to go off and live in obscurity.But look at it another way. What else could she do?She had no powerful, close male relatives. Her brother, Humphrey Talbot, was himself rather obscure. He took Norfolk's livery, and eventually received minor promotion from Edward IV. He was not well-placed to rock the boat.Norfolk was a prime Yorkist. He did, on occasion 'do his own thing' in East Anglia, and Edward was not always best pleased with him on that account. But he was not a great mover and shaker in politics and I think him an unlikely rebel against Edward IV. Her mother, Margaret, Countess of Shrewsbury, was a formidable woman, and lived until the summer of 1468. But even if she knew, could she have done anything? Like Duchess Elizabeth, about all she could have done practically would have been to have a quiet word with the Duchess of York. Anything more overt than that would have been highly dangerous.Perhaps Eleanor just wanted the whole thing forgotten about. And while Edward IV lived, that was the safest option, giving that we are talking about a man who was prepared to execute his own brother. Are you really going to go up against that unless you have an actual army? To what avail? It's not as if Eleanor even had a son.Brian W.

And Stillington was re-arrested on 23 August 1485 and thrown into prison where he died June 1491....speaks volumes doesn't it? Poor Stillington...most unjust if his ' crime' was knowing the truth ...

Neither do I but I notice that some of the Escheators' accounts submitted do not appear in any IPM. For example I've not seen any IPM conducted by some Escheators from Staffs or Northants. Is it just that they've not be released by TNA, or have been put out to translation projects such as Winchester Uni or that led by Christine Carpenter? That's what I was asking. Sorry if I was not clear. HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 17:42, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary saidYes I realise of course that there is loads of missing stuff. I was just hoping that somewhere, in someone's proof of age for example, there might be a reference to 'that was the day when King Edward visited Chepyng Darsett, met with Lady Sudeley, etc etc'. Marie:Sorry, I was answering your point that you are suspicious bout lack of evidence presented to parliament. This is a different point.Hilary wrote:A lot of these documents are still being translated as I understand it. Are all the surviving Eschaetors' accounts now with TNA but not all linked individuals listed. You probably know tha York annulment records are now listed in the Cause records of the Borthwick Institute. Sorry about spelling! Marie:I am talking about what I know to exist and not exist, not what has been translated - I don't require a translation, fortunately, or a transcription come to that. Yes, indeed I do know the York Cause Papers are in the Borthwick (as are the Act Books, which is where I ordered my copies from).

Eileen
wrote:
Well
if George was a heavy drinker or even an alcoholic he certainly gave a good
account of himself at his trial...i use the term loosely...where he stood
toe to toe with his brother, the king..Croyland wrote 'for not a single person
uttered a word against the duke, not one individual made answer to the king
accept the duke'..incidentally I wonder if it was Edward who was the alcoholic
in the family in actual fact..he certainly gave a good impression of of couch
potato..a kind of medieval Nero...probably the most responsible of anyone of the
downfall of the Plantagenets..all because he couldnt keep it in his
pants.
Doug
here:
Actually,
I was thinking of the type of alcoholic who manages quite well <i>as long
as he doesn't over-indulge</i>. As long as George stuck to the regular
diluted wine, he'd be alright but, if he got his hands on the hard stuff, he'd
go off and do things such as hanging people or accusing his brother of poisoning
Isabel and her baby. I'm not even certain if that's considered to be a form of
alcoholism, but I do know of such instances, whatever it's called.
It
seems to me that, whatever else, George definitely resented Edward. Which,
I think, is one reason George was so determined to marry Isabel in the first
place  she was one of the two richest heiresses in the country (her sister
being the other) and the money she brought with her would place George on a
near-equal plane with Edward. Then there's the fact that Isabel's father was the
Earl of Warwick and, after Edward (if and when he could be bothered), the next
most powerful and influential personage in the kingdom.
This
is not to say that George and Isabel hated each other or anything such as that,
but only that George's <b>original</b> reason for marrying Isabel
was to get away from being dependent on a brother he deeply resented. Another
thing that occurred to me is that Edward, from the day he was born, was the heir
of the House of York; George wasn't even the spare, that was his older brother
Edmund. Yet another reason for resentment?
Whether
George was an out-and-out alcoholic and, to a certain extent, <i>non
compos mentis</i> when he drank too much; or merely someone who, when in
his cups, allowed years of pent-up resentment and anger bubble up, lashing out
at any nearby target, is something I can't quite decide. I do think the results
would, in either case, likely appear the same.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I know we go on about this (and Brian you make good points) but so many of Richard's biographers dismiss it altogether as proof he was a schemer who made it up. Some devote less than a page to itSo it is very important indeed to get everything about it right. We're all on the same side but they aren't. Even some of his defenders shy away when we get to this because of the lack of proof. It's up there with the princes, or perhaps even more important. HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 17:42, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary saidYes I realise of course that there is loads of missing stuff. I was just hoping that somewhere, in someone's proof of age for example, there might be a reference to 'that was the day when King Edward visited Chepyng Darsett, met with Lady Sudeley, etc etc'. Marie:Sorry, I was answering your point that you are suspicious bout lack of evidence presented to parliament. This is a different point.Hilary wrote:A lot of these documents are still being translated as I understand it. Are all the surviving Eschaetors' accounts now with TNA but not all linked individuals listed. You probably know tha York annulment records are now listed in the Cause records of the Borthwick Institute. Sorry about spelling! Marie:I am talking about what I know to exist and not exist, not what has been translated - I don't require a translation, fortunately, or a transcription come to that. Yes, indeed I do know the York Cause Papers are in the Borthwick (as are the Act Books, which is where I ordered my copies from).

Eileen with regard to your last paragraph and I might have posted this previously, I think that Edward might not have intended to honor his marriage to EW because it took several months for him to announce it. I think that he reckoned without Jacquetta and EW and how determined they were.Mary

1) Commynes is all we have on this, until
we find something else. Chapuys was always well-informed.

2) It was either/ or.

3) He has proved a lot and is almost unique
among historians in understanding science and logic.

I know you have tried hard to connect
Stillington, Catesby and Lady Eleanor via descendants not born until the
following century but, logically, that cannot amount to evidence against the
precontract.
Logically, it is now a fact unless there
is some real counter-evidence.
Logically, we don't need Catesby or
Hastings so we ought to ignore them.
Otherwise, Viscountess Boleyn must have
been loyal to Henry VIII because her grandfather (Parker) fought for his father
at Bosworth. Lord Guildford Dudley's grandfather was at Deptford Bridge so Guildford
must have supported Mary.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 08 September 2016 16:51
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely


1. Why have we suddenly taken to believing Commines

2. Why would Edward need to confess to Stillington if Stillington had
married him?

3. Sorry but JAH hasn't proved anything. His book is full of
might haves and could haves which is fair enough on here but not to claim as
historical truth. I know that sounds harsh and I enjoy his book but sometimes
he just goes that bit too far

Re Catesby, he had no reason to feel sympathy for Eleanor. His family
had been after her Burton Dassett lands for about a hundred years. They were
the Mayfair on the Monopoly board of the wool
trade. So Catesby could well be in there somewhere. H

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Sep 2016, at 17:16, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@...
[] <>
wrote:

I think you are close to the truth.

Some of us seem to be over complicating the situation, however. A
secret marriage doesn't need five or more people to be present but three or
even two will suffice. It doesn't need a chain of Chinese Whispers across the
decades involving just about everyone but the simplest possible solutions are
that:
i) Stillington was present at the wedding.
ii) Edward confessed to Stillington soon afterwards.

Even the denialists quote that contemporaneous rhyme about Edward's
mistresses and that admission on their part clearly implies consummation on
their part but JA-H has proved the marriage to be a simple historical fact. He
now has the precise date in 1461 on which the wedding took place, at which they
were together. To be either a wife or a mistress necessitates full
mortice-and-tenon sexual intercourse, not heavy breathing over the telephone or
e-mailing photos of their private parts, ergo they met, QED. They are widely
believed to have known each other as children.

Lady Eleanor Talbot was already, by June 1461, the daughter of an
Earl and war hero. In spring 1464, Elizabeth Woodville's father was a Baron,
created an Earl in 1466, so the former was socially superior to the latter and
a more appropriate royal bride.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 08 September 2016 15:39
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely


I wonder
if Eleanor realised she had been taken for a fool and was ashamed of what had
happened to her. She just kept quiet and got on with her life as if nothing had
happened.

Jess
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
[]
Sent: 06/09/2016
18:33
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: Cicely

That was a
question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not
coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying
bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

I agree with you Doug on many points particularly George feeling resentment towards Edward...and how this came about. It's all about the human factor isn't it because that doesn't change much over the centuries.. For,one thing there was Warwick more or less promising Geoege he would be King...there were the stories of Edward's illegitimacy which would thus make him, George, rightful king, the Woodvilles winding him right up, after Isobels death when a marriage to Marie of Burgundy was suggested by his sister Margaret Edward put a stop to that and I dare say so much more. For what it's worth you could maybe add Edward's rather cavalier and unwise treatment of his father in law Warwick and there you have it..sibling rivalry doesn't cover it, It's no good pointing out, as people do, that Edward was generous, and forgave him numerous occasions..it would have been George's perception of it that mattered..Whether George was a drinker and this added to the equation I don't know but IMHO I don't believe the story of execution via dunking poor George in a vat of malmsey was a kind of a jest because he as a drinker..I believe that was the way he was executed..maybe because George requested it..in a fit of bravado maybe? or maybe Edward didn't want to shed royal blood..?? Interestingly the well known portrait of George's daughter Margaret of Salisbury has a little keg charm hanging from her bracelet..Eileen

Mary...I must say I have never thought of this before now...and of course it makes perfect sense doesn't it? Could EW have led him to believe she was pregnant...actually if it wasn't so tragic it would be funny..Eileen

And then there was arrogant Warwick, who still thought he was in charge and so needed to be taken down a peg or two. Edward saw a way of wiping the smile off the Kingmaker's face, and boy, did he achieve it! Once the words were uttered, though, Edward
was stuck with his Woodville wife and the ferocious Warwick just about as affronted as was possible. Edward IV may have been king and a great warrior, but he was also a frivolous young man with all his brains in his codpiece. And yes, Mary, there were his
new wife and in-laws as well..... I imagine that he was secretly filled with self-pity. Poor me, what did I do to deserve all this?
(From Mary Friend)
Eileen with regard to your last paragraph and I might have posted this previously, I think that Edward might not have intended to honor his marriage to EW because it took several months for him to announce it. I think that he
reckoned without Jacquetta and EW and how determined they were.

Hilary:I notice that some of the Escheators' accounts submitted do not appear in any IPM. For example I've not seen any IPM conducted by some Escheators from Staffs or Northants. Is it just that they've not be released by TNA, or have been put out to translation projects such as Winchester Uni or that led by Christine Carpenter? That's what I was asking. Sorry if I was not clear.Marie:Sorry I'm still not completely clear. What do you mean by "released" by TNA? Do you mean published? If so, then no many have not been published, which is why there is the ongoing IPM publication project, to which the Society is contributing funds for the IPMs for Richard's reign. We do have all the IPMs from Henry VII's reign published in precis form in 3 volumes, as I'm sure you're familiar with. If you read the introduction it comments on the missing IPMs and writs of dce.

Eileen wrote:But further to my belief in the truth of the said marriage...pure speculation on my part but IF Edward had indeed married Eleanor AND consummated it I would think it is a very strong possibility that Edward at some time or other informed Hastings of it..bosom drinking buddies and all thatMarie:I think you have a good point about Hastings - Edward's buddy and also his chamberlain, in charge of the royal inner sanctum and all who came & went. I seem to recall there is evidence of a sort that he may have put Edward in touch with EW. Very probable that he knew about all Edward's ladies.If I were writing a novel, I might have it that Stillington and Hastings were both present when Edward exchanged vows with Eleanor, and in June 1483 Stillington was foolish enough to discuss with Hastings his feeling that the best thing all round would be to come clean given the trouble the Woodvilles were causing. Hastings disagreed because he was determined to protect the succession of Edward's children, but Stillington does it anyway and lets Hastings know he has done the cat is out of the bag and that the legal implications of the precontract are being quietly looked into. Hastings panics and joins forces with the Woodvilles, and the rest is history. Pure speculation, but I think it works. Would love any weaknesses in this scenario to be pointed out.But to return to Hilary's last point - that is the problem. We cannot actually prove that the marriage to Eleanor occurred, and we need to be honest about that because false proofs cause a bigger credibility gap in the long run. What we can show is that it is very likely to have been true.

Marie : What we can show is that is is likely to have happened..Absolutely agree and I certainly would find no pleasure insisting something were true if it were not...what is the point in that. At the end of the day we simply don't know for sure..we cannot even absolutely believe what the chroniclers/citizens or whoever wrote at the time.. we can only add up what we do know happened, take into account what we know of the characters of the individuals involved, try to imagine how they felt at that time in that situation, add a modicum of common sense and go figure as they say. Eileen

I agree with so much of this, Eileen and Marie.From: mariewalsh2003Sent: 08/09/2016 19:59To: Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Eileen wrote:But further to my belief in the truth of the said marriage...pure speculation on my part but IF Edward had indeed married Eleanor AND consummated it I would think it is a very strong possibility that Edward at some time or other informed Hastings of it..bosom drinking buddies and all thatMarie:I think you have a good point about Hastings - Edward's buddy and also his chamberlain, in charge of the royal inner sanctum and all who came & went. I seem to recall there is evidence of a sort that he may have put Edward in touch with EW. Very probable that he knew about all Edward's ladies.If I were writing a novel, I might have it that Stillington and Hastings were both present when Edward exchanged vows with Eleanor, and in June 1483 Stillington was foolish enough to discuss with Hastings his feeling that the best thing all round would be to come clean given the trouble the Woodvilles were causing. Hastings disagreed because he was determined to protect the succession of Edward's children, but Stillington does it anyway and lets Hastings know he has done the cat is out of the bag and that the legal implications of the precontract are being quietly looked into. Hastings panics and joins forces with the Woodvilles, and the rest is history. Pure speculation, but I think it works. Would love any weaknesses in this scenario to be pointed out.But to return to Hilary's last point - that is the problem. We cannot actually prove that the marriage to Eleanor occurred, and we need to be honest about that because false proofs cause a bigger credibility gap in the long run. What we can show is that it is very likely to have been true.

Marie wrote:

"If I were writing a novel, I might have it that Stillington and Hastings were both present when Edward exchanged vows with Eleanor, and in June 1483 Stillington was foolish enough to discuss with Hastings his feeling that the best thing all round would be to come clean given the trouble the Woodvilles were causing. Hastings disagreed because he was determined to protect the succession of Edward's children, but Stillington does it anyway and lets Hastings know he has done the cat is out of the bag and that the legal implications of the precontract are being quietly looked into. Hastings panics and joins forces with the Woodvilles, and the rest is history.


"Pure speculation, but I think it works. Would love any weaknesses in this scenario to be pointed out."


That would explain a LOT that seems otherwise inexplicable about how both Hastings and Richard behaved in the spring and summer of 1483. (If only Moreton's and Stanley's heads had been added to Hastings' on the chopping block! Or perhaps just Moreton's...)


Tamara

Thanks Marie for setting me right. I had forgotten about the distinction between exchanging vows in the present and the future tense. It is such a shame that there is no record of what Stillington actually said to parliament, but whatever it was, it must have been serious for them to take the decision the Edward V was illegitimate rather than give him the benefit of the doubt. If Stillington swore that Edward made the vows in the present tense, then they may have had no choice. Also, your fictional scenario about Stillington andn Hastings does make sense.Nico On Friday, 9 September 2016, 2:57, "khafara@... []" <> wrote:
Marie wrote:

"If I were writing a novel, I might have it that Stillington and Hastings were both present when Edward exchanged vows with Eleanor, and in June 1483 Stillington was foolish enough to discuss with Hastings his feeling that the best thing all round would be to come clean given the trouble the Woodvilles were causing. Hastings disagreed because he was determined to protect the succession of Edward's children, but Stillington does it anyway and lets Hastings know he has done the cat is out of the bag and that the legal implications of the precontract are being quietly looked into. Hastings panics and joins forces with the Woodvilles, and the rest is history.

"Pure speculation, but I think it works. Would love any weaknesses in this scenario to be pointed out."

That would explain a LOT that seems otherwise inexplicable about how both Hastings and Richard behaved in the spring and summer of 1483. (If only Moreton's and Stanley's heads had been added to Hastings' on the chopping block! Or perhaps just Moreton's...)

Tamara

Ive taken a look at what JAH has to say about what evidence was presented to Parliament and he doesn't say much about it so its obviously not survived which is hardly surprising. But just because it hasnt survived it cannot be dismissed as not amounting to much and imho it must have been strong to get Parliament's approval/agreement. JAH does make a very good point in that he suggests that Stillington's testimony may have been 'supported by surviving members of Eleanor's family'. Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk springs to mind here instantly don't you think? JAH goes on to say 'the sum of evidence presented evidently convinced the royal council as it did the group of parliamentary representatives gathered in the capital in June 1483'..which led as we know to the three estates of the Realm petitioning Richard to take the throne. This is a strong, massively strong reason to believe in the pre contract alone. Parliament and the royal council could not all have been persuaded if it had all been fabricated. To think that does them a great disservice I think.. there must have a been at least a few brave men amongst them who would not have stood by and watched the rightful heir to the throne pushed to one side. JAH is firmly of the opinion that Stillington was present at the marriage but I keep a very open mind about that. I rather think along the lines that it being so top secret Jacquetta , helpfully, provided the priest and didn't I read somewhere the small boy that helped with the singing? Of course if it had indeed been Stillington that would certainly help clinch the matter regarding convincing both the Council and Parliament. But equally Edward could have off loaded onto Stillington at a later date. Eileen

But Commines isn't good enough is he? He only met HT once and that was when he was in exile and as for Chapuys, well he liked a dramaI'll try to take your remarks about my research in a good light however you clearly misunderstand what I do. You asked me a couple of years' ago to try to link Stillington with Eleanor. I can find no direct link but he clearly moved in her familial circle in Somerset and some of these connections are interesting for all sorts of reasons not just the pre contract. Similarly I never claimed Catesby was involved but his family have interesting ambitions. I spend as much time in deeds and IPMs as I do in genetics. They can't lieAs for JAH, he's done some good work in investigating the Eleanor story but he has yet to reach the league of Horrox, Carpenter or indeed Ross because every time he says something 'might' and it coincides with his Ricardian leanings detractors will say he's biased. That's why it's actually very difficult to write books on this because the only so-called sources near to Richard himself are almost exclusively written by the HT prop machine. Too much bias towards Richard and we become emotional. We have to have sources like deeds and wills which are beyond challengeHope this explains where I'm coming from. HSent from my iPhone On 8 Sep 2016, at 18:58, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


1) Commynes is all we have on this, until
we find something else. Chapuys was always well-informed.

2) It was either/ or.

3) He has proved a lot and is almost unique
among historians in understanding science and logic.

I know you have tried hard to connect
Stillington, Catesby and Lady Eleanor via descendants not born until the
following century but, logically, that cannot amount to evidence against the
precontract.
Logically, it is now a fact unless there
is some real counter-evidence.
Logically, we don't need Catesby or
Hastings so we ought to ignore them.
Otherwise, Viscountess Boleyn must have
been loyal to Henry VIII because her grandfather (Parker) fought for his father
at Bosworth. Lord Guildford Dudley's grandfather was at Deptford Bridge so Guildford
must have supported Mary.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 08 September 2016 16:51
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely


1. Why have we suddenly taken to believing Commines

2. Why would Edward need to confess to Stillington if Stillington had
married him?

3. Sorry but JAH hasn't proved anything. His book is full of
might haves and could haves which is fair enough on here but not to claim as
historical truth. I know that sounds harsh and I enjoy his book but sometimes
he just goes that bit too far

Re Catesby, he had no reason to feel sympathy for Eleanor. His family
had been after her Burton Dassett lands for about a hundred years. They were
the Mayfair on the Monopoly board of the wool
trade. So Catesby could well be in there somewhere. H

Sent from my iPhone

On 8 Sep 2016, at 17:16, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@...
[] <>
wrote:

I think you are close to the truth.

Some of us seem to be over complicating the situation, however. A
secret marriage doesn't need five or more people to be present but three or
even two will suffice. It doesn't need a chain of Chinese Whispers across the
decades involving just about everyone but the simplest possible solutions are
that:
i) Stillington was present at the wedding.
ii) Edward confessed to Stillington soon afterwards.

Even the denialists quote that contemporaneous rhyme about Edward's
mistresses and that admission on their part clearly implies consummation on
their part but JA-H has proved the marriage to be a simple historical fact. He
now has the precise date in 1461 on which the wedding took place, at which they
were together. To be either a wife or a mistress necessitates full
mortice-and-tenon sexual intercourse, not heavy breathing over the telephone or
e-mailing photos of their private parts, ergo they met, QED. They are widely
believed to have known each other as children.

Lady Eleanor Talbot was already, by June 1461, the daughter of an
Earl and war hero. In spring 1464, Elizabeth Woodville's father was a Baron,
created an Earl in 1466, so the former was socially superior to the latter and
a more appropriate royal bride.
From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 08 September 2016 15:39
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely


I wonder
if Eleanor realised she had been taken for a fool and was ashamed of what had
happened to her. She just kept quiet and got on with her life as if nothing had
happened.

Jess
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
[]
Sent: 06/09/2016
18:33
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: Cicely

That was a
question I was going to put to Marie...had Eleanor committed a sin in not
coming forward when she eventually found out about Edward marrying
bigamously..seems harsh...eileen

I like it too particularly with regard to Hastings. You'll guess I'm going to throw out Stillington as direct witness - i begin to know him better after two years and he's just too clever and risky for Edward to choose. He'd be off to the Pope in a thrice if Edward reneged on anythingNo. In my novel of all my candidates I'd choose John Newton as the other witness. Why? To placate the lady. His father had been daddy's lawyer and a judge. He was a lawyer and her brother in law. And he and his wife were very religious. 1483 would have given them the jitters and they could have consulted their local bishop and relative Stillington And he did get a reward. He was made a judge by Edward. HSent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2016, at 03:57, khafara@... [] <> wrote:
Marie wrote:

"If I were writing a novel, I might have it that Stillington and Hastings were both present when Edward exchanged vows with Eleanor, and in June 1483 Stillington was foolish enough to discuss with Hastings his feeling that the best thing all round would be to come clean given the trouble the Woodvilles were causing. Hastings disagreed because he was determined to protect the succession of Edward's children, but Stillington does it anyway and lets Hastings know he has done the cat is out of the bag and that the legal implications of the precontract are being quietly looked into. Hastings panics and joins forces with the Woodvilles, and the rest is history.

"Pure speculation, but I think it works. Would love any weaknesses in this scenario to be pointed out."

That would explain a LOT that seems otherwise inexplicable about how both Hastings and Richard behaved in the spring and summer of 1483. (If only Moreton's and Stanley's heads had been added to Hastings' on the chopping block! Or perhaps just Moreton's...)

Tamara

Hilary:I'll try to take your remarks about my research in a good light however you clearly misunderstand what I do. You asked me a couple of years' ago to try to link Stillington with Eleanor. I can find no direct link but he clearly moved in her familial circle in Somerset and some of these connections are interesting for all sorts of reasons not just the pre contract. Similarly I never claimed Catesby was involved but his family have interesting ambitions. I spend as much time in deeds and IPMs as I do in genetics. They can't lieMarie:Stephen hasn't misunderstood what you do.Respectfully, they can lie in a sense. That is, they can be made to say something they don't, which is what Stephen and I feel you have done here. Stillington made that one marriage for his probably daughter, probably whilst he was still resident in the diocese, to someone who was not heavily invested in any political cause. He had no part in the marriages of his grand-daughters, and wasn't even alive for the later marriages. Marriages made in Tudor times will have favoured families who had thrived under the Tudors. All you have demonstrated is the obvious point, that Stillington married Juliana into the Somerset gentry.To blame someone for the marriages of his distant descendants is not reasonable.

Eileen
wrote:
I
agree with you Doug on many points particularly George feeling resentment
towards Edward...and how this came about. It's all about the human factor isn't
it because that doesn't change much over the centuries.. For,one thing there was
Warwick more or less promising Geoege he would be King...there were the stories
of Edward's illegitimacy which would thus make him, George, rightful king, the
Woodvilles winding him right up, after Isobels death when a marriage to
Marie of Burgundy was suggested by his sister Margaret Edward put a stop to that
and I dare say so much more. For what it's worth you could maybe add
Edward's rather cavalier and unwise treatment of his father in law Warwick and
there you have it..sibling rivalry doesn't cover it, It's no good pointing
out, as people do, that Edward was generous, and forgave him numerous
occasions..it would have been George's perception of it that mattered..Whether
George was a drinker an d this added to the equation I don't know but IMHO I
don't believe the story of execution via dunking poor George in a vat of malmsey
was a kind of a jest because he as a drinker..I believe that was the way he was
executed..maybe because George requested it..in a fit of bravado maybe? or maybe
Edward didn't want to shed royal blood..?? Interestingly the well known
portrait of George's daughter Margaret of Salisbury has a little keg charm
hanging from her bracelet.
Doug
here:
You
wrote: It's all about the human factor... and I think that's where so much
writing about the WoR and Richard have come to grief. Even admitting the
difficulty in doing so, one always must <i>try</i> to remember that
we're talking about human beings and their reactions to what was happening. To
expect those human reactions to be completely different from human reactions
today because the political set-up isn't the same is, IMO,
unrealistic.
As
for that story about George and the butt of Malmsey, I sort of wonder if maybe
it's true in the sense that George was allowed to drink as much as he wanted of
his favorite wine prior to his execution? Whether as a gesture to George's
fondness for the wine itself or, possibly, as a form of Dutch courage,
wouldn't, in the end matter.
Doug
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sorry I haven't blamed him at all. I merely pointed out in relation to another topic that the families they married into had strong Welsh links through the Byttons and Newtons and therefore did rather well under the Tudors. Those links probably had nothing to do with Stillington but could relate to the treatment of Clarence for a start who was situated just up the roadThe girls must have married about 1483 for Margaret Cholke died in August thenIn fact if I could prove that Jenet Percival in the York Visitation (faulty we know) was related to the Percival's who had held Gordano since the Conquest then the marriages would be explained. But I'm not even going to say 'might':)If we're looking for Lancastrian links for Stillington (and he had been a strong Henry VI man) then look no further than those surrounding him in Yorkshire - the Gascoignes, Bigods, Percies. All fought for Lancaster at TowtonAnd no I'm not saying he was a secret Lancastrian either. Just that all these things put more flesh on the man - who is still work in progress!Sent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2016, at 13:55, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
Hilary:I'll try to take your remarks about my research in a good light however you clearly misunderstand what I do. You asked me a couple of years' ago to try to link Stillington with Eleanor. I can find no direct link but he clearly moved in her familial circle in Somerset and some of these connections are interesting for all sorts of reasons not just the pre contract. Similarly I never claimed Catesby was involved but his family have interesting ambitions. I spend as much time in deeds and IPMs as I do in genetics. They can't lieMarie:Stephen hasn't misunderstood what you do.Respectfully, they can lie in a sense. That is, they can be made to say something they don't, which is what Stephen and I feel you have done here. Stillington made that one marriage for his probably daughter, probably whilst he was still resident in the diocese, to someone who was not heavily invested in any political cause. He had no part in the marriages of his grand-daughters, and wasn't even alive for the later marriages. Marriages made in Tudor times will have favoured families who had thrived under the Tudors. All you have demonstrated is the obvious point, that Stillington married Juliana into the Somerset gentry.To blame someone for the marriages of his distant descendants is not reasonable.

Eileen
wrote:
I
agree.. certain parties would have initially been miffed that although Eleanor
was of noble blood it would have been better for the realm if Edward had married
a foreign princess. However having presented them with a fait accompli
they may well have shut up and put up as Eleanor did not bring with her a
family of scheming, greedy upstarts, Edward would not have upset all and sundry
and things would, obviously have turned out a lot different. However as
Eleanor does appear to have maybe been barren problems would have arisen no
doubt from there...presumably George would not have been executed and maybe
there would have been a George l with a Neville queen...and Richard may have
happily remained in the north of England..oh good lord..im rambling
now.
Doug
here:
Well,
I <i>did</i> drop that uproar I'd originally included.
However,
knowing what we do about Edward, would it be safe to say that
<b>any</b> opposition to a suggested marriage between himself and
Eleanor, whether she was named or not, might easily cause him to drop the matter
 for the time being? Or, at least, that would be what Edward would tell
himself.
And
then, before he can bring the matter up again, he falls for Elizabeth
Woodville....
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Sorry I can't read your reply Sandra. It's trashed again :). But I'm sure
it's good! My doubts about Eleanor stem from the lack of evidence
presented to Parliament. This was an age when evidence was meticulously
collected - proof of age, assignment of dower, IPM, annulments. Where is
the record which says John Brown was tying his shoelace when Edward waltzed by
with his arm round Eleanor? Yes it could have been destroyed but like TR
there was surely more than one copy?
Doug here:
Sorry about the delay, but something occurred to me while filing this
post.
What about <i>verbal</i> evidence? What if Stillington's
proofs were the result of someone's confession? Either on that person's
deathbed or during a regular (?) confession? I believe the seal of the
confessional <i>can</i> be broken, would such a circumstance as
allowing an illegitimate child to sit on the throne qualify?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

No weaknesses but a little add on. Hastings has probably already realized that Buckingham would supersede him in any posts that Richard would hand out as Protector or King, so his only hope would be the Woodvilles and with Edward Woodville taking off to join Tudor and Anthony and Dorsett unavailable EW would welcome him with open arms despite their previous differences.Mary

Eileen
wrote:
If
only Eleanor had thought to kept a diary.... 
Doug
here:
I
can think a of few more people as well...
Eileen
continued:
But further to my belief in the truth of the said marriage...pure
speculation on my part but IF Edward had indeed married Eleanor AND consummated
it I would think it is a very strong possibility that Edward at some time or
other informed Hastings of it..bosom drinking buddies and all that..and I
strongly suspect that Catesby knew as well..furthermore for what is worth I
suggest that Catesby betrayed Hastings to get him removed..Hastings knew too
much..but whether he lied or merely told the truth about Hastings activities I
don't know.,and that would account for..among other things..why Catesby was
aghast upon the eve of his execution that his 'friends' had failed to help him
in his hour of need. Catesby was up to it to his neck another one who knew
too much and in any case was untrustworthy...What A Nest Of Vipers.
Doug here:
Regarding Hastings: I don't think we should forget that, unless Edward V
remained on the throne, Richard would have no need of Hastings' support against
the Woodvilles. That alone, IMO, gives Hastings an excellent reason to support a
coup against Richard.
If Edward remains on the throne, the Richard would need all the support he
could get on the Council and Hastings, while no longer as powerful as when
Edward IV was alive, would still be among the movers and shakers. His support
would be of value and, from what I've read about Hastings as Edward's Lord
Chamberlain, he'd be more than willing to charge the going rate for said
support.
As for Catesby, I really don't know. I do believe that
<i>someone</i> told Richard about the intended coup and the two most
likely would be, IMO, Morton or Catesby. Perhaps it was the two of them, working
together? <i>That</i> might explain Catesby's feelings on learning,
yes, he most definitely <I>was</i> going to be executed.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
Doug
I've only time for a quick perusal of The Secret Queen and the chapter
covering Eleanor's death and the execution of Poyntz and Alford...Confusingly
according to JAH there are 2 sources suggesting they were condemned to death but
not actually executed but these sources are unreliable as they have dates
wrong. Other reports say they were two gentleman to 'my Lord of Northfolk'
and were beheaded on Monday 28 November 1468.
Doug
here:
Beheaded,
eh? Wasn't that reserved for the nobility?
Eileen continued:
It looks as they accompanied Elizabeth Talbot to Flanders and returned
with her. As Brian has said the two young gentleman were arrested because
at the time of the 'forsaid marriage (Margaret and Charles') they had familiar
communication with the Duke of Somerset"...from this JAH goes on to suggest
that, as we've already mentioned, Elizabeth, shocked at finding out Eleanor had
died while she was away, and guessing who may have been behind it, Eleanor
having been poisoned ,ma y have asked too many questions, perhaps to her
uncle, Warwick and her friend and cousin George which led to Edward and EW
feeling the need to demonstrate that she should be 'extremely careful' in
pursing this. As mentioned by Brian Elizabeth was later granted a general
pardon for all offences committed by her prior to 7 December.
Hmmmmm...
Doug here:
Communicating with the Duke of Somerset, a known rebel against Edward,
could easily result in a not-at-all unusual charge of treason; for which,
(You'll never guess!), the punishment is death.
That general pardon granted to Eleanor's sister was, most likely, for the
offence of harboring traitors. Even if such harboring was unbeknownst to her,
she'd <i>still</i> had them in her retinue.
I'm sort of leaning towards this being a case of adding 2 and 2 and getting
5; if only because, why would Edward wait seven years after his marriage to
Eleanor before doing anything to, um, correct the problem? And why would
Elizabeth wait until four years had passed after <i>her</i> marriage
to Edward and three years from her coronation before doing anything? Now, had
Eleanor died, in 1464 or 1465...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I reckon it would be an intolerable burden for whoever knew. How would it affect their immortal souls?BTW just to put the cat among the pigeons do we reckon Warwick ever got to hear a whisper of all this? Part of me says he wouldn't have gone looking for a foreign bride if there was an impediment but he was close to Edward at this point and could have told him to just 'deal with it' HSent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2016, at 16:00, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary
wrote:
Sorry I can't read your reply Sandra. It's trashed again :). But I'm sure
it's good! My doubts about Eleanor stem from the lack of evidence
presented to Parliament. This was an age when evidence was meticulously
collected - proof of age, assignment of dower, IPM, annulments. Where is
the record which says John Brown was tying his shoelace when Edward waltzed by
with his arm round Eleanor? Yes it could have been destroyed but like TR
there was surely more than one copy?
Doug here:
Sorry about the delay, but something occurred to me while filing this
post.
What about <i>verbal</i> evidence? What if Stillington's
proofs were the result of someone's confession? Either on that person's
deathbed or during a regular (?) confession? I believe the seal of the
confessional <i>can</i> be broken, would such a circumstance as
allowing an illegitimate child to sit on the throne qualify?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
I've
taken a look at what JAH has to say about what evidence was presented to
Parliament and he doesn't say much about it so its obviously not survived which
is hardly surprising. But just because it hasnt survived it cannot
be dismissed as not amounting to much and imho it must have been strong to get
Parliament's approval/agreement. JAH does make a very good point in
that he suggests that Stillington's testimony may have been 'supported by
surviving members of Eleanor's family'. Elizabeth Duchess of Norfolk
springs to mind here instantly don't you think? JAH goes on to say 'the
sum of evidence presented evidently convinced the royal council as it did the
group of parliamentary representatives gathered in the capital in June
1483'..which led as we know to the three estates of the Realm petitioning
Richard to take the throne. This is a strong, massively strong reason to
believe in the pre contract alone. Pa rliament and the royal council could
not all have been persuaded if it had all been fabricated. To think that
does them a great disservice I think.. there must have a been at least a few
brave men amongst them who would not have stood by and watched the rightful heir
to the throne pushed to one side.
Doug
here:
FWIW,
it's precisely that <b>lack</b> of physical evidence in the way of a
license, contract, what-have-you, that leads me to believe Stillington's
proofs were <i>verbal</i>; either his own testimony or that of
another given under such circumstances, such as a confession to a priest, that
led the majority of the Council to believe that Edward had indeed married
Eleanor. For example, had there been any physical proof of a marriage between
Edward and Eleanor, what possible reason would there be for
<b>not</b> including that evidence in Titulus Regius?
Physical
evidence of a marriage between Edward and Eleanor wouldn't have been insulting
to Eleanor, she'd have been viewed as the injured party, wouldn't she? Too
trusting perhaps, but blameless. So, if there was any physical evidence, why
<b>not</b> include it? Verbal evidence supporting a marriage between
Edward and Eleanor would, I would think, be viewed the same, also placing
Eleanor in the position of being the injured and, more importantly to her
family, blameless party.
However,
as we have no evidence, such as reports Eleanor's family objected to the claims
made in Council, to the Three Estates and, finally, in Titulus Regius, doesn't
necessarily mean they supported what was done, so much as they made no
objections that have come down to us. Objections may very well have been raised
by, say, Eleanor's sister, what with her being being a Duchess and all, but any
such objections could very well have been countered by asking
<i>her</i> for proofs her claims were true! And without any
evidence, physical or verbal, that Eleanor <b>hadn't</b> married
Edward, to continue to make such claims <i>after</i> the Council
meeting, the Three Estates offering the crown to Richard and Titulus Regius,
such claims would have been treasonous.
After
Bosworth, as we know, HT had Titulus Regius repealed, unread while there were
those in Parliament who wanted its origins investigated. Did any of Eleanor's
family support the proposed investigation? That we know of, anyway? Because, or
it seems to me, that, presuming the Act <i>was</i> fraudulent, then
Eleanor's family would want it proven to the new king that
<b>they</b> had nothing to with it.
The
same, I would think, also applies to anyone who might have objected to accepting
Stillington's proofs while on the Council, as a member of the Three Estates or
as a member of the Parliament that passed Titulus Regius. Where were their
actions that proved they were loyal to the new dynasty? Or is suppressing
Titulus Regius, unread, supposed to meet that loyalty requirement?
Eileen
continued:
JAH is firmly of the opinion that Stillington was present at the marriage
but I keep a very open mind about that. I rather think along the lines
that it being so top secret Jacquetta , helpfully, provided the priest and
didn't I read somewhere the small boy that helped with the singing? Of
course if it had indeed been Stillington that would certainly help clinch the
matter regarding convincing both the Council and Parliament. But equally
Edward could have off loaded onto Stillington at a later date.
Doug here:
Well, since the only options as to who might have direct knowledge about
Edward's marriage to Eleanor are the officiating priest and the principals
involved, Stillington does stand out as the prime, um, suspect? As I've posted
however, as the evidence to the marriage seems to have been verbal rather than a
written contract or the like, there does exist the possibility that Stillington
received his evidence via a confession, with the only thing not known being
whether Stillington heard the confession himself or was told of it be the person
who did. However, and IMO, the odds are definitely in favor of Stillington being
the one who performed the marriage.Jacquetta, indeed, showed prescience in
having as many witnesses as possible when Edward married Elizabeth. Had
<i>that</i> marriage also been limited to just the priest and
principals, I wonder if Edward wouldn't have ignored it, as well?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Mary
wrote:
No
weaknesses but a little add on. Hastings has probably already realized that
Buckingham would supersede him in any posts that Richard would hand out as
Protector or King, so his only hope would be the Woodvilles and with Edward
Woodville taking off to join Tudor and Anthony and Dorsett unavailable EW would
welcome him with open arms despite their previous differences.
Doug
here:
FWIW,
that's more or less my view. Hastings had served as Edward IV's Lord
Chamberlain; which meant, if you wanted to see Edward, you had to see Hastings
first. Right there is a vast source of both power <i>and</i> income.
I seriously doubt, however, that Hastings ever thought he'd be in such a
position under a Ricardian Protectorate for Edward V. The most he could hope for
was that Richard would, because of the Woodvilles and their adherents on the
Council, desperately need all the support he could get to counter them. Which is
be where Hastings would come in. He, in exchange for <i>some</i> of
the power he'd held as Lord Chamberlain, would gladly support Richard against
the Woodville faction on the Council. I'm undecided whether Richard's reliance
on Buckingham, rather than Hastings, really ever bothered Hastings. After all,
what did Buckingham know about how the Council, and the upper levels of the
government, actually worked? Who knew what, where to go, all the things that
took years of experience at Court and Council to learn? No, as long as it was
just a question of supporting Richard as <i?Protector</i>, I don't
think Hastings was worried about his position.
But,
when Stillington tossed his proofs into the mix, everything changed. If
Richard was the legitimate king, then he wouldn't need Hastings' support on the
Council. As king, Richard could act without his Council's support if he so
wished; something not available to Richard as Protector. IOW, if Richard became
king, Hastings lost, literally, everything. Not only would his support
<b>not</b> be needed, any failure to support Richard could easily be
viewed as treasonous.
And
<b>that</b>, in my view anyway, is when Hastings decided to support
the Woodville/Morton coup against Richard.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug here:
FWIW, it's precisely that <b>lack</b> of physical evidence in the way of a license, contract, what-have-you, that leads me to believe Stillington's proofs were <i>verbal</i>; either
his own testimony or that of another given under such circumstances, such as a confession to a priest, that led the majority of the Council to believe that Edward had indeed married Eleanor. For example, had there been any physical proof of a marriage between
Edward and Eleanor, what possible reason would there be for <b>not</b> including that evidence in Titulus Regius?
Doug, would word of mouth' be sufficient to induce Richard to take the enormous steps he did? I cannot believe so. There
must have been something more concrete. Let's face it, if that one copy of
Titulus Regius had not survived, we'd be debating its existence too. The fact that any hard proof of the Edward/Eleanor match isn't mentioned in TR, doesn't seem to me to indicate anything, just that no one thought of including it. Perhaps, Richard
and all those who saw and believed the evidence thought their belief was sufficient for the purposes of TR?
Sandra

Doug wrote..'Eileen wrote its all about the human factor..'Further to which George's demise..his mother's reaction..in human terms for me it beggers belief..I remember reading in 'Under the Hog' Richard entering the room and finding Cicely on her knees begging for George's life..and I wondered did that happen? and how was Cicely every be able to stay in the same room as Edward again? Oh to have been a fly on the wall although truth to tell it must have been very, very harrowing..Eileen

Doug:However,
knowing what we do about Edward, would it be safe to say that
<b>any</b> opposition to a suggested marriage between himself and
Eleanor, whether she was named or not, might easily cause him to drop the matter
 for the time being? Or, at least, that would be what Edward would tell
himself.And
then, before he can bring the matter up again, he falls for Elizabeth
Woodville....What?..as in Edward dropping the matter of the Talbot marriage for the time being and then in the interim he meets EW? For me I don't think so..although of course one never knows..as the Woodville bigamous marriage took place three years later..seems from the time frame being presented to us Eleanor and Edward were over in 1461. Could there have been others? Found themselves in the same predicament. Wouldn't put it past him ..he had the morals of an alley cat. Come to think of it what good did he ever do part from win a couple of battles! Eileen.--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug:Regarding Hastings: I don't think we should forget that, unless Edward V
remained on the throne, Richard would have no need of Hastings' support against
the Woodvilles. That alone, IMO, gives Hastings an excellent reason to support a
coup against Richard.If Edward remains on the throne, the Richard would need all the support he
could get on the Council and Hastings, while no longer as powerful as when
Edward IV was alive, would still be among the movers and shakers. His support
would be of value and, from what I've read about Hastings as Edward's Lord
Chamberlain, he'd be more than willing to charge the going rate for said
support.As for Catesby, I really don't know. I do believe that
<i>someone</i> told Richard about the intended coup and the two most
likely would be, IMO, Morton or Catesby. Perhaps it was the two of them, working
together? <i>That</i> might explain Catesby's feelings on learning,
yes, he most definitely <I>was</i> going to be executed.Eileen: Agree. The moot point being why did Hastings turn his coat? Its not hard to figure that out..if he did actually turncoat..could he have been framed? Oh how clever killing two birds with one stone for if Hastings had been at Bosworth backing Richard there may well have been a completely different outcome. Re Catesby and Morton..I reckon it was Moreton *loading the guns and letting Catesby fire the bullets*..for which, after they had used him they then outed him, tossed him to one side like a can of baked beans. I think this is a more than likely scenario with the crafty git Moreton for he done exactly the same thing with Buckingham..who too suffered the same fate as Catesby..What A Nest of Vipers..Eileen--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug ;I'm sort of leaning towards this being a case of adding 2 and 2 and getting
5; if only because, why would Edward wait seven years after his marriage to
Eleanor before doing anything to, um, correct the problem? And why would
Elizabeth wait until four years had passed after <i>her</i> marriage
to Edward and three years from her coronation before doing anything? Now, had
Eleanor died, in 1464 or 1465...Eileen: While I have no wish to flog a dead horse here and you have made some very good points here Doug and before I admit defeat can I just suggest re the time lapses between Eleanor marriage and Edward and EW taking action i.e. bumping of poor Eleanor..could that possible have been that the truth did not begin to emerge until that later time? Eileen

Doug However,
as we have no evidence, such as reports Eleanor's family objected to the claims
made in Council, to the Three Estates and, finally, in Titulus Regius, doesn't
necessarily mean they supported what was done, so much as they made no
objections that have come down to us. Objections may very well have been raised
by, say, Eleanor's sister, what with her being being a Duchess and all, but any
such objections could very well have been countered by asking
<i>her</i> for proofs her claims were true! And without any
evidence, physical or verbal, that Eleanor <b>hadn't</b> married
Edward, to continue to make such claims <i>after</i> the Council
meeting, the Three Estates offering the crown to Richard and Titulus Regius,
such claims would have been treasonous.Eileen: You've made some very good points yet again Doug. Again I'd not thought of it from that angle..that Eleanor's family would, reasonably enough, want to distance themselves from these claims if they were indeed false..which is precisely what they did not do!Eileen --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug here:Jacquetta, indeed, showed prescience in
having as many witnesses as possible when Edward married Elizabeth. Had
<i>that</i> marriage also been limited to just the priest and
principals, I wonder if Edward wouldn't have ignored it, as well?Eileen..Yes wasnt there as well as the priest, a boy to help the priest sing (I think i got this confused with the Talbot marriage apologies..) and a couple of ladies..but at the end of the day to no avail..Jacquetta's scheming came to nought..hmmm..she must have thought all her Christmas' had arrived at once when it first dawned on her young Edward had the hots for her daughter. It must have been like Oh My God lets get this ball rolling..before he changes his mind..!Eileen--

Sandra:The fact that any hard proof of the Edward/Eleanor match isn't mentioned in TR, doesn't seem to me to indicate anything, just that no one thought of including it. Perhaps, Richard
and all those who saw and believed the evidence thought their belief was sufficient for the purposes of TR? Eileen: Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? If they had only guessed that the matter would still be being debated 500 years later they probably would have ensured all documentation/evidence was included. Sadly they didn't...but in any case the victor writes history as they say and who knows what has been destroyed and in this case it was as we all know imperative for HT The Usurper to have the truth destroyed because he wouldnt want the world and his wife to know his wife was a bastard would he? Eileen

Sandra wrote:Doug, would word of mouth' be sufficient to induce Richard to take the enormous steps he did? I cannot believe so. There must have been something more concrete. Let's face it, if that one copy of Titulus Regius had not survived, we'd be debating its existence too. The fact that any hard proof of the Edward/Eleanor match isn't mentioned in TR, doesn't seem to me to indicate anything, just that no one thought of including it. Perhaps, Richard and all those who saw and believed the evidence thought their belief was sufficient for the purposes of TR?Marie:I wholly agree. As per my earlier post, you would not expect proofs to be included in the Act, only the grounds. The age was not very interested in retaining the evidence once a judgement had been made - only the accusation and the judgement. It's the same with Acts of Attainders or indictments before any other court. I suspect there may have been something recorded in the legal Year Books which was expunged, but even this wouldn't have been evidence, only the legal implications of the facts that had been established.Records of evidence presented to courts don't start to survive till the next century. It's an aspect of the records of the 15th century that makes interpretation very difficult for historians, but it is the way it is.

Marie:I wholly agree. As per my earlier post, you would not expect proofs to be included in the Act, only the grounds. The age was not very interested in retaining the evidence once a judgement had been made - only the accusation and the judgement. It's the same with Acts of Attainders or indictments before any other court.I suspect there may have been something recorded in the legal Year Books which was expunged, but even this wouldn't have been evidence, only the legal implications of the facts that had been established.Records of evidence presented to courts don't start to survive till the next century. It's an aspect of the records of the 15th century that makes interpretation very difficult for historians, but it is the way it is.Eileen: Thanks for explaining..so the 'proofs' that would appear to be lacking/missing or whatever were never actually there in the first place...! Eileen

Eileen: Thanks for explaining..so the 'proofs' that would appear to be lacking/missing or whatever were never actually there in the first place...! EileenMarie:Depends what you mean by "there". Evidence would have been presented and discussed, but we wouldn't expect it written records of it to have been kept for posterity.

Returning to the question was Stillington the priest that officiated at the Talbot marriage. If Edward, knowing himself full well (unless he was in complete denial about his own character) knew that he would likely want to free himself from his Woodville 'bride' at some stage further down the line why would be choose Stillington, someone of standing and from his own 'camp' as it were? Would it not be more likely that he might want a more flexible priest provided by the more than helpful Jacquetta..after all he wanted it top secret ..why involve unnecessary people that were part of his circle. Finding good and honest priests seems to have sometimes been a worry as its mentioned many times in wills from that period. The Logge Register has many examples where people felt the need to point out to their executors they wanted a 'good and honest priest' and/or 'a priest of good fame' or a 'suitable chaplain'. Wouldnt it have been so much easier to leave it all to the bride's mother..simply ride there that morning, do the business and then back home for supper..noone would be the wiser.Marie:The claims about the chapel, the priest and singing boys comes from Fabyan, so is early 16th century and from someone with no inside knowledge. It sounds highly unlikely to me, particularly if Edward really didn't mean to acknowledge Elizabeth. More likely, perhaps, this sort of "information" was being disseminated (by Henry VIII?) to make the marriage look less clandestine because it was the clandestine nature of it that robbed Elizabeth of protection (in canon law) for the legitimacy of her offspring in the event of an impediment later coming to light. Personally I wouldn't give it any credence, particularly as TR specifically says the marriage occurred in a profane place. This was May morning, after all - everyone would have gone a-maying in the fields and woods, and that was a occasion that was notorious for illicit couplings.

Marie..apologies..I have deleted my message that you have replied to here as basically it was a load of rubbish..i have got the Talbot marriage and the Woodville marriage muddled as in did Stillington officiate at the Talbot marriage and then went on about Jacquetta and the Woodville bigamous one. Oh dearie me..im finally losing the plot! Eileen..very embarrassed..

Marie:Depends what you mean by "there". Evidence would have been presented and discussed, but we wouldn't expect it written records of it to have been kept for posterity.Eileen..Got it! I did indeed mean' there' as in surviving 'written records'...and I'm not at all surprised that anything of that nature would not have been kept or indeed survived after all this time. Re the survival of a copy of TR is unique and nothing short of a miracle. Eileen

Eileen wrote:
Further to which George's demise..his mother's reaction..in human terms
for me it beggers belief..I remember reading in 'Under the Hog' Richard entering
the room and finding Cicely on her knees begging for George's life..and I
wondered did that happen? and how was Cicely every be able to stay in the
same room as Edward again? Oh to have been a fly on the wall although
truth to tell it must have been very, very harrowing.
Doug here:
I really don't know. I do get the impression, perhaps a false one, that
Edward wasn't particularly avid to carry out the sentence on George. Which leads
me to speculate that, just perhaps, what Edward <i>really</i> wanted
was some means of controlling(?) George, his tongue and his actions. Which, one
would imagine, a suspended, not cancelled, but only suspended, death sentence
would, seemingly give him. Then again, it's entirely possible, that the
urgings of Parliament were quietly encouraged by Edward to give him just the
sort of argument he'd need when/if his mother ever brought up the subject.
Then there's the matter of exactly how the Duchess viewed the actions of
her <b>two</b> sons because, it seems to me, we have to remember
that, according to the law as it then stood, there was no doubt of George being
guilty of the charges against him. Which <i>also</i> meant that
Edward, as King, had the duty of acting impartially in sustaining those laws 
regardless of the status of the person involved. Nowadays, a government proposes
legislation, Parliament passes it and the Queen gives her assent, thus making
that legislation <b>her</b> legislation. The same applied when
Edward ruled, with the difference that, once that legislation became law, to
work against it, if only to get it repealed, could easily be viewed as treason
against the king.
<i>If</i> Cicely held such views, and I really can't say she
held any others, then it's most likely she viewed her son George's sentence, and
the fact that sentence <b>had</b> to be carried out by his brother,
another son, as something one must accept. Which is not to say George's
execution had no effect on the relationship between son and mother, who also
respectively happened to be King and Dowager Duchess of York.
One could almost view what happened to the House of York in the mid- to
late-15th century as being not unlike a Greek tragedy, where the hero, in this
case the entire York family, struggles against the fates that doom them,
George's execution at the hands of his brother Edward, then Edward's children
then being barred from the throne for being illegitimate as a result of Edward's
bigamous marriage and, finally, Richard's death at Bosworth as a result of
treason, whether Stanley's, Northumberland's or both.
Pity Shakespeare didn't go that route; although one can understand why he
didn't...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sandra
wrote:
Doug,
would word of mouth' be sufficient to induce Richard to take the enormous
steps he did? I cannot believe so. There must have been something more
concrete. Let's face it, if that one copy of Titulus Regius had not
survived, we'd be debating its existence too. The fact that any hard proof of
the Edward/Eleanor match isn't mentioned in TR, doesn't seem to me to indicate
anything, just that no one thought of including it. Perhaps, Richard and all
those who saw and believed the evidence thought their belief was sufficient for
the purposes of TR?
Doug
here:
Would
word of mouth' be sufficient...?
Well,
IMO, yes. A false oath would endanger one's soul and that was taken seriously
then. For Stillington to swear either he himself had performed a marriage
between Edward and Eleanor or that he'd received the confession of the priest
who had, was a mortal sin and would, literally, damn him to Hell. I really think
that, if one views word of mouth in that fashion, then there's little doubt
such a statement would be believed.
There's
also the fact that the marriage was clandestine and would naturally not have any
paperwork involved. As posts from Marie and Hilary have pointed out, such
paperwork was because of property transfers and the like relating to what the
bride brought with her, what would remain hers if her spouse died, what her
husband might settle on her for her lifetime and such. Nothing like that was
involved in Edward and Eleanor's marriage so there'd almost certainly not be any
documentary evidence.
Which,
really, is why we have such a hard time <i>proving</i> that Edward
<b>did</b> marry Eleanor  all the documents that usually
accompanied marriages between persons of property (that's rather Galsworthy!),
just aren't there and, most, likely never were.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Absolutely- it's the obvious story but dramatists and novelists tend to miss it for some reason.Sorry not to come back on other things - will do tomorrow hopefully but one of my daft questions. Stillington held land in his own right - Great Edstone which he inherited in the 1460s and Marylebone which he purchased from Benstede during Richard's reign (room for the detractors to hone in there!). Yet he was never attainted either by Edward in the late 1470s, or HT in the last years of his life. We know MB went to immense trouble to get Reggie to purchase Marylebone for her after he died, so clearly there was no opportunity to snatch it earlier by other means such as attainder.Does this mean that his 'crimes' did not amount to treason? Edward wasn't slow to punish those associated with Clarence; HT had whole list of attainders after Bosworth. As far as HT was concerned I would have thought having a part declaring his wife illegitimate might have exacted an extreme punishment and got mummy her desired lands.I take it one could attaint a bishop as long as they were not church lands that were being confiscated? One could certainly execute one. Any ideas? H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Sunday, 11 September 2016, 14:20 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Eileen wrote:
Further to which George's demise..his mother's reaction..in human terms
for me it beggers belief..I remember reading in 'Under the Hog' Richard entering
the room and finding Cicely on her knees begging for George's life..and I
wondered did that happen? and how was Cicely every be able to stay in the
same room as Edward again? Oh to have been a fly on the wall although
truth to tell it must have been very, very harrowing.
Doug here:
I really don't know. I do get the impression, perhaps a false one, that
Edward wasn't particularly avid to carry out the sentence on George. Which leads
me to speculate that, just perhaps, what Edward <i>really</i> wanted
was some means of controlling(?) George, his tongue and his actions. Which, one
would imagine, a suspended, not cancelled, but only suspended, death sentence
would, seemingly give him. Then again, it's entirely possible, that the
urgings of Parliament were quietly encouraged by Edward to give him just the
sort of argument he'd need when/if his mother ever brought up the subject.
Then there's the matter of exactly how the Duchess viewed the actions of
her <b>two</b> sons because, it seems to me, we have to remember
that, according to the law as it then stood, there was no doubt of George being
guilty of the charges against him. Which <i>also</i> meant that
Edward, as King, had the duty of acting impartially in sustaining those laws 
regardless of the status of the person involved. Nowadays, a government proposes
legislation, Parliament passes it and the Queen gives her assent, thus making
that legislation <b>her</b> legislation. The same applied when
Edward ruled, with the difference that, once that legislation became law, to
work against it, if only to get it repealed, could easily be viewed as treason
against the king.
<i>If</i> Cicely held such views, and I really can't say she
held any others, then it's most likely she viewed her son George's sentence, and
the fact that sentence <b>had</b> to be carried out by his brother,
another son, as something one must accept. Which is not to say George's
execution had no effect on the relationship between son and mother, who also
respectively happened to be King and Dowager Duchess of York.
One could almost view what happened to the House of York in the mid- to
late-15th century as being not unlike a Greek tragedy, where the hero, in this
case the entire York family, struggles against the fates that doom them,
George's execution at the hands of his brother Edward, then Edward's children
then being barred from the throne for being illegitimate as a result of Edward's
bigamous marriage and, finally, Richard's death at Bosworth as a result of
treason, whether Stanley's, Northumberland's or both.
Pity Shakespeare didn't go that route; although one can understand why he
didn't...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hello again Doug. I'm afraid I don't entirely hold with this breaking-your-oath-is-a-mortal sin thing'. Too many folk were prepared to break their word, betray their king and country, and commit murder, rape and a shamefully long string of other crimes.
Yes, there would have been some pious souls who regarded it in the light you portray, but they certainly did not amount to everyone. And men of God weren't above breaking the rules of their faith, as witness all their mistresses and families. Stillington appears
to fall into this category. At least, he is supposed to have had at least one son. So, I still think Richard would have been mad to have taken the huge step he did, i.e. accept the crown and set Edward IV's line aside, unless he had more to go on than simply
someone's say-so, whether it was Stillington or another.
Maybe there would not have been the usual paperwork as a result of a clandestine marriage, but it all comes down to exactly
what it was that so convinced Richard and the Three Estates. Something very important and irrefutable, but we have no idea what form it took. (The novelist in me could run riot with this one!) I remain convinced that it was NOT just a case of Robert
Stillington, or someone else, coming before Richard and swearing it happened. Human beings are not universally honest, and there are such things as ulterior motives. Richard, having so recently come up against the scheming Woodvilles, and knowing the danger
his own life was in, would be very wary indeed of anything. Let's face it, who in their right (Ricardian) minds would ever trust Morton? Now
there was a man of God stuffed full of ulterior motives!
So we must agree to disagree, Doug. But amiably, of course. We're too much on the same side to draw swords. <g>
Sandra
Sandra wrote:
Doug, would word of mouth' be sufficient to induce Richard to take the enormous steps he did? I cannot believe so. There
must have been something more concrete. Let's face it, if that one copy of
Titulus Regius had not survived, we'd be debating its existence too. The fact that any hard proof of the Edward/Eleanor match isn't mentioned in TR, doesn't seem to me to indicate anything, just that no one thought of including it. Perhaps, Richard
and all those who saw and believed the evidence thought their belief was sufficient for the purposes of TR?
Doug here:
Would word of mouth' be sufficient...?
Well, IMO, yes. A false oath would endanger one's soul and that was taken seriously then. For Stillington to swear either he himself had performed a marriage between Edward and Eleanor or that he'd received the confession of the priest who had, was a mortal
sin and would, literally, damn him to Hell. I really think that, if one views word of mouth in that fashion, then there's little doubt such a statement would be believed.
There's also the fact that the marriage was clandestine and would naturally not have any paperwork involved. As posts from Marie and Hilary have pointed out, such paperwork was because of property transfers and the like relating to what the bride brought with
her, what would remain hers if her spouse died, what her husband might settle on her for her lifetime and such. Nothing like that was involved in Edward and Eleanor's marriage so there'd almost certainly not be any documentary evidence.
Which, really, is why we have such a hard time <i>proving</i> that Edward <b>did</b> marry Eleanor  all the documents that usually accompanied marriages between persons of property (that's rather Galsworthy!), just aren't there and, most, likely never were.
Doug

Eileen
wrote:
Agree.
The moot point being why did Hastings turn his coat? Its not
hard to figure that out..if he did actually turncoat..could he have been
framed? Oh how clever killing two birds with one stone for if Hastings had
been at Bosworth backing Richard there may well have been a completely different
outcome. 
Doug here:
The moot point being why did Hastings turn his
coat?
Well, what if we look at it this way:
While Edward IV is King, Hastings is the king's boon companion and, more
importantly, his Lord Chamberlain. While serving in the first position,
Hastings accompanies the King in his drinking bouts and wenching. This is not
viewed well by Richard. More importantly, however, is Hastings' occupying the
position of Edward's Lord Chamberlain; IOW, Hastings has the say on who sees the
King. And, apparently, he doesn't allow the Queen's relatives the access to
Edward they think they deserve. IOW, the Queen and <i>her</i> family
are ticked off. So what? is likely Hastings' attitude? <i>He's</i>
got the king, if not in his pocket, certainly on his side.
Then Edward dies and Edward V is King. Oops!
The new king is known to be influenced by his Woodville relatives, who
are making arrangements to have him crowned and appoint officers of State and
members to the Council <b>before</b> Richard can get to London and
take up the Protectorate. What to do? If Hastings just sits back and does
nothing, he'll certainly be out in the cold as the Woodvilles don't owe him any
favors. OTOH, if he does all he possibly can to get Richard to London
<i>before</i> Edward is crowned, and is successful, then Richard
will become Protector and it will be Richard who has a major say on those
appointments and the membership of the Council. And in order for Richard to make
those appointments, he'll need all the non-Woodville support he can get. And
once those appointments to the offices of State are made, Richard will
<b>still</b> need all the support he can get on the Council. Can
anyone say Hastings? Buckingham, having no experience in government can offer
Richard his personal support, but little more. Hastings, OTOH, has 10+ years
experience, likely knows everyone and is in a position to put all that
knowledge/expertise at Richard's service. Price to be determined
later...
Then Stillington shows up, drops his bomb on the Council and there goes
all of Hastings' plans for staying politically relevant under a Ricardian
Protectorate! Now his choices are: Accept Stillington's evidence of Edward's
marriage to Eleanor and, if he's lucky, quietly retire to the country or support
Edward V in retaining the throne he's currently on and, hopefully, parlay that
support into some sort of position comparable to that he'd held under Edward
IV.
Which is why I think Hastings never really turned his coat, the only
coat that mattered was the one Hastings was wearing.
Framing Hastings would, I think, presuppose that Hastings was
<i>always</i> a supporter of Richard because...Richard. IOW,
Hastings' support of Richard depended, not on what it could gain for Hastings,
but because Richard was Richard, Duke of Gloucester, brother of Edward IV and
Protector-designate  period. It's possible, but I just can't see it. Hastings'
actions while Edward IV was alive don't, to me anyway, seem to support that
idea.
As for Hastings' execution,
as best can be discerned, there were likely four people heading up the
coup: Morton, Hastings, MB and EW. Morton's mitre saved his life, as did MB's
and EW's sex. Which left the one person not so protected to suffer the full
rigor of the law  Hastings.
Eileen concluded:
 Re Catesby and Morton..I reckon it was Moreton *loading the guns and
letting Catesby fire the bullets*..for which, after they had used him they then
outed him, tossed him to one side like a can of baked beans. I
think this is a more than likely scenario with the crafty git Moreton for he
done exactly the same thing with Buckingham..who too suffered the same fate as
Catesby..What A Nest of Vipers.
Doug here:
I'm afraid I don't know enough about Catesby except to ask: What if he was
simply playing out of his league when it came to <i>national</i>
politics? IOW, he was a good lawyer and knew the in-and-outs of his local area,
but not of London and the Court? He was...expendable?
Morton, in my view, was much like Hastings. He was
<b>always</b> out for Number One, but with a Lancastrian tinge that
blighted his chances to exercise his talents under a Yorkist monarch. However,
under a Woodville/Yorkist monarch, someone who'd need all the expertise and
support possible, what wasn't possible under Edward IV just might be under
Edward V. And, don't forget, the coup grew up <b>after</b>
Stillington provided his evidence to the Council. There'd be no way to keep
<b>all</b> those Council members silent about what Stillington had
said. Which would make Morton's support of Edward V even more valuable.
Amorality <i>does</i> seem to run rampant, doesn't it?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug: . Then again, it's entirely possible, that the
urgings of Parliament were quietly encouraged by Edward to give him just the
sort of argument he'd need when/if his mother ever brought up the subject.Then there's the matter of exactly how the Duchess viewed the actions of
her <b>two</b> sons because, it seems to me, we have to remember
that, according to the law as it then stood, there was no doubt of George being
guilty of the charges against him. Which <i>also</i> meant that
Edward, as King, had the duty of acting impartially in sustaining those laws 
regardless of the status of the person involved.<i>If</i> Cicely held such views, and I really can't say she
held any others, then it's most likely she viewed her son George's sentence, and
the fact that sentence <b>had</b> to be carried out by his brother,
another son, as something one must accept. Which is not to say George's
execution had no effect on the relationship between son and mother, who also
respectively happened to be King and Dowager Duchess of York.Eileen: Was it not an option that Edward could have exercised his prerogative and had the death sentence commuted to say banishment? I really don't know if its possible..? If its not its not and obviously Cicely would have had to take that on board as it were. However if it were a possibility, Cicely (hopefully Richard too) would then expected Edward to show mercy - treason or not..whats the point of being Royalty (especially medieval Royalty) if you can't have a few perks. Obviously George was being a pain in the bottom but its still a massive step to execute your own brother. But if the truth of the matter was that George was getting outed because he was making waves about the Talbot marriage then obviously that would put Edward in a very difficult position. He was being dishonest about the 'crimes' that George was being accused of. Not to speak about having his wife in his ear hole banging on about their children being in danger of getting declared illegitimate and to Do Something About George..ah what a web we weave when we practice to deceive...No matter how pragmatic Cicely would have been and theres surely a limit to how pragmatic a mother can be in dealing with the death of one of her children, this would have broken her heart more so if she knew..and she would have known, the real reason why George was being put to death. As we said human nature and all that. A Greek tragedy indeed.. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen wrote:"In any event surely it is not surprising that there is a dearth of evidence on this marriage. It would have been of the utmost urgency/importance to HT that any such evidence was destroyed as it could prove that his wife was a bastard. That a copy of Titulus Regius did survive is nothing more than a miracle. So much of this time doesn't survive..quickly off the top of my head, Richard's will, documentary evidence where his son was buried..and so much more." Carol responds:I think an even more important reason, one that is seldom cited, for HT to want TR destroyed is that it proved that Richard was the rightful king chosen by the Three Estates and approved by Parliament, which made Henry (who only claimed the throne by right of conquest) a usurper. With Richard's Titulus Regius (title to the crown) destroyed (or so Henry thought), *he* could claim to be the rightful king. But for people to believe that claim, Richard's prior claim had to be destroyed and "utterly forgot." I'm sure he hoped that the so-called Princes in the Tower, who were not mentioned in the repeal (neither was EoY) were also "utterly forgot."Carol

Hilary:Absolutely- it's the obvious story but dramatists and novelists tend to miss it for some reason.Eileen:Some historians too.they don't get the human factors.they say that Richard had his nephews murdered and then that their mother came out of sanctuary and let her daughters attend the murderers court. Ah they say..EW was pragmatic, a no nonsense sensible type of woman and besides which their accommodation at the Abbey was cramped. Hallo...! She may well have run out of options and had to leave sanctuary but she didn't have to agree that her oldest daughters attend court and participate in all the frivolities while her two small sons lay dead. After all you would think that the eyes of all England would be on Richard and his treatment of the Woodville brood if there was a possibility they believed he was guilty of murdering the boys. But this is another story....Eileen
Eileen wrote:Further to which George's demise..his mother's reaction..in human terms
for me it beggers belief..I remember reading in 'Under the Hog' Richard entering
the room and finding Cicely on her knees begging for George's life..and I
wondered did that happen? and how was Cicely every be able to stay in the
same room as Edward again? Oh to have been a fly on the wall although
truth to tell it must have been very, very harrowing. Doug here:I really don't know. I do get the impression, perhaps a false one, that
Edward wasn't particularly avid to carry out the sentence on George. Which leads
me to speculate that, just perhaps, what Edward <i>really</i> wanted
was some means of controlling(?) George, his tongue and his actions. Which, one
would imagine, a suspended, not cancelled, but only suspended, death sentence
would, seemingly give him. Then again, it's entirely possible, that the
urgings of Parliament were quietly encouraged by Edward to give him just the
sort of argument he'd need when/if his mother ever brought up the subject.Then there's the matter of exactly how the Duchess viewed the actions of
her <b>two</b> sons because, it seems to me, we have to remember
that, according to the law as it then stood, there was no doubt of George being
guilty of the charges against him. Which <i>also</i> meant that
Edward, as King, had the duty of acting impartially in sustaining those laws 
regardless of the status of the person involved. Nowadays, a government proposes
legislation, Parliament passes it and the Queen gives her assent, thus making
that legislation <b>her</b> legislation. The same applied when
Edward ruled, with the difference that, once that legislation became law, to
work against it, if only to get it repealed, could easily be viewed as treason
against the king.<i>If</i> Cicely held such views, and I really can't say she
held any others, then it's most likely she viewed her son George's sentence, and
the fact that sentence <b>had</b> to be carried out by his brother,
another son, as something one must accept. Which is not to say George's
execution had no effect on the relationship between son and mother, who also
respectively happened to be King and Dowager Duchess of York.One could almost view what happened to the House of York in the mid- to
late-15th century as being not unlike a Greek tragedy, where the hero, in this
case the entire York family, struggles against the fates that doom them,
George's execution at the hands of his brother Edward, then Edward's children
then being barred from the throne for being illegitimate as a result of Edward's
bigamous marriage and, finally, Richard's death at Bosworth as a result of
treason, whether Stanley's, Northumberland's or both.Pity Shakespeare didn't go that route; although one can understand why he
didn't...Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Carol :I think an even more important reason, one that is seldom cited, for HT to want TR destroyed is that it proved that Richard was the rightful king chosen by the Three Estates and approved by Parliament, which made Henry (who only claimed the throne by right of conquest) a usurper. With Richard's Titulus Regius (title to the crown) destroyed (or so Henry thought), *he* could claim to be the rightful king. But for people to believe that claim, Richard's prior claim had to be destroyed and "utterly forgot." Eileen: Your spot on there Carol..Carol:I'm sure he hoped that the so-called Princes in the Tower, who were not mentioned in the repeal (neither was EoY) were also "utterly forgot."Eileen: Aint going to happen...poor old Henry..must be spinning in his grave..or should I say vault..if there were room..which there isn't..Eileen

Hilary wrote:"As for JAH, he's done some good work in investigating the Eleanor story but he has yet to reach the league of Horrox, Carpenter or indeed Ross because every time he says something 'might' and it coincides with his Ricardian leanings detractors will say he's biased. That's why it's actually very difficult to write books on this because the only so-called sources near to Richard himself are almost exclusively written by the HT prop machine. Too much bias towards Richard and we become emotional. We have to have sources like deeds and wills which are beyond challenge."Carol responds:Except for Titulus Regius. It doesn't present the evidence (other than Richard's undeniable qualifications for the kingship), but it does present the *arguments* that persuaded the Three Estates (the clergy being one of the three) and later the Parliament that neither the children of Edward IV (all of whom "been bastards") nor Edward of Warwick (as the son of an attainted traitor) were acceptable candidates for the kingship.TR itself (which HT's Parliament ordered repealed and destroyed *unread*)--and, as Marie has mentioned--HT's unwillingness to have Stillington present his arguments to Parliament and his general mistreatment of the old priest are the best evidence we have that those arguments were compelling. Why not listen to Stillington and refute him if is arguments were unsupported by evidence? And why burn TR unread with not so much as a precis in the official record unless it was (in the view of Henry's advisers, especially Morton), it was irrefutable and, from Henry's perspective, best forgotten by the people of his own time and never known at all by their descendants?Carol

Eileen
wrote:
While
I have no wish to flog a dead horse here and you have made some very good points
here Doug and before I admit defeat can I just suggest re the time lapses
between Eleanor marriage and Edward and EW taking action i.e. bumping of poor
Eleanor..could that possible have been that the truth did not begin to emerge
until that later time?
Doug here:
My apologies! I <i>have<i/> been rather free with declarative
sentences, haven't I?
I
guess the best way to do this would be for me to lay it out as I've reasoned it
and to start with idea of there even being rumors. Because rumors have to start
somewhere and a rumor about Edward being married to Eleanor could only have had
three original sources: the people involved in the ceremony, Edward, Eleanor and
the officiating priest.
Unless
he talked in his sleep, or his cups, I can't see Edward as the source. The
<i>only</i> reason I can come up with Edward to have been the source
of such rumors would have been if wanted to get out of his marriage to
Elizabeth Woodville and I don't know of any evidence that even hints at such a
desire on Edward's part. Then again, Edward <i>was</i> known for
being unable to resist a pretty face, and <i>if</i> that was the
case, then his being married to Eleanor would allow him to drop Elizabeth. Of
course, Eleanor would still be Edward's legal wife, so there's that. But, in
this scenario, it was necessary that Eleanor remain alive until
<i>after</i> Edward and Elizabeth had separated and she
didn't.
I
don't think a priest, even with benefit of clergy protecting him from
suffering the full penalties a conviction for treason brought, would open his
mouth, deliberately anyway, about performing a marriage in 1461 between Edward
and Eleanor. Of course, it's entirely possible that the priest who performed the
ceremony confessed, under undetermined circumstances, to a second priest about
what he'd done, or not done, when Edward's marriage to Elizabeth had been
announced, but that still leaves us with the question of why, unless the
officiating priest died in 1468 and the one who'd taken his confession
immediately blabbed about what he'd heard, the rumors showed up 1468 and not
earlier.
Which
left me with Eleanor herself, or someone she'd told, as the source of the 1468
rumors. But, again, why wait until 1468 to start rumors going about her marriage
to Edward? What was there to gain from such rumors in 1468 that wasn't also to
be gained in 1464/5 when Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville?
And if, in 1468, there wasn't any gain involved for anyone, then
<b>what</b> was the reason for starting them? Just a desire to hurt
Edward on the part of someone from Eleanor's family? Someone's innate
Lancastrianism coming to the fore? Eleanor's family was known for supporting
Lancaster over York, so there'd be that possibility. But, to me anyway, that
would only work if the family member only discovered that Eleanor and Edward had
been married sometime shortly before Eleanor's death.
So,
I guess the best way to summarize my view is that the <i>only</i>
person/s who are likely to have started such a rumor were either Eleanor or some
member of her family. In Eleanor's case, I can't find any reason for her to do
something in 1468 that she couldn't have done seven years earlier, with the
possible exception of just wanting to hurt Edward <i>as</i> Edward.
There does exist the possibility that some member of Eleanor's family, having
learned the details from Eleanor, was the originator, but their motive/s may
have been mix of a desire to hurt the person who cast Eleanor aside, for
Elizabeth Woodville no less!, and a wish to cause trouble for the Yorkist who
sat on a throne that should be occupied by a Lancastrian.
But,
once again, those same reasons for spreading a rumor in 1468 certainly applied
to 1461 and 1464/5; even more so, in my opinion, so I'm stuck with falling back
on the idea that there <i>weren't</i> any rumors in 1468 and that
Eleanor's death was from natural causes and not poison.
I
hope all this makes sense as to why it's my <i>opinion</i> about
there not being any rumors.
Doug
Who'll
do his best to ensure future posts are properly peppered with more conditional
verbs! In both senses of the
word...--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
Yes
wasnt there as well as the priest, a boy to help the priest sing (I
think i got this confused with the Talbot marriage apologies..) and a couple of
ladies..but at the end of the day to no avail..Jacquetta's scheming came to
nought..hmmm..she must have thought all her Christmas' had arrived at once when
it first dawned on her young Edward had the hots for her daughter. It must
have been like Oh My God lets get this ball rolling..before he changes his
mind..!
Doug here:
Yup!
Stage
mothers have a lot to answer for...--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Absolutely-
it's the obvious story but dramatists and novelists tend to miss it for some
reason.
Doug
here:
Because
Greek tragedy doesn't allow for free will? Heaven knows, Shakespeare
did!
Hilary
continued:
Sorry
not to come back on other things - will do tomorrow hopefully but one of my daft
questions. Stillington held land in his own right - Great Edstone which he
inherited in the 1460s and Marylebone which he purchased from Benstede during
Richard's reign (room for the detractors to hone in there!). Yet he was never
attainted either by Edward in the late 1470s, or HT in the last years of his
life. We know MB went to immense trouble to get Reggie to purchase Marylebone
for her after he died, so clearly there was no opportunity to snatch it earlier
by other means such as attainder.
Does
this mean that his 'crimes' did not amount to treason? Edward wasn't slow to
punish those associated with Clarence; HT had whole list of attainders after
Bosworth. As far as HT was concerned I would have thought having a part
declaring his wife illegitimate might have exacted an extreme punishment and got
mummy her desired lands.
I take
it one could attaint a bishop as long as they were not church lands that were
being confiscated? One could certainly execute one. Any ideas?
Doug
here:
Couldn't HT's
actions, rather non-actions, against Stillington have been more because he
considered more of a placeman than a Yorkist? To Edward, the fact that
Stillington was both, wouldn't have worked against him either, would
it?
Just valuable were
those two properties, anyway? There's also the possibility that
<i>one</i> reason for HT's list of Attainders was to mulch as many
opponents of whatever cash they had as soon as possible. Buying oneself out of
the effects of an Attainder was a well-known practice, wasn't it? And who was
there to redeem Stillington's properties? Or even risk redemption, depending on
their value?
That Stillington
wasn't attainted for his part in Titulus Regius <i>is</i> rather
odd! But, if HT considered Attainders as a way of scooping in as much cash he
could as quickly as possible, the omission might make more sense. And HT would
lose the services of a competent administrator, as well.
Other than that, I
don't know.
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Eileen
wrote:
Was
it not an option that Edward could have exercised his prerogative and had the
death sentence commuted to say banishment? I really don't know if its
possible..? If its not its not and obviously Cicely would have had to take
that on board as it were. However if it were a possibility, Cicely
(hopefully Richard too) would then expected Edward to show mercy - treason or
not..whats the point of being Royalty (especially medieval Royalty) if you can't
have a few perks. Obviously George was being a pain in the bottom but its
still a massive step to execute your own brother. But if the truth of the
matter was that George was getting outed because he was making waves about the
Talbot marriage then obviously that would put Edward in a very difficult
position. He was being dishonest about the 'crimes' that George was being
accused of. Not to speak about having his wife in his ear hole
banging on about their children being in danger of getting declared illegitimate
and to Do Something About George..ah what a web we weave when we practice to
deceive...No matter how pragmatic Cicely would have been and theres surely
a limit to how pragmatic a mother can be in dealing with the death of one of her
children, this would have broken her heart more so if she knew..and she would
have known, the real reason why George was being put to death. As we said
human nature and all that. A Greek tragedy indeed.. 
Doug
here:
It's only my opinion, but I lean
towards Edward wanting something really powerful to hold over his brother for
his good behavior. Which would likely have meant a fairly lengthy stay in the
Tower before being released to confinement at some comfortable country
residence; not unlike Mary Stuart enjoyed; well, until she started plotting to
get her cousin's throne. But, seemingly, Parliament was determined that George
suffer the penalty of his crimes and Edward eventually gave in, just as
great-grand-daughter did. I don't think banishment would have ever been an
option, but if George <b>had</b> been banished, I certain neither of
his children would have been allowed to go with
him.
I wonder if a, the?, reason George was executed was because of his trial
and conviction? It wasn't as if George hadn't committed treason before, when
married Isabel against Edward's express orders, or when he went traipsing off to
France in Warwick's train. And serving with Warwick during the Re-Adeption must
certainly have been treason  for a Yorkist, anyway. The one difference between
all those occasions and 1478 was that trial. Before 1478 all the handling of
George had been done, if you will, between George and Edward as brothers, but
with his being formally tried, the question no longer was between George and
Edward, but between Edward IV and a disloyal subject. I don't know if that
explains everything, but I do think it's very relevant.
I remember reading, somwhere!, that Richard did beg Edward to show George
clemency and that it was Parliament that was urging Edward to carry out the
sentence. I put Parliament in quotation marks because collective noun is made up
of individual nouns, some of whom may have been named Woodville and might been
behind that urging. Call me cynical but, if <i>I</i> wanted to get
rid of a Duke who just happened to be the King's brother, I'd try to do so while
leaving as little a trail as possible. Nor, if George's knowledge of Edward and
Eleanor's marriage <i>was</i> the reason, would those in Parliament
have needed to know that was the reason George had to be silenced, just that
George threatened the peaceful accession of the Prince of
Wales.
I really can't say any more about how Cecily may have viewed this whole,
to her, tragedy. Except that I doubt she wished <b>none</b> of it
had ever happened!
Doug
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be
clean.
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sandra
wrote:
Hello again Doug. I'm afraid I don't entirely hold with this
breaking-your-oath-is-a-mortal sin thing'. Too many folk were prepared to break
their word, betray their king and country, and commit murder, rape and a
shamefully long string of other crimes. Yes, there would have been some pious
souls who regarded it in the light you portray, but they certainly did not
amount to everyone. And men of God weren't above breaking the rules of their
faith, as witness all their mistresses and families. Stillington appears to fall
into this category. At least, he is supposed to have had at least one son. So, I
still think Richard would have been mad to have taken the huge step he did, i.e.
accept the crown and set Edward IV's line aside, unless he had more to go on
than simply someone's say-so, whether it was Stillington or another.
Doug here:
Well, to the best of my knowledge, breaking an oath was a
<b>mortal</b> sin and was to be avoided as it damned one's soul for
eternity. For example, Richard, Duke of York, swore allegiance to Henry VI
several times, yet still claimed the crown in 1460, which was certainly against
that oath. His reasoning, used by many others in similar circumstances, was that
it wasn't <i>he<i/> who broken the terms of the oath, but
<i>Henry</i>. And there's certainly evidence to support the Duke's
claim. That, it seems to me, was the usual way of justifying(?) the breaking of
an oath  it was the other person's fault. I certainly won't argue that attempt
at justification wasn't misused, but rather that one needs to look at the person
who is making such a claim and whether their claim had any validity. I can't
argue that there weren't enough occasions when it obviously
<i>wasn't</i> which could lead to possibly thinking breaking an oath
mattered to no one.
OTOH, for a member of the clergy to have sired an illegitimate child was a
<b>venial</b> sin; still a sin, but one that could be atoned for via
good works, acts of penance or masses said for the sinner's benefit.
Sandra continued:
Maybe there would not have been the usual paperwork as a result of a
clandestine marriage, but it all comes down to exactly what it was that
so convinced Richard and the Three Estates. Something very important and
irrefutable, but we have no idea what form it took. (The novelist in me could
run riot with this one!) I remain convinced that it was NOT just a case of
Robert Stillington, or someone else, coming before Richard and swearing it
happened. Human beings are not universally honest, and there are such things as
ulterior motives. Richard, having so recently come up against the scheming
Woodvilles, and knowing the danger his own life was in, would be very wary
indeed of anything. Let's face it, who in their right (Ricardian) minds
would ever trust Morton? Now there was a man of God stuffed full of
ulterior motives!
Doug here:
If not the usual paperwork, then what? I've tried to think what sort of
other <i>physical</i> evidence there might be and, frankly, can't
come up with anything. Any that doesn't require DNA testing anyway. Any child
would have been Edward's legal heir/heiress, and why not recognize him/her?
Although, once again, provenance <i>might</i> be a tad
difficult...
FWIW, and it's only my opinion, but I really think the reason Stillington
was believed was because what the Bishop claimed fit so well with what was known
about Edward. He'd married Elizabeth Woodville clandestinely and, apparently,
only owned up to the marriage to prevent a major crisis with France, so there
was no reason to not believe he'd done the same before, without the necessity,
for him anyway, to say anything. FWIW, I'm more than a little inclined to
believe Edward had no more intention of acknowledging his marriage to
Elizabeth that he'd had of acknowledging the one to Eleanor. Else, why not tell
Elizabeth to start off that he couldn't, not wouldn't, but couldn't marry her?
Why, because <i>all</i> Edward wanted from Elizabeth was to bed her,
that's why. However, unlike his mother-in-law, Edward wasn't thinking with
his...um...brain.
Sandra concluded:
So we must agree to disagree, Doug. But amiably, of course. We're too much
on the same side to draw swords. <g>
Doug here:
To be honest, I hope someone, anyone, does find some tangible evidence of
Edward's marriage to Eleanor. What it would do to the history books! And,
should worse come to worst, there's always pixels at twenty paces...
Doug
Who has no idea what that last could possibly mean, but sure
<i>sounded</i> good!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug, FTIW Stillington did indeed have relatives. His land at Great Edstone was to go to his only brother Thomas and his heirs and Bray had to buy Marylebone from Stillington's nephews. Stillington paid £300 to Benstede in 1485 for Marylebone - a lot of money. To put it in context Benstede had sold land before for £500 - and that was to King Edward!My explanation is a bit simpler. What if Stillington was guilty of something entirely different which wasn't treasonable and we've been barking up the wrong tree, certainly about his role in the Clarence affair? In fact what if he in some way helped to seal Clarence's fate and had to be shut up for a bit? When you look at the friends in Somerset with whom he's associated their lands - Yatton, Wraxall, West in Gordano, Long Ashton, East Harptree circle Farleigh Hungerford. They are also all associated with the Twynyhos. Look at them on a map and it's actually quite dramatic, Clarence is entirely encircled, and these are at this stage at least, Edward's esquires and judges.This doesn't answer the Eleanor thing of course. BTW I'm with cynical Sandra on the evidence thing so it could be pixels at Dawn :) :) H

Hi now I'm not under the channel I wanted to clarify one or two points I've made about Stillington and his relations which seem to have been misunderstood.Firstly a new point. Doug mentioned last week that answers in the end usually turn out simple rather than sinister. I've puzzled for ages over why Stillington's first prebendary was East Harptree and why it coincided with the Cholkes and Newtons moving to the same area. Then a couple of weeks' ago I read John Cholke's will which clearly indicated that amongst other things he farmed sheep. That's not surprising as his maternal grandfather was a cloth merchant, and his maternal grandmother was descended from the cloth merchant Edmund Blanket (had to get that one in). Robert Cheddar was a cloth exporter and the Twynyhos as we know married Alice to wealthy cloth merchant John Tame. So Stillington? Well a couple of days' ago I came across a dusty document which confirmed that his father was not just a mercer, as he is often described, but a cloth merchant. In fact the cloth he produced is detailed as part of the York woollen trade. So rather than Stillington being sent to East Harptree on some sinister mission derived by Beckington it was probably more to do with his father's contacts in the Staple. More work in progress .....Secondly, I'm sorry Stephen but we can't dismiss Stillington's granddaughters - who incidentally all married within his lifetime, in fact one was on her second marriage . To understand this you have to look at the history of the area we're talking about. It was owned originally by William Goeul de Percival, Seigneur D'Ivry, who came over with the Conqueror. Three of his sons remained here and two took the name Lovel, from his nickname. The third retained the surname Percival and his ancestor Ralf Percival the Younger was still at Weston in Gordano and died at Bosworth fighting for HT (this would seem to be the case as he was not attainted) Ralf the Younger was uncle to Percivals who married into the Newton and Hampton families. Of the two original Lovels, the younger was the ancestor of the Northants Lovells, including Francis. The other stayed at Castle Cary in Somerset and down the line his lands were subsumed through marriage by the St Maurs (Seymours).John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington had both a good pedigree and, by default some substantial lands. I say by default, because after the death of Elizabeth Greyndour/Tiptoft the Bytton lands in Gloucestershire had devolved to him. Secondly his mother, Egelina Neville, was the daughter of Alice St Maurthe only heiress of the Lovel Castle Cary lands (and Alice incidentally went on to marry William Zouche). But it's Egelina herself who makes this doubly interesting because she was the daughter of Thomas Neville, Baron Lovel and St Maur, Cis's much older brother. This means that John Hampton was a direct descendent of Edward III, he was second cousin to the King, and of course Stillington's granddaughters were also direct descendants of Edward III.A cynic would ask what Stillington had done to warrant his daughter's marriage into the Plantagenet ancestry? Her mother certainly couldn't have been the innkeeper's daughter. Other illegitimate children, such as Rivers' daughter had not made such a good marriage. And one can understand why the Newtons, Cholkes and Gorges at this time servants to Edward wanted to keep the girls' bloodlines in the family. Was the marriage the real reward from Edward? See Stephen, I do always keep an open mind. And I keep on working on it, of course :) H

Hilary - I have followed your posts with interest, and I have a question. You talk about the minor gentry as in your post below, yet discuss the descent of various families from various kings. I wonder just how far 'down' the family tree, the importance of having a king etc in the family would have been recognised. I can see how an important courtier, with wealth and lands, making an issue of it at Court, but the families you describe - merchants, farmers etc, was it really that important?
Pamela
Hilary wrote:







Hi now I'm not under the channel I wanted to clarify one or two points I've made about Stillington and his relations which seem to have been misunderstood.
Firstly a new point. Doug mentioned last week that answers in the end usually turn out simple rather than sinister. I've puzzled for ages over why Stillington's first prebendary was East Harptree and why it coincided with the Cholkes and Newtons moving to the same area. Then a couple of weeks' ago I read John Cholke's will which clearly indicated that amongst other things he farmed sheep. That's not surprising as his maternal grandfather was a cloth merchant, and his maternal grandmother was descended from the cloth merchant Edmund Blanket (had to get that one in). Robert Cheddar was a cloth exporter and the Twynyhos as we know married Alice to wealthy cloth merchant John Tame. So Stillington? Well a couple of days' ago I came across a dusty
document which confirmed that his father was not just a mercer, as he is often described, but a cloth merchant. In fact the cloth he produced is detailed as part of the York woollen trade. So rather than Stillington being sent to East Harptree on some sinister mission derived by Beckington it was probably more to do with his father's contacts in the Staple. More work in progress .....
Secondly, I'm sorry Stephen but we can't dismiss Stillington's granddaughters - who incidentally all married within his lifetime, in fact one was on her second marriage . To understand this you have to look at the history of the area we're talking about. It was owned originally by William Goeul de Percival, Seigneur D'Ivry, who came over with the Conqueror. Three of his sons remained here and two took the name Lovel, from his nickname. The third retained the surname Percival and his ancestor Ralf Percival the Younger was still at Weston in Gordano a
nd died at Bosworth fighting for HT (this would seem to be the case as he was not attainted) Ralf the Younger was uncle to Percivals who married into the Newton and Hampton families. Of the two original Lovels, the younger was the ancestor of the Northants Lovells, including Francis. The other stayed at Castle Cary in Somerset and down the line his lands were subsumed through marriage by the St Maurs (Seymours).
John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington had both a good pedigree and, by default some substantial lands. I say by default, because after the death of Elizabeth Greyndour/Tiptoft the Bytton lands in Gloucestershire had devolved to him. Secondly his mother, Egelina Neville, was the daughter of Alice St Maur
the only heiress of the Lovel Castle Cary lands (and Alice incidentally went on to marry William Zouche). But it's Egelina herself who makes this doubly interesting because she was the daughter of Thomas Neville, Bar
on Lovel and St Maur, Cis's much older brother. This means that John Hampton was a direct descendent of Edward III, he was second cousin to the King, and of course Stillington's granddaughters were also direct descendants of Edward III.
A cynic would ask what Stillington had done to warrant his daughter's marriage into the Plantagenet ancestry? Her mother certainly couldn't have been the innkeeper's daughter. Other illegitimate children, such as Rivers' daughter had not made such a good marriage. And one can understand why the Newtons, Cholkes and Gorges at this time servants to Edward wanted to keep the girls' bloodlines in the family. Was the marriage the real reward from Edward? See Stephen, I do always keep an open mind. And I keep on working on it, of course :) H

Hi Pamela, that's a very interesting question. I think pedigree mattered a lot more to people than it does today hence the herald visitations a bit later - that's until the popularity of WDYTYA. And I think it was going to matter less in the next few hundred years when the Tudors turned gentry into new nobility and wealth began to matter more and more than perfect breeding. Nineteenth century Northants was awash with Caves, Lovells, Raleighs, Vauxs and they were agricultural labourers. I doubt they even knew they were related to the 'man in the big house'. It's probably as much to do with time lapse. So Edward III would have only been dead a hundred years at this point, that's about as far away as Edward VII (and WWI) is from us and that still feels quite near. That being said, for John Hampton and his children there was probably as much kudos in having a Neville mother and great aunt. Remember how MB looked after her relatives. There was probably less mythology in being related to a Plantagenet than to Owen Glendower or Rhys ap Tudor though, which is what HT exploited. This is just my opinion of courseOne thing I didn't mention because it isn't directly related to Stillington, is that the Hamptons were also related to the Gurneys and Berkeleys. Thomas Gurney was the gaoler and reputed murderer of Edward II. He escaped justice by being aided in his flight abroad by Nicholas Berkeley. A fascinating side story. H From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 12 September 2016, 15:22 Subject: Re: Re: Cicely
Hilary - I have followed your posts with interest, and I have a question. You talk about the minor gentry as in your post below, yet discuss the descent of various families from various kings. I wonder just how far 'down' the family tree, the importance of having a king etc in the family would have been recognised. I can see how an important courtier, with wealth and lands, making an issue of it at Court, but the families you describe - merchants, farmers etc, was it really that important?
Pamela
Hilary wrote:







Hi now I'm not under the channel I wanted to clarify one or two points I've made about Stillington and his relations which seem to have been misunderstood.
Firstly a new point. Doug mentioned last week that answers in the end usually turn out simple rather than sinister. I've puzzled for ages over why Stillington's first prebendary was East Harptree and why it coincided with the Cholkes and Newtons moving to the same area. Then a couple of weeks' ago I read John Cholke's will which clearly indicated that amongst other things he farmed sheep. That's not surprising as his maternal grandfather was a cloth merchant, and his maternal grandmother was descended from the cloth merchant Edmund Blanket (had to get that one in). Robert Cheddar was a cloth exporter and the Twynyhos as we know married Alice to wealthy cloth merchant John Tame. So Stillington? Well a couple of days' ago I came across a dusty
document which confirmed that his father was not just a mercer, as he is often described, but a cloth merchant. In fact the cloth he produced is detailed as part of the York woollen trade. So rather than Stillington being sent to East Harptree on some sinister mission derived by Beckington it was probably more to do with his father's contacts in the Staple. More work in progress .....
Secondly, I'm sorry Stephen but we can't dismiss Stillington's granddaughters - who incidentally all married within his lifetime, in fact one was on her second marriage . To understand this you have to look at the history of the area we're talking about. It was owned originally by William Goeul de Percival, Seigneur D'Ivry, who came over with the Conqueror. Three of his sons remained here and two took the name Lovel, from his nickname. The third retained the surname Percival and his ancestor Ralf Percival the Younger was still at Weston in Gordano a
nd died at Bosworth fighting for HT (this would seem to be the case as he was not attainted) Ralf the Younger was uncle to Percivals who married into the Newton and Hampton families. Of the two original Lovels, the younger was the ancestor of the Northants Lovells, including Francis. The other stayed at Castle Cary in Somerset and down the line his lands were subsumed through marriage by the St Maurs (Seymours).
John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington had both a good pedigree and, by default some substantial lands. I say by default, because after the death of Elizabeth Greyndour/Tiptoft the Bytton lands in Gloucestershire had devolved to him. Secondly his mother, Egelina Neville, was the daughter of Alice St Maur
the only heiress of the Lovel Castle Cary lands (and Alice incidentally went on to marry William Zouche). But it's Egelina herself who makes this doubly interesting because she was the daughter of Thomas Neville, Bar
on Lovel and St Maur, Cis's much older brother. This means that John Hampton was a direct descendent of Edward III, he was second cousin to the King, and of course Stillington's granddaughters were also direct descendants of Edward III.
A cynic would ask what Stillington had done to warrant his daughter's marriage into the Plantagenet ancestry? Her mother certainly couldn't have been the innkeeper's daughter. Other illegitimate children, such as Rivers' daughter had not made such a good marriage. And one can understand why the Newtons, Cholkes and Gorges at this time servants to Edward wanted to keep the girls' bloodlines in the family. Was the marriage the real reward from Edward? See Stephen, I do always keep an open mind. And I keep on working on it, of course :) H

Thanks, Hilary.
----Original message----
From :
Date : 12/09/2016 - 16:06 (GMTST)
To :
Subject : Re: Re: Cicely







Hi Pamela, that's a very interesting question. I think pedigree mattered a lot more to people than it does today hence the herald visitations a bit later - that's until the popularity of WDYTYA. And I think it was going to matter less in the next few hundred years when the Tudors turned gentry into new nobility and wealth began to matter more and more than perfect breeding. Nineteenth century Northants was awash with Caves, Lovells, Raleighs, Vauxs and they were agricultural labourers. I doubt they even knew they were related to the 'man in the big house'. It's probably as much to do with time lapse. So Edward III would have only been dead a hundred years at this point, that's about as far away as Edward VII (and
WWI) is from us and that still feels quite near. That being said, for John Hampton and his children there was probably as much kudos in having a Neville mother and great aunt. Remember how MB looked after her relatives. There was probably less mythology in being related to a Plantagenet than to Owen Glendower or Rhys ap Tudor though, which is what HT exploited. This is just my opinion of course
One thing I didn't mention because it isn't directly related to Stillington, is that the Hamptons were also related to the Gurneys and Berkeleys. Thomas Gurney was the gaoler and reputed murderer of Edward II. He escaped justice by being aided in his flight abroad by Nicholas Berkeley. A fascinating side story. H



From: "Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 September 2016, 15:22
Subject: Re: [Richard I
II Society Forum] Re: Cicely







Hilary - I have followed your posts with interest, and I have a question. You talk about the minor gentry as in your post below, yet discuss the descent of various families from various kings. I wonder just how far 'down' the family tree, the importance of having a king etc in the family would have been recognised. I can see how an important courtier, with wealth and lands, making an issue of it at Court, but the families you describe - merchants, farmers etc, was it really that important?
Pamela
Hilary wrote:







Hi now I'm not under the channel I wanted to clarify one or two points I've made about Stillington and his relations which seem to have been misunderstood.
Firstly a new point. Doug mentioned last week that answers in the end usually turn out simple rather than sinister. I've puzzled for ages over why Stillington's first prebendary was East Harptree and why it coincided with the Cholkes and Newtons moving to the same area. Then a couple of weeks' ago I read John Cholke's will which clearly indicated that amongst other things he farmed sheep. That's not surprising as his maternal grandfather was a cloth merchant, and his maternal grandmother was descended from the cloth merchant Edmund Blanket (had to get that one in). Robert Cheddar was a cloth exporter and the Twynyhos as we know married Alice to wealthy cloth merchant John Tame. So Stillington? Well a couple of days' ago I came across a dusty
document which confirmed that his father was not just a mercer, as he is often described, but a cloth merchant. In fact the cloth he produced is detailed as part of the York woollen trade. So rather than Stillington being sent to East Harptree on some sinister mission derived by Beckington it was probably more to do with his father's contacts in the Staple. More work in progress .....
Secondly, I'm sorry Stephen but we can't dismiss Stillington's granddaughters - who incidentally all married within his lifetime, in fact one was on her second marriage . To understand this you have to look at the history of the area we're talking about. It was owned originally by William Goeul de Percival, Seigneur D'Ivry, who came over with the Conqueror. Three of his sons remained here and two took the name Lovel, from his nickname. The third retained the surname Percival and his ancestor Ralf Percival the Younger was still at Weston in Gordano a
nd died at Bosworth fighting for HT (this would seem to be the case as he was not attainted) Ralf the Younger was uncle to Percivals who married into the Newton and Hampton families. Of the two original Lovels, the younger was the ancestor of the Northants Lovells, including Francis. The other stayed at Castle Cary in Somerset and down the line his lands were subsumed through marriage by the St Maurs (Seymours).
John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington had both a good pedigree and, by default some substantial lands. I say by default, because after the death of Elizabeth Greyndour/Tiptoft the Bytton lands in Gloucestershire had devolved to him. Secondly his mother, Egelina Neville, was the daughter of Alice St Maur
the only heiress of the Lovel Castle Cary lands (and Alice incidentally went on to marry William Zouche). But it's Egelina herself who makes this doubly interesting because she was the daughter of Thomas Neville, Bar
on Lovel and St Maur, Cis's much older brother. This means that John Hampton was a direct descendent of Edward III, he was second cousin to the King, and of course Stillington's granddaughters were also direct descendants of Edward III.
A cynic would ask what Stillington had done to warrant his daughter's marriage into the Plantagenet ancestry? Her mother certainly couldn't have been the innkeeper's daughter. Other illegitimate children, such as Rivers' daughter had not made such a good marriage. And one can understand why the Newtons, Cholkes and Gorges at this time servants to Edward wanted to keep the girls' bloodlines in the family. Was the marriage the real reward from Edward? See Stephen, I do always keep an open mind. And I keep on working on it, of course :) H

Hilary
wrote:
Hi Doug, FTIW Stillington did indeed have relatives. His land at Great
Edstone was to go to his only brother Thomas and his heirs and Bray had to buy
Marylebone from Stillington's nephews. Stillington paid £300 to Benstede in 1485
for Marylebone - a lot of money. To put it in context Benstede had sold land
before for £500 - and that was to King Edward!
Doug here:
Of course, if Stillington's relatives didn't have enough cash, or
properties to use to raise said cash, any Attainder would have resulted in HT
getting it.
Would properties with such values be worth HT either trying to mulch
Stillington's brother and nephews for their return or acquire them for
himself?
As a long-term investment it would make sense to acquire them, but I've
gotten the impression that <i>usually</i> monies raised via
Attainder were usually gathered in fairly quickly; as sort of a way to pay the
costs of putting down whatever trouble initiated the Attainder?
Hilary continued:
My explanation is a bit simpler. What if Stillington was guilty of
something entirely different which wasn't treasonable and we've been barking up
the wrong tree, certainly about his role in the Clarence affair? In fact what if
he in some way helped to seal Clarence's fate and had to be shut up for a bit?
When you look at the friends in Somerset with whom he's associated their lands -
Yatton, Wraxall, West in Gordano, Long Ashton, East Harptree circle Farleigh
Hungerford. They are also all associated with the Twynyhos. Look at them on a
map and it's actually quite dramatic, Clarence is entirely encircled, and these
are at this stage at least, Edward's esquires and judges.
Doug here:
Well, we know George, among other things, had two people illegally executed
and was planning on sending his surviving son out of the kingdom, as well as
saying things prejudicial (was that the wording?) to Edward; the last of which
may, or may not, have had anything to do with Eleanor.
What if the reason for Stillington being clapped into the Tower (or
wherever), had to do with one of those? I don't know of anything that links the
good Bishop with the two illegal executions, so that can likely be set aside
(barring further information, of course).
Then there's George's plans for his son. What if Stillington had known
about them, but had dismissed them as just George being George? Would that have
justified a term of imprisonment? Legally, at least until he show why he hadn't
informed Edward of George's plans, he could be charged with aiding George,
couldn't he?
Lastly there's those words. Presuming they weren't about Eleanor, what
sort of loose talk by George could justify a death sentence? Or, more
accurately, be used in company with other charges? How about denying, in front
of witnesses; ie, non-family members, Edward's right to the throne? George had
already tried to make that claim when he was trailing around after Warwick just
prior to and during the Re-Adeption. Wouldn't a revival of that claim be enough
to charge, and convict, George of treason?
Which, FWIW, might also explain Edward's reluctance to execute George:
Edward knew that George, even if George believed what he'd said, simply wasn't
capable of doing anything to bring about Edward's dethronement. However much
George might talk <b>his</b> right to throne, George's days of
causing trouble were past. However, the members of Parliament who urged George's
execution may not have viewed the situation the same way. To them it may not
have been seen as just a family squabble, but an actual threat to the peace of
the realm. They may also have been looking beyond George himself and considering
what trouble might develop later on if George's <i>son</i>, revived
the claim that his father had not only made but, most importantly, never made to
suffer for? I know Edward of Warwick was included in his father's Attainder, was
that usual? More importantly, were the terms of the Attainder that applied to
Edward the norm? I have no idea myself.
Hilary concluded:
This doesn't answer the Eleanor thing of course. BTW I'm with cynical
Sandra on the evidence thing so it could be pixels at Dawn :) :) H
Doug here:
It's that stubborn fact that the marriage was clandestine that, or so it
seems to me, all but guarantees there <i>wasn't</i> any written
evidence. Edward certainly wouldn't have wanted any and Eleanor, well, if one
can't trust the pledged word of a king...
Doug
Who is keeping his fingers well-exercised  just in
case!--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Hi Pamela, that's a
very interesting question. I think pedigree mattered a lot more to people
than it does today hence the herald visitations a bit later - that's until the
popularity of WDYTYA. And I think it was going to matter less in the next few
hundred years when the Tudors turned gentry into new nobility and wealth began
to matter more and more than perfect breeding. Nineteenth century Northants was
awash with Caves, Lovells, Raleighs, Vauxs and they were agricultural labourers.
I doubt they even knew they were related to the 'man in the big house'.
It's probably as much to do with time lapse. So Edward III would have only been
dead a hundred years at this point, that's about as far away as Edward VII (and
WWI) is from us and that still feels quite near. That being said, for John
Hampton and his children there was probably as much kudos in having a Neville
mother and great aunt. <b>Remember how MB looked after her
relatives.</b> There was probably less mythology in being related to a
Plantagenet than to Owen Glendower or Rhys ap Tudor though, which is what HT
exploited. This is just my opinion of course.
Doug here:
If it worked properly, I've high-lighted
something that popped out (so to speak!) at me when I read your post. I'll copy
it ou just in case If it didn't work. It's that sentence: Remember how MB
looked after her relatives.
I know MB has a very important place in
any research into things Ricardian, but when I read that sentence it came to me
that MB's care of her relatives is something that you've mentioned very often. I
don't know how deep your research into other families goes, bur is it possible
that a/the reason for your noting MB's activities, in relation to her relations
(Sorry about that!) so often was because her actions stood out from everyone
else? Or, perhaps, <i>almost</i> everyone else? IOW, MB was doing what everyone else was
<b>supposed</b> to do in regards for family and, a lesser extent,
friends, but didn't? Just a thought.
Hilary concluded:
One thing I didn't mention
because it isn't directly related to Stillington, is that the Hamptons were also
related to the Gurneys and Berkeleys. Thomas Gurney was the gaoler and reputed
murderer of Edward II. He escaped justice by being aided in his flight abroad by
Nicholas Berkeley. A fascinating side story.
Doug here:
Why do I doubt <i>that</i>
relationship was brought up during any meeting with a visiting
Herald?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work as usual got in the way.MB and her relatives. I should have included Lancastrian sympathisers as well. I think this lady had a very long Christmas card list (if they'd had such things) Unlike Edward who tossed away loyalties at whim Margaret (and probably Reggie to be fair) must have kept her own database and stroked and stroked - and of course it worked. So, for example she had a large number of Welles second cousins and cousins even more removed. One of these, Joan, married a lawyer and hey presto their son ended up as Reggie's attorney. There are other examples but that one springs to mind. Re loyalties Richard Stucley of Lambeth (haven't traced him further) was attainted by Edward in 1461 for fighting at Towton. Henry reversed his attainder (along with a lot of others) in 1485 and when MB dies we find our now very old Richard serving MB at Collyweston with his wife and she leaves them a small legacy. Another is John Poyntz, yes the John Poyntz who was executed fin 1468 for corresponding with Somerset and was Elizabeth Talbot's servant. He came from Iron Acton in Somerset (yes just up the road from Bristol and Stillington's 'lot' so not surprising he was corresponding with Somerset). He had several children and his widow from Bristol went on to marry Sir Edward Berkeley, younger brother of Sir Maurice. His daughter Elizabeth became nurse to the children of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII - so the early Tudors, and I think this is MB rather than HT, were very good at rewarding loyalty. It's part of the Yorkist tragedy that MB and Richard were much more alike in their belief in loyalty than Richard and Edward.Re the Gurneys; it's no wonder that they used their old name of 'De Gournay'! Thomas Gurney's story is interesting in that it mirrors HT's early days. He was on the run on the continent for eleven years and then when someone (Thweng) was sent to bring him home he played the sickness card and supposedly died on the way - but no-one is really sure. There's a lovely blogspot if you've got a free momenthttp://edwardthesecond.blogspot.co.uk/ Richard appears in it during a great spoof discussion by maligned monarchs. Well worth reading on a rainy day for a laugh. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2016, 15:59 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
Hi Pamela, that's a
very interesting question. I think pedigree mattered a lot more to people
than it does today hence the herald visitations a bit later - that's until the
popularity of WDYTYA. And I think it was going to matter less in the next few
hundred years when the Tudors turned gentry into new nobility and wealth began
to matter more and more than perfect breeding. Nineteenth century Northants was
awash with Caves, Lovells, Raleighs, Vauxs and they were agricultural labourers.
I doubt they even knew they were related to the 'man in the big house'.
It's probably as much to do with time lapse. So Edward III would have only been
dead a hundred years at this point, that's about as far away as Edward VII (and
WWI) is from us and that still feels quite near. That being said, for John
Hampton and his children there was probably as much kudos in having a Neville
mother and great aunt. <b>Remember how MB looked after her
relatives.</b> There was probably less mythology in being related to a
Plantagenet than to Owen Glendower or Rhys ap Tudor though, which is what HT
exploited. This is just my opinion of course.
Doug here:
If it worked properly, I've high-lighted
something that popped out (so to speak!) at me when I read your post. I'll copy
it ou just in case If it didn't work. It's that sentence: Remember how MB
looked after her relatives.
I know MB has a very important place in
any research into things Ricardian, but when I read that sentence it came to me
that MB's care of her relatives is something that you've mentioned very often. I
don't know how deep your research into other families goes, bur is it possible
that a/the reason for your noting MB's activities, in relation to her relations
(Sorry about that!) so often was because her actions stood out from everyone
else? Or, perhaps, <i>almost</i> everyone else? IOW, MB was doing what everyone else was
<b>supposed</b> to do in regards for family and, a lesser extent,
friends, but didn't? Just a thought.
Hilary concluded:
One thing I didn't mention
because it isn't directly related to Stillington, is that the Hamptons were also
related to the Gurneys and Berkeleys. Thomas Gurney was the gaoler and reputed
murderer of Edward II. He escaped justice by being aided in his flight abroad by
Nicholas Berkeley. A fascinating side story.
Doug here:
Why do I doubt <i>that</i>
relationship was brought up during any meeting with a visiting
Herald?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Doug et al..sorry for delay in replying. i was thinking it would take a very plucky Parliament (although to a degree there is safety in numbers) to urge a king to get on with the execution of a brother...can we thus take this as some evidence that it follows they could not be bamboozled into Richard taking the throne and putting aside the rightful heir to the throne in the process without powerful persuasive evidence (whatever form that took)? Eileen

Great point, Eileen.
Sandra
From:
mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 5:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hi Doug et al..sorry for delay in replying. i was thinking it would take a very plucky Parliament (although to a degree there is safety in numbers) to urge a king to get on with the execution of a brother...can we thus take this as some evidence that
it follows they could not be bamboozled into Richard taking the throne and putting aside the rightful heir to the throne in the process without powerful persuasive evidence (whatever form that took)? Eileen

Great point, Eileen.
Sandra
From:
mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 5:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hi Doug et al..sorry for delay in replying. i was thinking it would take a very plucky Parliament (although to a degree there is safety in numbers) to urge a king to get on with the execution of a brother...can we thus take this as some evidence that
it follows they could not be bamboozled into Richard taking the throne and putting aside the rightful heir to the throne in the process without powerful persuasive evidence (whatever form that took)? Eileen

Sorry for the double post. I have no idea why it happened, because I only sent' once. Sandra

Thank you Sandra....

Eileen
wrote:
Hi
Doug et al..sorry for delay in replying. i was thinking it would take a
very plucky Parliament (although to a degree there is safety in
numbers) to urge a king to get on with the execution of a brother...can we thus
take this as some evidence that it follows they could not be bamboozled
into Richard taking the throne and putting aside the rightful heir to the
throne in the process without powerful persuasive evidence (whatever form
that took)?
Doug
here:
I
quite agree that for Parliament, or its' members, to urge the execution of the
King's brother would take pluck; especially if the king was showing any
reluctance. We have no evidence that the membership of the Three Estates or the
1484 Parliament were vastly different from that of Edward's Parliament of 1477,
so the presumption <i>those</i> members couldn't be somehow more
easily bamboozled seems, to me anyway, to be perfectly valid. Won't be enough
for the traditionists, of course...
BTW,
does anyone know why Edward even wanted a Bill of Attainder against George?
Wasn't George convicted of treason in court? I thought I'd read that Edward
himself prosecuted his brother; is that correct? Wouldn't a conviction for
treason automatically place all of George's possessions/property at Edward's
disposal anyway? What legal authority/rights did a Bill of Attainder provide
Edward that a treason conviction didn't? Or did the only
<i>trial</i> George ever receive consist of the evidence Edward
presented to Parliament to support his request/demand for George's Attainder?
Which would add even evidence in support.
I
don't <i>think</i> it matters, but still...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

DougBTW,
does anyone know why Edward even wanted a Bill of Attainder against George?
Wasn't George convicted of treason in court? I thought I'd read that Edward
himself prosecuted his brother; is that correct? Wouldn't a conviction for
treason automatically place all of George's possessions/property at Edward's
disposal anyway? What legal authority/rights did a Bill of Attainder provide
Edward that a treason conviction didn't? Or did the only
<i>trial</i> George ever receive consist of the evidence Edward
presented to Parliament to support his request/demand for George's Attainder?
Which would add even evidence in support.I
don't <i>think</i> it matters, but still...Eileen - interesting questions Doug..I hope someone has the answers...--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug asked
BTW, does anyone know why Edward even wanted a Bill of Attainder against George? Wasn't George convicted of treason in court? I thought I'd read that Edward himself prosecuted his brother; is that correct? Wouldn't a conviction for treason automatically place
all of George's possessions/property at Edward's disposal anyway? What legal authority/rights did a Bill of Attainder provide Edward that a treason conviction didn't? Or did the only <i>trial</i> George ever receive consist of the evidence Edward presented
to Parliament to support his request/demand for George's Attainder? Which would add even evidence in support.
I don't <i>think</i> it matters, but still...
Eileen - interesting questions Doug..I hope someone has the answers...
Sandra - Might Edward have gone for the attainder in order to definitely remove George's children from the succession? If punishing/destroying George was his purpose, attainder would surely drive the brotherly blade in
even more effectively? Hmm, thinking on, and working on the assumption that the pre-contract was fact, Edward would be aware that if the truth about Eleanor came out, his own children would be swept aside, leaving George (and
his children) next in line. Well, the children anyway, their father being a traitor. A little spiteful forward thinking? Edward, always selfish, did not think/care where this would then leave his only truly loyal brother,
Richard. All he was interested in was spiking George's guns once and for all. Besides, he had every reason to think he himself would live on a long time yet and when he died, his eldest son would be a man grown, still believed to be legitimate, etc. etc. Edward
just thought the attainder would be a wise precaution.
And poor old Richard was eventually left to rescue the shattered pieces of the House of York, and finally pay the price.
Or have I missed something obvious here...?

No I think that's very reasonable Sandra. I doubt Edward ever gave Richard much of a thought; he treated him like some loyal puppy. In fact perhaps he never even had him in the succession picture because he might not live that long. After all, we know much more about scoliosis than Edward did. I think the epitome of thoughtlessness was when he sent Richard instead of Rivers to suppress Fauconberg after Tewkesbury. Barnet and Tewkesbury, including the rushed march between them, must have taken a particularly hard toll on Richard and add to that that he'd also lost Warwick who had supported him through his difficult teens. In fact the nasty person in all this was not Warwick, or indeed George, but Edward who had betrayed everyone who had put him on the throne at quite a cost, including his mother. H From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Saturday, 17 September 2016, 9:24 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Doug asked
BTW, does anyone know why Edward even wanted a Bill of Attainder against George? Wasn't George convicted of treason in court? I thought I'd read that Edward himself prosecuted his brother; is that correct? Wouldn't a conviction for treason automatically place
all of George's possessions/property at Edward's disposal anyway? What legal authority/rights did a Bill of Attainder provide Edward that a treason conviction didn't? Or did the only <i>trial</i> George ever receive consist of the evidence Edward presented
to Parliament to support his request/demand for George's Attainder? Which would add even evidence in support.
I don't <i>think</i> it matters, but still...
Eileen - interesting questions Doug..I hope someone has the answers...
Sandra - Might Edward have gone for the attainder in order to definitely remove George's children from the succession? If punishing/destroying George was his purpose, attainder would surely drive the brotherly blade in
even more effectively? Hmm, thinking on, and working on the assumption that the pre-contract was fact, Edward would be aware that if the truth about Eleanor came out, his own children would be swept aside, leaving George (and
his children) next in line. Well, the children anyway, their father being a traitor. A little spiteful forward thinking? Edward, always selfish, did not think/care where this would then leave his only truly loyal brother,
Richard. All he was interested in was spiking George's guns once and for all. Besides, he had every reason to think he himself would live on a long time yet and when he died, his eldest son would be a man grown, still believed to be legitimate, etc. etc. Edward
just thought the attainder would be a wise precaution.
And poor old Richard was eventually left to rescue the shattered pieces of the House of York, and finally pay the price.
Or have I missed something obvious here...?

BTW, does anyone know why Edward even wanted a Bill of Attainder against George? Wasn't George convicted of treason in court? Marie:The court in question was Parliament. Clarence wasn't convicted anywhere else.

Sandra wrote:
Might Edward have gone for the attainder in
order to definitely remove George's children from the succession? If
punishing/destroying George was his purpose, attainder would surely drive the
brotherly blade in even more effectively? Hmm, thinking on, and working on the
assumption that the pre-contract was fact, Edward would be aware that if the
truth about Eleanor came out, his own children would be swept aside, leaving
George (and his children) next in line.
Well, the children anyway, their father being a traitor. A little spiteful
forward thinking? Edward, always selfish, did not think/care where this would
then leave his only truly loyal brother, Richard. All he was interested in was
spiking George's guns once and for all. Besides, he had every reason to think he
himself would live on a long time yet and when he died, his eldest son would be
a man grown, still believed to be legitimate, etc. etc. Edward just thought the
attainder would be a wise precaution.
Doug
here:
Maybe it would help if I put my rather jumbled
thoughts out there and see what others think of them.
I do think Edward's actions were those of someone who'd had enough, but I
don't think Edward originally intended for George to die.
George had gone against Edward's express orders to not marry Isobel.
George had followed that up by siding with Warwick during the Re-Adeption.
Following Edward's return to the throne, George had then attempted to gain
control of all of the Countess of Warwick's lands. Then, when Isabel died,
George had illegally had two people executed over her death. George had then
proposed himself as a candidate for marriage to his sister Margaret's
step-daughter, Mary of Burgundy. Then, to cap it off, George apparently goes
around saying he's afraid of being poisoned by Edward and makes efforts to have
his son sent overseas, presumably for his safety. I think that covers all the
injuries(?) Edward had suffered from George?
Now, a trial for, and conviction of, treason would place all the property
George held <i>in his own right</i> at the disposal of the king, but
it wouldn't touch all those Beauchamp lands George held via Isabel, would it?
So, who <i>would</i> control those properties? They'd basically be
held in trust for George's son, but who actually would be running them? Would
Edward of Warwick simply become a ward of the King? Or, if instead of being
executed, George was retired to some well-guarded, nicely-appointed castle in
the country under close supervision at the King's pleasure, would George still
be in control of his son's inheritance from Isabel?
Because, or it seems to me, >b>if</b> something along those
lines were the case, then an Attainder, which would strip George and, more
importantly, his children, of everything of everything except whatever Edward
wished to allow them. Not necessarily to block the children from any future
claims to the throne, but to ensure that George was completely dependent on
Edward for everything; not just his own life, but his children's future
prospects as members of the royal family. An Attainder would also make it that
much more difficult for any of George's children to pursue any future course of
revenge(?) against Edward or his son if they were so inclined. They'd simply
not have the means.
So, basically, Edward's aims, or those of his advisors, were to strip
George of any means of causing future problems by stripping him of everything.
What wasn't gathered in via a conviction for treason would be by the Attainder
because, since the Attainder also applied to George's children, all the
Beauchamp properties would revert to the king. What Edward hadn't counted on,
and his advisors (if any) didn't realize, was that by simultaneously availing
himself of <b>both</b> a conviction for treason
<b>and</b> an Attainder, Edward appeared to be emphasizing the
danger George presented to Edward and the realm.
And if George was <i>that</i> dangerous then, in the view of
the members of Parliament, George had to die.
Does that make sense?
(And my apologies for being so lengthy.)
Sandra continued:
And poor old Richard was eventually left to
rescue the shattered pieces of the House of York, and finally pay the
price.
Or have I missed something obvious
here...?
Doug here:
It's only my opinion, but I don't think Edward ever worried about his son
succeeding him on the throne. I seriously doubt, and it's only my view, that
Edward ever thought about Eleanor after he spent that short time with
her.
In my view, Edward wanted the Attainder to ensure that
<i>George</i> was no longer capable of causing any further problems
for Edward, that the Attainder also prevented George's children from causing
problems in the future was just an extra.
Without that Attainder, if my view is correct, George may very well have
been alive when Edward died. But there'd still be that conviction for treason
preventing him from sitting on the throne, but that wouldn't have applied to his
son who, again without the Attainder, would have been next in line to the throne
after Edward's children had been shown to be illegitimate. So we'd still likely
have Richard as Protector and the young king would still be named Edward it
just wouldn't be Edward's son. And what happens when <i>that</i>
Edward reaches his majority and pardons his father?
Whoo boy!
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Marie wrote:
The court in question was Parliament. Clarence wasn't convicted
anywhere else.
Doug here:
There goes the reasoning behind my last two posts! Or most of it
anyway.
Am I still correct in believing that, had George been convicted
of treason but not by an Attainder via Parliament, Edward couldn't have stripped
George, and by extension George's children, of the Beauchamp inheritance Isabel
brought to her marriage with George?
Well, without passing legislation such as that used against the
Countess of Warwick?
Doug
-- This message
has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed
to be clean. --
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

He would have been attainted anyway, even
if tried by a commoners’ court.

From:
[mailto: ]

Sent: 17 September 2016 18:12
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re:
{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Cicely




Marie
wrote:
“The court in question was Parliament.
Clarence wasn't convicted anywhere else.”
Doug here:
There goes the reasoning behind my last two
posts! Or most of it anyway.
Am I still correct in believing that, had
George been convicted of treason but not by an Attainder via Parliament, Edward
couldn’t have stripped George, and by extension George’s children, of the
Beauchamp inheritance Isabel brought to her marriage with George?
Well, without passing legislation such as that
used against the Countess of Warwick?
Doug

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary : In fact the nasty person in all this was not Warwick, or indeed George, but Edward who had betrayed everyone who had put him on the throne at quite a cost, including his mother. HEileen: Hear, hear Hilary...Edward was completely amoral..in the way he dealt with people. Both ET and Warwick spring to mind here...even to an extent EW..even involving her son in his licentious lifestyle. If he had been more moral he may have acknowledged his marriage to ET and saved many people including his close family much grief. What a complete and utter pillock...Eileen From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> To: "" <@yahoogroup Sent: Saturday, 17 September 2016, 9:24 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Doug asked
BTW, does anyone know why Edward even wanted a Bill of Attainder against George? Wasn't George convicted of treason in court? I thought I'd read that Edward himself prosecuted his brother; is that correct? Wouldn't a conviction for treason automatically place
all of George's possessions/property at Edward's disposal anyway? What legal authority/rights did a Bill of Attainder provide Edward that a treason conviction didn't? Or did the only <i>trial</i> George ever receive consist of the evidence Edward presented
to Parliament to support his request/demand for George's Attainder? Which would add even evidence in support.
I don't <i>think</i> it matters, but still...
Eileen - interesting questions Doug..I hope someone has the answers...
Sandra - Might Edward have gone for the attainder in order to definitely remove George's children from the succession? If punishing/destroying George was his purpose, attainder would surely drive the brotherly blade in
even more effectively? Hmm, thinking on, and working on the assumption that the pre-contract was fact, Edward would be aware that if the truth about Eleanor came out, his own children would be swept aside, leaving George (and
his children) next in line. Well, the children anyway, their father being a traitor. A little spiteful forward thinking? Edward, always selfish, did not think/care where this would then leave his only tr. uly loyal brother,
Richard. All he was interested in was spiking George's guns once and for all. Besides, he had every reason to think he himself would live on a long time yet and when he died, his eldest son would be a man grown, still believed to be legitimate, etc. etc. Edward
just thought the attainder would be a wise precaution.
And poor old Richard was eventually left to rescue the shattered pieces of the House of York, and finally pay the price.
Or have I missed something obvious here...?

What I reckon we do learn from this is that George must have been quite charismatic for Edward to have thought him a threat. Charismatic people see other charismatic people as a threat - it's part of the vanity. They think hard-workers like Richard dull, so Edward would probably have laughed at the thought of Richard aspiring to be king. And this does tally with the tiny glimpses of George we get from others, particularly the wit and charm. Just think what Edward would have thought of HT. And that's the problem, he failed to deal with the real threat because it didn't fit with his construct of the world. Yes Eileen, a real arrogant idiot. H From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Saturday, 17 September 2016, 18:33 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary : In fact the nasty person in all this was not Warwick, or indeed George, but Edward who had betrayed everyone who had put him on the throne at quite a cost, including his mother. HEileen: Hear, hear Hilary...Edward was completely amoral..in the way he dealt with people. Both ET and Warwick spring to mind here...even to an extent EW..even involving her son in his licentious lifestyle. If he had been more moral he may have acknowledged his marriage to ET and saved many people including his close family much grief. What a complete and utter pillock...Eileen From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <> To: "" <@yahoogroup Sent: Saturday, 17 September 2016, 9:24 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Doug asked
BTW, does anyone know why Edward even wanted a Bill of Attainder against George? Wasn't George convicted of treason in court? I thought I'd read that Edward himself prosecuted his brother; is that correct? Wouldn't a conviction for treason automatically place
all of George's possessions/property at Edward's disposal anyway? What legal authority/rights did a Bill of Attainder provide Edward that a treason conviction didn't? Or did the only <i>trial</i> George ever receive consist of the evidence Edward presented
to Parliament to support his request/demand for George's Attainder? Which would add even evidence in support.
I don't <i>think</i> it matters, but still...
Eileen - interesting questions Doug..I hope someone has the answers...
Sandra - Might Edward have gone for the attainder in order to definitely remove George's children from the succession? If punishing/destroying George was his purpose, attainder would surely drive the brotherly blade in
even more effectively? Hmm, thinking on, and working on the assumption that the pre-contract was fact, Edward would be aware that if the truth about Eleanor came out, his own children would be swept aside, leaving George (and
his children) next in line. Well, the children anyway, their father being a traitor. A little spiteful forward thinking? Edward, always selfish, did not think/care where this would then leave his only tr. uly loyal brother,
Richard. All he was interested in was spiking George's guns once and for all. Besides, he had every reason to think he himself would live on a long time yet and when he died, his eldest son would be a man grown, still believed to be legitimate, etc. etc. Edward
just thought the attainder would be a wise precaution.
And poor old Richard was eventually left to rescue the shattered pieces of the House of York, and finally pay the price.
Or have I missed something obvious here...?

From Hilary:
What I reckon we do learn from this is that George must have been quite charismatic for Edward to have thought him a threat. Charismatic people see other charismatic
people as a threat - it's part of the vanity. They think hard-workers like Richard dull, so Edward would probably have laughed at the thought of Richard aspiring to be king. And this does tally with the tiny glimpses of George we get from others, particularly
the wit and charm. Just think what Edward would have thought of HT. And that's the problem, he failed to deal with the real threat because it didn't fit with his construct of the world. Yes Eileen, a real arrogant idiot. H
From Sandra:
Agreed, but isn't it strange that after the passage of centuries,
Richard is the one with charisma? There is something about him that binds us to him as surely as he was bound by his motto. What, exactly, does he have that inspires us? If it could be bottled, it would be a mighty weapon! =^..^=

From Sandra:
Agreed, but isn't it strange that after the passage of centuries,
Richard is the one with charisma? There is something about him that binds us to him as surely as he was bound by his motto. What, exactly, does he have that inspires us? If it could be bottled, it would be a mighty weapon! =^..^=Eileen: IMHO it was nobility..not as being born of noble blood which Edward and many others were but as in character...and of course his steadfast loyalty, his desire to give everyone justice (boy, did that go down like a lead balloon), his, as far as we know, lack of mistresses during his married life (rare), his bravery (my God, was he brave!!), link that to the usurpation of someone, it appears to me who completely lacked nobility, as in character,..not to mention that HT unfortunately looked like he had been weaned on a lemon...and there you have it - well for me anyway. Eileen

Agree with all this. Edward's charisma was shallow (like a lot of celebrities today), Richard's was deep because it included integrity and that stands up to the scrutiny of centuries. H From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 19 September 2016, 13:04 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
From Sandra:
Agreed, but isn't it strange that after the passage of centuries,
Richard is the one with charisma? There is something about him that binds us to him as surely as he was bound by his motto. What, exactly, does he have that inspires us? If it could be bottled, it would be a mighty weapon! =^..^=Eileen: IMHO it was nobility..not as being born of noble blood which Edward and many others were but as in character...and of course his steadfast loyalty, his desire to give everyone justice (boy, did that go down like a lead balloon), his, as far as we know, lack of mistresses during his married life (rare), his bravery (my God, was he brave!!), link that to the usurpation of someone, it appears to me who completely lacked nobility, as in character,..not to mention that HT unfortunately looked like he had been weaned on a lemon...and there you have it - well for me anyway. Eileen

Hilary:Agree with all this. Edward's charisma was shallow (like a lot of celebrities today), Richard's was deep because it included integrity and that stands up to the scrutiny of centuries. HEileen: coupled with all this is the fact that, thank heaven, there are vast numbers of people out there who absolutely detest injustice..and when people do start to look at Richard and his story this is what hits them, well a lot of them, the injustice of it..the blackening of his name, the destruction of documents and evidence, the lies, everything...finally the tide has turned and continues to do so..kudos to the people who defended Richard st the beginning of this journey, Buck, Walpole, Tey, Paul Murrey Kendall and later authors, Annette Carson springs to mind and anyone I have forgotten. Also to the founders of the Richard lll Society, Saxon Barton and to Philippa Langley and John Ashdown Hill for their part in discovering Richard's remains and after long battles with LU, enabling Richard to be reburied with full honours. Ooooooops I've got a bit carried away but, you know, I for one am grateful for ever more....and oh by the way I'm off to Leicester tomorrow...I wonder if they allow you to put a white rose on his monument? Probably not...Eileen From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 19 September 2016, 13:04 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
From Sandra:
Agreed, but isn't it strange that after the passage of centuries,
Richard is the one with charisma? There is something about him that binds us to him as surely as he was bound by his motto. What, exactly, does he have that inspires us? If it could be bottled, it would be a mighty weapon! =^..^=Eileen: IMHO it was nobility..not as being born of noble blood which Edward and many others were but as in character...and of course his steadfast loyalty, his desire to give everyone justice (boy, did that go down like a lead balloon), his, as far as we know, lack of mistresses during his married life (rare), his bravery (my God, was he brave!!), link that to the usurpation of someone, it appears to me who completely lacked nobility, as in character,..not to mention that HT unfortunately looked like he had been weaned on a lemon...and there you have it - well for me anyway. Eileen

Hi, Hilary, Eileen and everyone 

Edward would have had the charisma of the apparent heir to the Yorkist claim to the throne, once his father and older brother were executed. Then he had military success as a commander, and he had a towering physical presence (much like
Henry VIII in his earlier years) until he fell into dissolution. Then he actually succeeded in seizing the crown  and achieving that would have had a magnetic effect.


Richard seems to have been attractive, intelligent, but short and slight in build. He did have success as a commander from a very early age  Edward having placed him in responsible positions from his pre-teens onward. Then there are the
enlightened governance and legislative measures that he sponsored. I agree that there is a certain sense of righting a historic injustice in the way that Richard's reputation was smeared for political aims. Many people like myself tend to root for the underdog,
and Richard was certainly a historical underdog.

It is wonderful to see the beginnings of the reassessment of his reputation that has started to take place in the last few years. That shouldn't have had to be inspired by the discovery of his remains, but it appears that a great part of
it was. And I would say that none of this would have taken place without the patient efforts of the Richard III Society. Can you think of another such organization that has accomplished so much of historic importance?

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from
Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: September 19, 2016 9:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely


Agree with all this. Edward's charisma was shallow (like a lot of celebrities today), Richard's was deep because it included integrity and that stands up to the scrutiny
of centuries. H


From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:

Sent: Monday, 19 September 2016, 13:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed}
Re: Cicely

From Sandra:
Agreed, but isn't it strange that after the passage of centuries,
Richard is the one with charisma? There is something about him that binds us to him as surely as he was bound by his motto. What, exactly, does he have that inspires us? If it could be bottled, it would be a mighty weapon! =^..^=

Eileen: IMHO it was nobility..not as being born of noble blood which Edward and many others were but as in character...and of course his steadfast loyalty, his desire to give everyone justice (boy, did that go down like
a lead balloon), his, as far as we know, lack of mistresses during his married life (rare), his bravery (my God, was he brave!!), link that to the usurpation of someone, it appears to me who completely lacked nobility, as in character,..not to mention that
HT unfortunately looked like he had been weaned on a lemon...and there you have it - well for me anyway. Eileen

Re: Papal pardon. Could it be because of her affair (alleged) with the Archer of Rouen, even though Richard acknowledged the baby Edward as his own, which established legal paternity? Adultery was still frowned upon (hypocritically in my view) by the Church. Re Cicely:I know much more about the male side of the Yorkist faction than the female side. Apart from Wikipaedia and online articles can anyone recommend further literature about Cicely?Alan.

In her will, written shortly before she died, Cicely stated clearly that Edward was the son of Richard, Duke of York. I do not think such a religious woman would have lied so close to death, pardon or no pardon.
Alan Wrote:







Re: Papal pardon.
Could it be because of her affair (alleged) with the Archer of Rouen, even though Richard acknowledged the baby Edward as his own, which established legal paternity? Adultery was still frowned upon (hypocritically in my view) by the Church.
Re Cicely:
I know much more about the male side of the Yorkist faction than the female side. Apart from Wikipaedia and online articles can anyone recommend further literature about Cicely?
Alan.

Hilary
wrote:
What I reckon we do learn from this is that
George must have been quite charismatic for Edward to have thought him a threat.
Charismatic people see other charismatic people as a threat - it's part of the
vanity. They think hard-workers like Richard dull, so Edward would probably have
laughed at the thought of Richard aspiring to be king. And this does tally with
the tiny glimpses of George we get from others, particularly the wit and charm.
Just think what Edward would have thought of HT. And that's the problem, he
failed to deal with the real threat because it didn't fit with his construct of
the world. Yes Eileen, a real arrogant idiot.
Doug here:
First off, apologies for the
delay in responding.
Was it fear of George's
charisma or simply fear of the trouble, very serious trouble, such a charismatic
and unstable George could cause if he put his mind to it? Trouble on the order
of a revival of out-and-out battles between York and Lancaster again? IOW, civil
war.
Hadn't George been recognized
as Edward of Lancaster's heir? Hadn't George already shown himself willing to
betray Edward if he, George, thought it might lead to <i>his</i>
getting the throne? Didn't George own or
control enough properties/manors to make him the second wealthiest person in the
country? And hadn't George only been forestalled in his attempt to glom onto the
entire Beauchamp inheritance by Edward's machinations?
The one person who'd seemed
capable on controlling George, his wife, had recently died; and what was
George's first reaction? To usurp the prerogative of the king, his brother, and
hang the two people George held responsible for those deaths. Then George goes
and makes plans to ship his son overseas, supposedly to protect Edward of
Warwick from his uncle! What did Edward of Warwick have to fear from his uncle
the king? Of course, if George <i>was</i> plotting, or at least
seriously considering, trying to overthrow Edward, removing the person who would
succeed George (presuming the attempt was successful) from England made a great
deal of sense. Was George considering yet another attempt to get the throne?
There's also the reported incidents where George claimed to be in fear of his
life at his older brother's hands. Was that fear real, or was it a form of
projection on George's part of what he, George, wanted to do to Edward? Or,
even, a mix of the two?
If I remember correctly, one
of the charges against George was that he had claimed to be Edward of
Lancaster's legitimate heir, based on a written agreement concluded when Warwick
was in France negotiating with Margaret of Anjou. <i>If</i> George could unite the Lancastrians behind
him and add to that group those who were disaffected, basically those who were
anti-Woodville, and then finance it all using the vast lands/properties he
controlled; well, it seems to me that there were more than enough other reasons
for Edward to fear George than any charisma the latter may have
had.
FWIW, my view of George is of
someone who deeply resented his older brother; why, I don't know. So deeply, in
fact, he'd betrayed him once already. George had also shown he considered
himself to be above the law and, more importantly, felt he could safely ignore
not only the wishes of the king, his brother but, literally, the laws of the
land.
George may very well have
been as charismatic as his older brother, but it seems to me, he also was
incredibly self-centered, ragingly jealous of Edward and, most important,
dangerous to the peace of the kingdom. I hold no brief for Edward as a person,
but it does seem to me that in this instance he was acting as any king would by
defending his throne against someone who'd already shown himself more than
willing to commit treason.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Perhaps you're right. It was only a thought. ::-)A.

I don't dispute what you say but there are two ways of looking at this. George was stuck between two enormous egos - Edward and Warwick. Although Edward did indeed down the line endow him with lands, some were a double-edged sword, like the Hungerford lands. I think Edward did this on purpose. Secondly, the Warwick experience must have been deeply humiliating for George. Edward had not let him go abroad with Margaret, he'd not let him chose his own bride and he'd objected to the match with Isabel. George risks displeasure and marries her (even Cis is said to have approved) and then finds himself dumped when Warwick does a better deal with MOA. He has to endure the awful experience of his wife giving birth to a dead child at sea and then Warwick parks him in Honfleur whilst he goes off to see Louis and MOA. Yes, he is indeed made heir in the agreement but it's unlikely that EOL will have no children and there are always doubts as to whether MOA will let the Anne marriage continue once her husband is back on the throne. But George is left to recruit troops for Warwick in England - he has no other option really and it actually must have come as quite a relief when Edward offered to take him back into the fold - in fact the same offer was made to Warwick who refused. Thereafter George will always be watched by Edward - and by a spiteful EW who has to remember his and Warwick's part in the death of her father and brother. George just can't win - someone will get him down the line and the opportunity comes when his beloved Isabel dies. I would be the first to acknowledge that he had weaknesses but I tend to look to the opinion of the sister who adored him; Margaret, the 'truest Yorkist of them all'. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2016, 17:56 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
What I reckon we do learn from this is that
George must have been quite charismatic for Edward to have thought him a threat.
Charismatic people see other charismatic people as a threat - it's part of the
vanity. They think hard-workers like Richard dull, so Edward would probably have
laughed at the thought of Richard aspiring to be king. And this does tally with
the tiny glimpses of George we get from others, particularly the wit and charm.
Just think what Edward would have thought of HT. And that's the problem, he
failed to deal with the real threat because it didn't fit with his construct of
the world. Yes Eileen, a real arrogant idiot.
Doug here:
First off, apologies for the
delay in responding.
Was it fear of George's
charisma or simply fear of the trouble, very serious trouble, such a charismatic
and unstable George could cause if he put his mind to it? Trouble on the order
of a revival of out-and-out battles between York and Lancaster again? IOW, civil
war.
Hadn't George been recognized
as Edward of Lancaster's heir? Hadn't George already shown himself willing to
betray Edward if he, George, thought it might lead to <i>his</i>
getting the throne? Didn't George own or
control enough properties/manors to make him the second wealthiest person in the
country? And hadn't George only been forestalled in his attempt to glom onto the
entire Beauchamp inheritance by Edward's machinations?
The one person who'd seemed
capable on controlling George, his wife, had recently died; and what was
George's first reaction? To usurp the prerogative of the king, his brother, and
hang the two people George held responsible for those deaths. Then George goes
and makes plans to ship his son overseas, supposedly to protect Edward of
Warwick from his uncle! What did Edward of Warwick have to fear from his uncle
the king? Of course, if George <i>was</i> plotting, or at least
seriously considering, trying to overthrow Edward, removing the person who would
succeed George (presuming the attempt was successful) from England made a great
deal of sense. Was George considering yet another attempt to get the throne?
There's also the reported incidents where George claimed to be in fear of his
life at his older brother's hands. Was that fear real, or was it a form of
projection on George's part of what he, George, wanted to do to Edward? Or,
even, a mix of the two?
If I remember correctly, one
of the charges against George was that he had claimed to be Edward of
Lancaster's legitimate heir, based on a written agreement concluded when Warwick
was in France negotiating with Margaret of Anjou. <i>If</i> George could unite the Lancastrians behind
him and add to that group those who were disaffected, basically those who were
anti-Woodville, and then finance it all using the vast lands/properties he
controlled; well, it seems to me that there were more than enough other reasons
for Edward to fear George than any charisma the latter may have
had.
FWIW, my view of George is of
someone who deeply resented his older brother; why, I don't know. So deeply, in
fact, he'd betrayed him once already. George had also shown he considered
himself to be above the law and, more importantly, felt he could safely ignore
not only the wishes of the king, his brother but, literally, the laws of the
land.
George may very well have
been as charismatic as his older brother, but it seems to me, he also was
incredibly self-centered, ragingly jealous of Edward and, most important,
dangerous to the peace of the kingdom. I hold no brief for Edward as a person,
but it does seem to me that in this instance he was acting as any king would by
defending his throne against someone who'd already shown himself more than
willing to commit treason.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
I don't dispute what you say but there
are two ways of looking at this. George was stuck between two enormous egos -
Edward and Warwick. Although Edward did indeed down the line endow him with
lands, some were a double-edged sword, like the Hungerford lands. I think Edward
did this on purpose. Secondly, the Warwick experience must have been deeply
humiliating for George. Edward had not let him go abroad with Margaret, he'd not
let him chose his own bride and he'd objected to the match with Isabel. George
risks displeasure and marries her (even Cis is said to have approved) and then
finds himself dumped when Warwick does a better deal with MOA. He has to endure
the awful experience of his wife giving birth to a dead child at sea and then
Warwick parks him in Honfleur whilst he goes off to see Louis and MOA. Yes, he
is indeed made heir in the agreement but it's unlikely that EOL will have no
children and there are always doubts as to whether MOA will let the Anne
marriage continue once her husband is back on the throne. But George is left to
recruit troops for Warwick in England - he has no other option really and it
actually must have come as quite a relief when Edward offered to take him back
into the fold - in fact the same offer was made to Warwick who refused.
Thereafter George will always be watched by Edward - and by a spiteful EW who
has to remember his and Warwick's part in the death of her father and
brother.
Doug here:
I admit I keep forgetting George
was only 12 when Edward became king and that may have had a lot to do with what
later happened and the how and why of what George did. But there's also the
problem that George seemed, for whatever reason, to be unable to accept his
older brother as the Head of the House of York and, in my view anyway, I really
wonder if that's not what this all represents  the inability of George to
accept an older brother in the place held by his father? <i>If</i>
that was the case, then ally it to Edward's flaws, which might have been much
more obvious to a younger brother than someone else, and one could easily see
George asking himself Why Edward? Especially if Edward was attempting to
micro-manage(?) George which, considering who Edward and George were, was
literally only natural. Or, more importantly, if a George just hitting his teen
years <i>felt</i> that's what Edward was doing.
And, of course, if
<b>both</b> Edward and George were charismatic personalities, right
there'd be yet another basis for contention; with Edward, as both head of the
House of York <i>and</i> king, always being in a position to
over-shadow George.
Perhaps we should view George as a side-lined Edward? With frustration
being the motive for most, if not all, of George's actions?
Hilary concluded:
George just can't win -
someone will get him down the line and the opportunity comes when his beloved
Isabel dies. I would be the first to acknowledge that he had weaknesses but I
tend to look to the opinion of the sister who adored him; Margaret, the 'truest
Yorkist of them all'.
Doug here:
Well, even Richard was known to have
publicly pleaded with Edward for George's life; so it seems Margaret's opinion,
if perhaps a bit on the superlative side, wasn't completely out of the
park.--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote: "I admit I keep forgetting George
was only 12 when Edward became king and that may have had a lot to do with what
later happened and the how and why of what George did. But there's also the
problem that George seemed, for whatever reason, to be unable to accept his
older brother as the Head of the House of York and, in my view anyway, I really
wonder if that's not what this all represents  the inability of George to
accept an older brother in the place held by his father?"Carol responds:I think part of George's resentment stems from the fact that when Edward was crowned on June 28, 1461, he was unmarried and had no legitimate children, so George became the heir presumptive and remained so until the birth of Edward's first son on November 2, 1470. As the older brother and heir presumptive, he had been honored above Richard early on, acting as steward (if I recall correctly) at Edward's coronation, given his dukedom almost immediately (Richard had to wait until November for his), and being made a Knight of the Garter before Richard. Things must have begun to change for George when Edward announced his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville at some point after May 1, 1464. George by this time would be nearly fifteen, old enough to sense some danger to his position as heir, and to resent Edward for marrying beneath him, especially if he saw that Warwick and others also resented it. Each time Elizabeth had a child, he must have breathed a secret sigh of relief that it was a girl.Even before Warwick's own resentment (with its various causes) reached boiling point, he would have found George a natural ally, especially if he could manipulate George into thinking himself the rightful king. (He seems to have happily spread the "Blaybourne" story whether or not he believed it.) And, of course, Warwick would have liked nothing better than to have his daughter as queen of England, so why not persuade George to marry Isabel against Edward's wishes, assuming that George needed to be persuaded?I haven't kept track of the honors and responsibilities that Edward assigned to George and I don't know whether he actually performed any of those duties when he came of age, but it would be interesting to see when Edward decided that, unlike Richard, George was not a dutiful, responsible brother.Carol

I agree with all you say Carol. Warwick was probably even more charismatic than Edward; it wouldn't take much to charm disenchanted George who, until EW produced Edward junior, was still heir presumptive and therefore subject to many more restrictions which he resented. Re your last point, I think until the Warwick debacle George carried out his duties pretty well. There is the story of him telling of a mayor who fell asleep at one of the hearings - proof that people had quite an affection for George's wit. H From: "justcarol67@... []" <> To: Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2016, 19:41 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Doug wrote: "I admit I keep forgetting George
was only 12 when Edward became king and that may have had a lot to do with what
later happened and the how and why of what George did. But there's also the
problem that George seemed, for whatever reason, to be unable to accept his
older brother as the Head of the House of York and, in my view anyway, I really
wonder if that's not what this all represents  the inability of George to
accept an older brother in the place held by his father?"Carol responds:I think part of George's resentment stems from the fact that when Edward was crowned on June 28, 1461, he was unmarried and had no legitimate children, so George became the heir presumptive and remained so until the birth of Edward's first son on November 2, 1470. As the older brother and heir presumptive, he had been honored above Richard early on, acting as steward (if I recall correctly) at Edward's coronation, given his dukedom almost immediately (Richard had to wait until November for his), and being made a Knight of the Garter before Richard. Things must have begun to change for George when Edward announced his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville at some point after May 1, 1464. George by this time would be nearly fifteen, old enough to sense some danger to his position as heir, and to resent Edward for marrying beneath him, especially if he saw that Warwick and others also resented it. Each time Elizabeth had a child, he must have breathed a secret sigh of relief that it was a girl.Even before Warwick's own resentment (with its various causes) reached boiling point, he would have found George a natural ally, especially if he could manipulate George into thinking himself the rightful king. (He seems to have happily spread the "Blaybourne" story whether or not he believed it.) And, of course, Warwick would have liked nothing better than to have his daughter as queen of England, so why not persuade George to marry Isabel against Edward's wishes, assuming that George needed to be persuaded?I haven't kept track of the honors and responsibilities that Edward assigned to George and I don't know whether he actually performed any of those duties when he came of age, but it would be interesting to see when Edward decided that, unlike Richard, George was not a dutiful, responsible brother.Carol

Carol
wrote:I think part of George's resentment stems from the fact that when
Edward was crowned on June 28, 1461, he was unmarried and had no legitimate
children, so George became the heir presumptive and remained so until the birth
of Edward's first son on November 2, 1470. As the older brother and heir
presumptive, he had been honored above Richard early on, acting as steward (if I
recall correctly) at Edward's coronation, given his dukedom almost immediately
(Richard had to wait until November for his), and being made a Knight of the
Garter before Richard. Things must have begun to change for George when
Edward announced his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville at some point after May
1, 1464. George by this time would be nearly fifteen, old enough to sense some
danger to his position as heir, and to resent Edward for marrying beneath him,
especially if he saw that Warwick and others also resented it. Each time
Elizabeth had a child, he must have breathed a secret sigh of relief that it was
a girl.Even before Warwick's own resentment (with its various causes)
reached boiling point, he would have found George a natural ally, especially if
he could manipulate George into thinking himself the rightful king. (He seems to
have happily spread the "Blaybourne" story whether or not he believed it.) And,
of course, Warwick would have liked nothing better than to have his daughter as
queen of England, so why not persuade George to marry Isabel against Edward's
wishes, assuming that George needed to be persuaded?I haven't kept track
of the honors and responsibilities that Edward assigned to George and I don't
know whether he actually performed any of those duties when he came of age, but
it would be interesting to see when Edward decided that, unlike Richard, George
was not a dutiful, responsible brother.
Doug here:
Congratulations on an excellent summary! George does seem to either have
not realized the duties he owed to Edward as both his king
<i>and</i> head of the House of York. I think George's age had a lot
to do with it but, as you mentioned, it's doubtful if Warwick tried to correct
that impression.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Talking of all these sources just how much reliance can we place on Croyland? When you read other sources, like personal letters, they seem very 'modern' . If you read Gregory's Chronicle account of Cade's rebellion it's almost ike someone giving an interview to the telly today (given the languages differences). Croyland is like something from a thousand years' before. Are we sure it isn't the Hitler's Diaries of the Fifteenth Century? H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 17:00 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Carol
wrote:I think part of George's resentment stems from the fact that when
Edward was crowned on June 28, 1461, he was unmarried and had no legitimate
children, so George became the heir presumptive and remained so until the birth
of Edward's first son on November 2, 1470. As the older brother and heir
presumptive, he had been honored above Richard early on, acting as steward (if I
recall correctly) at Edward's coronation, given his dukedom almost immediately
(Richard had to wait until November for his), and being made a Knight of the
Garter before Richard. Things must have begun to change for George when
Edward announced his "marriage" to Elizabeth Woodville at some point after May
1, 1464. George by this time would be nearly fifteen, old enough to sense some
danger to his position as heir, and to resent Edward for marrying beneath him,
especially if he saw that Warwick and others also resented it. Each time
Elizabeth had a child, he must have breathed a secret sigh of relief that it was
a girl.Even before Warwick's own resentment (with its various causes)
reached boiling point, he would have found George a natural ally, especially if
he could manipulate George into thinking himself the rightful king. (He seems to
have happily spread the "Blaybourne" story whether or not he believed it.) And,
of course, Warwick would have liked nothing better than to have his daughter as
queen of England, so why not persuade George to marry Isabel against Edward's
wishes, assuming that George needed to be persuaded?I haven't kept track
of the honors and responsibilities that Edward assigned to George and I don't
know whether he actually performed any of those duties when he came of age, but
it would be interesting to see when Edward decided that, unlike Richard, George
was not a dutiful, responsible brother.
Doug here:
Congratulations on an excellent summary! George does seem to either have
not realized the duties he owed to Edward as both his king
<i>and</i> head of the House of York. I think George's age had a lot
to do with it but, as you mentioned, it's doubtful if Warwick tried to correct
that impression.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Talking of all these sources just how
much reliance can we place on Croyland? When you read other sources, like
personal letters, they seem very 'modern' . If you read Gregory's Chronicle
account of Cade's rebellion it's almost ike someone giving an interview to the
telly today (given the languages differences). Croyland is like something from a
thousand years' before. Are we sure it isn't the Hitler's Diaries of the
Fifteenth Century?
Doug here:
If I understand correctly, the Chronicle
was written in Latin, so a lot would depend on the translation/translator. And
one would also need to keep in mind that the individual chroniclers (just how
many were there?) might have their own idiosyncrasies, whether in spelling,
sentence construction (limited by Latin one would think) and politics. Then
there'd be any problems that might be associated with the physical state of the
manuscript, gaps caused by starving mice, etc. It's obvious we can't consider it to be 100% accurate and unbiased,
but I believe the consensus is that its' overall value outweighs any
faults.
As for it being a complete fake, then the
question would be: Why? I don't recall anything in it that was considered
earth-shattering, history-wise, so why run the risk of being found out for
something that, while interesting and of value, isn't especially
so?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'. Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go back even twenty years and it isn't the same. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 17:39 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
Talking of all these sources just how
much reliance can we place on Croyland? When you read other sources, like
personal letters, they seem very 'modern' . If you read Gregory's Chronicle
account of Cade's rebellion it's almost ike someone giving an interview to the
telly today (given the languages differences). Croyland is like something from a
thousand years' before. Are we sure it isn't the Hitler's Diaries of the
Fifteenth Century?
Doug here:
If I understand correctly, the Chronicle
was written in Latin, so a lot would depend on the translation/translator. And
one would also need to keep in mind that the individual chroniclers (just how
many were there?) might have their own idiosyncrasies, whether in spelling,
sentence construction (limited by Latin one would think) and politics. Then
there'd be any problems that might be associated with the physical state of the
manuscript, gaps caused by starving mice, etc. It's obvious we can't consider it to be 100% accurate and unbiased,
but I believe the consensus is that its' overall value outweighs any
faults.
As for it being a complete fake, then the
question would be: Why? I don't recall anything in it that was considered
earth-shattering, history-wise, so why run the risk of being found out for
something that, while interesting and of value, isn't especially
so?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Hilary, apologies for butting in.You wrote:"Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary?"-----------Monasteries in the Middle Ages were about the wealthiest places in the country, even richer than kings. The monks were more overseers than labourers. There would have been some specialised illustrators and a small army of trained scribes to write the manuscripts and books. Other chores would also be delegated. It's true that much of the wealth came from agriculture and livestock, but much of the tending of this would be done by the local community, much of the time for free, as the monsteries would house the learning places, and medical centres and hospitals, besides other benefits for the communities. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval-england/medieval-monasteries/http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-life/life-of-medieval-monks.htmhttp://medievalwriting.50megs.com/author/monasticscribe3.htmAlan On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'. Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go back even twenty years and it isn't the same. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> To: @ yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 17:39 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
 
 
 
 
Hilary
wrote:
Talking of all these sources just how
much reliance can we place on Croyland? When you read other sources, like
personal letters, they seem very 'modern' . If you read Gregory's Chronicle
account of Cade's rebellion it's almost ike someone giving an interview to the
telly today (given the languages differences). Croyland is like something from a
thousand years' before. Are we sure it isn't the Hitler's Diaries of the
Fifteenth Century?
 
Doug here:
If I understand correctly, the Chronicle
was written in Latin, so a lot would depend on the translation/translator. And
one would also need to keep in mind that the individual chroniclers (just how
many were there?) might have their own idiosyncrasies, whether in spelling,
sentence construction (limited by Latin one would think) and politics. Then
there'd be any problems that might be associated with the physical state of the
manuscript, gaps caused by starving mice, etc. It's obvious we can't consider it to be 100% accurate and unbiased,
but I believe the consensus is that its' overall value outweighs any
faults.
As for it being a complete fake, then the
question would be: Why? I don't recall anything in it that was considered
earth-shattering, history-wise, so why run the risk of being found out for
something that, while interesting and of value, isn't especially
so?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I think we'd moved on a bit from this Alan. Have you listened to the excellent Professor Robert Bartlett on the transformation of religious practices in the medieval period and by the end of the fifteenth century we were a mile from Cadfael? But I agree they delegated -- and encouraged investment of course. In fact digressing slightly, I think we need to pay more attention to what was 'going on' in religious houses and universities. Fund raising can cover a multitude of sins (like funding a cause abroad) and most heads of religious orders had rights to freely travel the country. I would look at the University of Oxford in particular. H From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 10:15 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hi Hilary, apologies for butting in.You wrote:"Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary?"-----------Monasteries in the Middle Ages were about the wealthiest places in the country, even richer than kings. The monks were more overseers than labourers. There would have been some specialised illustrators and a small army of trained scribes to write the manuscripts and books. Other chores would also be delegated. It's true that much of the wealth came from agriculture and livestock, but much of the tending of this would be done by the local community, much of the time for free, as the monsteries would house the learning places, and medical centres and hospitals, besides other benefits for the communities. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval-england/medieval-monasteries/http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-life/life-of-medieval-monks.htmhttp://medievalwriting.50megs.com/author/monasticscribe3.htmAlanOn Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'. Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go back even twenty years and it isn't the same. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> To: @ yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 17:39 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
Talking of all these sources just how
much reliance can we place on Croyland? When you read other sources, like
personal letters, they seem very 'modern' . If you read Gregory's Chronicle
account of Cade's rebellion it's almost ike someone giving an interview to the
telly today (given the languages differences). Croyland is like something from a
thousand years' before. Are we sure it isn't the Hitler's Diaries of the
Fifteenth Century?
Doug here:
If I understand correctly, the Chronicle
was written in Latin, so a lot would depend on the translation/translator. And
one would also need to keep in mind that the individual chroniclers (just how
many were there?) might have their own idiosyncrasies, whether in spelling,
sentence construction (limited by Latin one would think) and politics. Then
there'd be any problems that might be associated with the physical state of the
manuscript, gaps caused by starving mice, etc. It's obvious we can't consider it to be 100% accurate and unbiased,
but I believe the consensus is that its' overall value outweighs any
faults.
As for it being a complete fake, then the
question would be: Why? I don't recall anything in it that was considered
earth-shattering, history-wise, so why run the risk of being found out for
something that, while interesting and of value, isn't especially
so?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

No I haven't listened to Professor Bartlett, Hilary, but Cadfael is one of my favourite TV shows, and have the full set. I'm a whodunit buff too. :-)Al, On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 
I think we'd moved on a bit from this Alan. Have you listened to the excellent Professor Robert Bartlett on the transformation of religious practices in the medieval period and by the end of the fifteenth century we were a mile from Cadfael? But I agree they delegated -- and encouraged investment of course. In fact digressing slightly, I think we need to pay more attention to what was 'going on' in religious houses and universities. Fund raising can cover a multitude of sins (like funding a cause abroad) and most heads of religious orders had rights to freely travel the country. I would look at the University of Oxford in particular. H  From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> To: @ yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 10:15 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
 
Hi Hilary, apologies for butting in.You wrote:"Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary?"-----------Monasteries in the Middle Ages were about the wealthiest places in the country, even richer than kings. The monks were more overseers than labourers. There would have been some specialised illustrators and a small army of trained scribes to write the manuscripts and books. Other chores would also be delegated. It's true that much of the wealth came from agriculture and livestock, but much of the tending of this would be done by the local community, much of the time for free, as the monsteries would house the learning places, and medical centres and hospitals, besides other benefits for the communities. http://www. historylearningsite.co.uk/ medieval-england/medieval- monasteries/http://www.medieval-life-and- times.info/medieval-life/life- of-medieval-monks.htmhttp://medievalwriting.50megs. com/author/monasticscribe3.htmAlanOn Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'. Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go back even twenty years and it isn't the same. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> To: @ yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016, 17:39 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
 
 
 
 
Hilary
wrote:
Talking of all these sources just how
much reliance can we place on Croyland? When you read other sources, like
personal letters, they seem very 'modern' . If you read Gregory's Chronicle
account of Cade's rebellion it's almost ike someone giving an interview to the
telly today (given the languages differences). Croyland is like something from a
thousand years' before. Are we sure it isn't the Hitler's Diaries of the
Fifteenth Century?
 
Doug here:
If I understand correctly, the Chronicle
was written in Latin, so a lot would depend on the translation/translator. And
one would also need to keep in mind that the individual chroniclers (just how
many were there?) might have their own idiosyncrasies, whether in spelling,
sentence construction (limited by Latin one would think) and politics. Then
there'd be any problems that might be associated with the physical state of the
manuscript, gaps caused by starving mice, etc. It's obvious we can't consider it to be 100% accurate and unbiased,
but I believe the consensus is that its' overall value outweighs any
faults.
As for it being a complete fake, then the
question would be: Why? I don't recall anything in it that was considered
earth-shattering, history-wise, so why run the risk of being found out for
something that, while interesting and of value, isn't especially
so?
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a
fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to
complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping
with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating
manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the
universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to
give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also
completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just
happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One
can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'.
Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished
or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go
back even twenty years and it isn't the same.
Doug here:
Ah, I see! I was thinking more
along the lines of that guy (MacPherson?) who cobbled together The Song of
Ossian and tried to pass it off as an ancient Scottish or Irish
ballad!
FWIW, I've always rather thought
that particular chronicler was someone in Morton's entourage, or whatever
the term might be. There's a general disapproval of what happened but, or it
seems to me anyway, there are too many missing details that Morton, had he been
the author, would have spun to his advantage. Do we know what happened to
Morton's secretaries and such when he was bundled off to
Wales?
Also, isn't Croyland located in
Morton's diocese? Or have I gotten that wrong too?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I'd forgotten Ossian Doug! It's certainly on the cusp; it's beyond Peterborough so it might be in that diocese or Ely, I'll look it up. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 15:32 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a
fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to
complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping
with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating
manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the
universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to
give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also
completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just
happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One
can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'.
Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished
or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go
back even twenty years and it isn't the same.
Doug here:
Ah, I see! I was thinking more
along the lines of that guy (MacPherson?) who cobbled together The Song of
Ossian and tried to pass it off as an ancient Scottish or Irish
ballad!
FWIW, I've always rather thought
that particular chronicler was someone in Morton's entourage, or whatever
the term might be. There's a general disapproval of what happened but, or it
seems to me anyway, there are too many missing details that Morton, had he been
the author, would have spun to his advantage. Do we know what happened to
Morton's secretaries and such when he was bundled off to
Wales?
Also, isn't Croyland located in
Morton's diocese? Or have I gotten that wrong too?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Got it wrong!Statute, at the recent petition of Richard, abbot of Croyland, O.S.B., in the diocese of Lincoln (containing that there is a lack of priests for divine worship in the said monastery, and that at times there are monks professed therein, not yet of lawful age), that in future the said abbot and the abbots for the time being may dispense such monks in their twenty-second year and in minor and subdeacon's and deacon's orders, to be promoted to the priesthood by any bishop of the abbot's choice in communion with the apostolic see. Ad perp. rei mem. Solet interdum Romanus pontifex. [1¼ pp.]This was 4 Jul 1478. Not doing very well were they, or rather there didn't seem to be many priests around. H From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 9:46 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
I'd forgotten Ossian Doug! It's certainly on the cusp; it's beyond Peterborough so it might be in that diocese or Ely, I'll look it up. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 15:32 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a
fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to
complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping
with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating
manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the
universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to
give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also
completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just
happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One
can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'.
Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished
or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go
back even twenty years and it isn't the same.
Doug here:
Ah, I see! I was thinking more
along the lines of that guy (MacPherson?) who cobbled together The Song of
Ossian and tried to pass it off as an ancient Scottish or Irish
ballad!
FWIW, I've always rather thought
that particular chronicler was someone in Morton's entourage, or whatever
the term might be. There's a general disapproval of what happened but, or it
seems to me anyway, there are too many missing details that Morton, had he been
the author, would have spun to his advantage. Do we know what happened to
Morton's secretaries and such when he was bundled off to
Wales?
Also, isn't Croyland located in
Morton's diocese? Or have I gotten that wrong too?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I digressed into looking at the history of Croyland (it's Crowland today Alan). In 1461 it had all the rights given to it by the Lancastrian kings withdrawn - it had been in favour with Henry VI. Then we getWith the prospect of three serious lawsuits, in January, 1484, the monks elected Lambert Fossdyke as successor to Richard Crowland. He was a bachelor of law, and would have rendered useful service to the monastery, but within two years he died of the sweating sickness. (fn. 191) During his rule the turbulent men of Moulton and Weston again claimed rights within the precinct of Crowland, and laid a complaint against the monastery. (fn. 192) The judges who were sent to try the case found that they had never possessed the rights of common to which they laid claim. However, provision was made against the overflow of water from the precinct into Holland. Fossdyke was succeeded by the prior, Edmund Thorpe, a bachelor of divinity. He sought to secure and maintain his rights by tact and conciliatory conduct. (fn. 193) At Moulton he obtained the support of the family of the Welbys, and their influence over the inhabitants kept the peace. He showed much patience in his dealings with the men of Deeping, who were also restrained by the Lady Margaret Beaufort, to whom the manor belonged. The fresh dispute with the monks of Peterborough about the marsh of Alderland was settled between 1480 and 1484 by the arbitration of Rotherham, archbishop of York, greatly to the detriment of Crowland. The abbot and convent were bound to pay £10 a year to Peterborough until they had purchased lands of that value for the said monastery, or procured the appropriation of the church of Brinkhurst. (fn. 194) Accordingly Abbot Edmund exerted all his influence to obtain the appropriation, which was finally concluded at the expense of Crowland in 1486. Houses of Benedictine monks: The abbey of Crowland | British History Online Houses of Benedictine monks: The abbey of Crowland | British History Online So Croyland was no lover of the House of York. H From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 9:53 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Got it wrong!Statute, at the recent petition of Richard, abbot of Croyland, O.S.B., in the diocese of Lincoln (containing that there is a lack of priests for divine worship in the said monastery, and that at times there are monks professed therein, not yet of lawful age), that in future the said abbot and the abbots for the time being may dispense such monks in their twenty-second year and in minor and subdeacon's and deacon's orders, to be promoted to the priesthood by any bishop of the abbot's choice in communion with the apostolic see. Ad perp. rei mem. Solet interdum Romanus pontifex. [1¼ pp.]This was 4 Jul 1478. Not doing very well were they, or rather there didn't seem to be many priests around. H From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 9:46 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
I'd forgotten Ossian Doug! It's certainly on the cusp; it's beyond Peterborough so it might be in that diocese or Ely, I'll look it up. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 15:32 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a
fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to
complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping
with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating
manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the
universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to
give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also
completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just
happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One
can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'.
Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished
or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go
back even twenty years and it isn't the same.
Doug here:
Ah, I see! I was thinking more
along the lines of that guy (MacPherson?) who cobbled together The Song of
Ossian and tried to pass it off as an ancient Scottish or Irish
ballad!
FWIW, I've always rather thought
that particular chronicler was someone in Morton's entourage, or whatever
the term might be. There's a general disapproval of what happened but, or it
seems to me anyway, there are too many missing details that Morton, had he been
the author, would have spun to his advantage. Do we know what happened to
Morton's secretaries and such when he was bundled off to
Wales?
Also, isn't Croyland located in
Morton's diocese? Or have I gotten that wrong too?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

and the Bishop was Rotherham till 1480 succeeded by Russell (which is probably why he's been a candidate for being the 2nd Continuator). I hope he's not related to the Russells of Somerset! H From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 9:53 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Got it wrong!Statute, at the recent petition of Richard, abbot of Croyland, O.S.B., in the diocese of Lincoln (containing that there is a lack of priests for divine worship in the said monastery, and that at times there are monks professed therein, not yet of lawful age), that in future the said abbot and the abbots for the time being may dispense such monks in their twenty-second year and in minor and subdeacon's and deacon's orders, to be promoted to the priesthood by any bishop of the abbot's choice in communion with the apostolic see. Ad perp. rei mem. Solet interdum Romanus pontifex. [1¼ pp.]This was 4 Jul 1478. Not doing very well were they, or rather there didn't seem to be many priests around. H From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 9:46 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
I'd forgotten Ossian Doug! It's certainly on the cusp; it's beyond Peterborough so it might be in that diocese or Ely, I'll look it up. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 15:32 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Cicely
Hilary
wrote:
I don't mean the whole thing since 600 is a
fake Doug, but the fact that someone even bothered to go to such trouble to
complete it in the late fifteenth century when it was completely out of keeping
with the age baffles me. Monks were making money out of sheep not illuminating
manuscripts (well the odd one might have enjoyed it) and even in the
universities the emphasis was on Law not Divinity. So why go to such trouble to
give so much detail rather than just quickly complete the diary? Then it is also
completely out in the fens, not much gossip from London there, and MB just
happened to own the town of Croyland, which she'd picked up at a good price. One
can almost hear Morton dictating it so that posterity has the 'right record'.
Sorry to be so sceptical but everywhere I dig things have been lost or varnished
or complete myths built round them like the whole Tudor Welsh kingship thing. Go
back even twenty years and it isn't the same.
Doug here:
Ah, I see! I was thinking more
along the lines of that guy (MacPherson?) who cobbled together The Song of
Ossian and tried to pass it off as an ancient Scottish or Irish
ballad!
FWIW, I've always rather thought
that particular chronicler was someone in Morton's entourage, or whatever
the term might be. There's a general disapproval of what happened but, or it
seems to me anyway, there are too many missing details that Morton, had he been
the author, would have spun to his advantage. Do we know what happened to
Morton's secretaries and such when he was bundled off to
Wales?
Also, isn't Croyland located in
Morton's diocese? Or have I gotten that wrong too?
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
I digressed into looking at the history
of Croyland (it's Crowland today Alan). In 1461 it had all the rights given to
it by the Lancastrian kings withdrawn - it had been in favour with Henry
VI. Then we get

With
the prospect of three serious lawsuits, in January, 1484, the monks elected
Lambert Fossdyke as successor to Richard Crowland. He was a bachelor of law, and
would have rendered useful service to the monastery, but within two years he
died of the sweating sickness. (fn. 191)
During his rule the turbulent men of Moulton and Weston again claimed rights
within the precinct of Crowland, and laid a complaint against the monastery.
(fn. 192)
The judges who were sent to try the case found that they had never possessed the
rights of common to which they laid claim. However, provision was made against
the overflow of water from the precinct into Holland. Fossdyke was succeeded by
the prior, Edmund Thorpe, a bachelor of divinity. He sought to secure and
maintain his rights by tact and conciliatory conduct. (fn. 193)
At Moulton he obtained the support of the family of the Welbys, and their
influence over the inhabitants kept the peace. He showed much patience in his
dealings with the men of Deeping, who were also restrained by the Lady Margaret
Beaufort, to whom the manor belonged. The fresh dispute with the monks of
Peterborough about the marsh of Alderland was settled between 1480 and 1484 by
the arbitration of Rotherham, archbishop of York, greatly to the detriment of
Crowland. The abbot and convent were bound to pay £10 a year to Peterborough
until they had purchased lands of that value for the said monastery, or procured
the appropriation of the church of Brinkhurst. (fn. 194)
Accordingly Abbot Edmund exerted all his influence to obtain the appropriation,
which was finally concluded at the expense of Crowland in 1486. Houses of Benedictine monks: The abbey of Crowland | British
History Online
es a
Houses
of Benedictine monks: The abbey of Crowland | British History
Online
So Croyland was no lover of the
House of York.
Doug here:
So Croyland was no lover of the House of
York.
That might go a long way in explaining the tone
of the relevant Chronicles, wouldn't it?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Got it
wrong!
Statute,
at the recent petition of Richard, abbot of Croyland,
O.S.B., in the diocese of Lincoln (containing that there is a lack of priests
for divine worship in the said monastery, and that at times there are monks
professed therein, not yet of lawful age), that in future the said abbot and the
abbots for the time being may dispense such monks in their twenty-second year
and in minor and subdeacon's and deacon's orders, to be promoted to the
priesthood by any bishop of the abbot's choice in communion with the apostolic
see. Ad
perp.
rei
mem.
Solet
interdum Romanus pontifex.
[1¼ pp.]
This
was 4 Jul 1478. Not doing very well were they, or rather there didn't seem to be
many priests around.
Doug
here:
Sounds
like a nice place to lay low, though.
Well,
except for the damp....
Doug
ps:
I've changed the subject line to
Croyland--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

And note MB keeps her oar in. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 16:22 Subject: Croyland
Hilary
wrote:
I digressed into looking at the history
of Croyland (it's Crowland today Alan). In 1461 it had all the rights given to
it by the Lancastrian kings withdrawn - it had been in favour with Henry
VI. Then we get

With
the prospect of three serious lawsuits, in January, 1484, the monks elected
Lambert Fossdyke as successor to Richard Crowland. He was a bachelor of law, and
would have rendered useful service to the monastery, but within two years he
died of the sweating sickness. (fn. 191)
During his rule the turbulent men of Moulton and Weston again claimed rights
within the precinct of Crowland, and laid a complaint against the monastery.
(fn. 192)
The judges who were sent to try the case found that they had never possessed the
rights of common to which they laid claim. However, provision was made against
the overflow of water from the precinct into Holland. Fossdyke was succeeded by
the prior, Edmund Thorpe, a bachelor of divinity. He sought to secure and
maintain his rights by tact and conciliatory conduct. (fn. 193)
At Moulton he obtained the support of the family of the Welbys, and their
influence over the inhabitants kept the peace. He showed much patience in his
dealings with the men of Deeping, who were also restrained by the Lady Margaret
Beaufort, to whom the manor belonged. The fresh dispute with the monks of
Peterborough about the marsh of Alderland was settled between 1480 and 1484 by
the arbitration of Rotherham, archbishop of York, greatly to the detriment of
Crowland. The abbot and convent were bound to pay £10 a year to Peterborough
until they had purchased lands of that value for the said monastery, or procured
the appropriation of the church of Brinkhurst. (fn. 194)
Accordingly Abbot Edmund exerted all his influence to obtain the appropriation,
which was finally concluded at the expense of Crowland in 1486. Houses of Benedictine monks: The abbey of Crowland | British
History Online
es a
Houses
of Benedictine monks: The abbey of Crowland | British History
Online
So Croyland was no lover of the
House of York.
Doug here:
So Croyland was no lover of the House of
York.
That might go a long way in explaining the tone
of the relevant Chronicles, wouldn't it?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Thanks Doug. I recall where it is now, having driven through it on the odd occasion. It's by Spalding in the fens, if you know that. Yes it is remote - I had to drive 25 miles and back on narrow roads with deep ditches on either side, not much fun. Re its remoteness I was up the road at Sempringham, which is so remote that Gwenllian, the daughter of Llywelyn was imprisoned there for her whole life. A good place to hide out indeed, in fact another communication from the Pope allows them to eat meat on forbidden occasions because the weather is so harsh. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Wednesday, 5 October 2016, 16:17 Subject: Croyland
Hilary
wrote:
Got it
wrong!
Statute,
at the recent petition of Richard, abbot of Croyland,
O.S.B., in the diocese of Lincoln (containing that there is a lack of priests
for divine worship in the said monastery, and that at times there are monks
professed therein, not yet of lawful age), that in future the said abbot and the
abbots for the time being may dispense such monks in their twenty-second year
and in minor and subdeacon's and deacon's orders, to be promoted to the
priesthood by any bishop of the abbot's choice in communion with the apostolic
see. Ad
perp.
rei
mem.
Solet
interdum Romanus pontifex.
[1¼ pp.]
This
was 4 Jul 1478. Not doing very well were they, or rather there didn't seem to be
many priests around.
Doug
here:
Sounds
like a nice place to lay low, though.
Well,
except for the damp....
Doug
ps:
I've changed the subject line to
Croyland--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
And note MB keeps her oar in.
Doug here:
It's sort of circular, isn't it? The more she
looks after her people, the more inclined they'll be to support her, if and
when she calls on them.
Pity this was the 15h century, because it looks
as if she'd have made a very good head of some department of State for Edward or
Richard.
Well, once HT was back in England and not in the
Tower...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
Thanks Doug. I recall where it is
now, having driven through it on the odd occasion. It's by Spalding in the fens,
if you know that. Yes it is remote - I had to drive 25 miles and back on narrow
roads with deep ditches on either side, not much fun. Re its remoteness I was up
the road at Sempringham, which is so remote that Gwenllian, the daughter of
Llywelyn was imprisoned there for her whole life. A good place to hide out
indeed, in fact another communication from the Pope allows them to eat meat on
forbidden occasions because the weather is so harsh.
Doug here:
It makes one wonder if some of those chroniclers
were there on their own volition, doesn't it? I know in another post I wondered
what had happened to Morton's retinue while he was in Wales; to be more
specific, what happened to his secretaries? Certainly Morton didn't personally
write all his correspondence?
And a secretary would be just the person to know
quite a bit about what had happened, but not to the extent an actual participant
(Morton/Russell) would.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Indeed. Jones & Underwood, her biographers and a book that is very readable, claim that she was the first woman to almost rule parts of the country from her 'Court' at Collyweston. They also cite the funeral oration of Fisher who claimed she was one of the few Christians who lived up to her faith. He needn't have done this, HT was already dead and her grandson was not particularly fond of her. What a pity she was on the wrong square of the chessboard. And one can see where Elizabeth I's intellect came from. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2016, 16:32 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Croyland
Hilary
wrote:
And note MB keeps her oar in.
Doug here:
It's sort of circular, isn't it? The more she
looks after her people, the more inclined they'll be to support her, if and
when she calls on them.
Pity this was the 15h century, because it looks
as if she'd have made a very good head of some department of State for Edward or
Richard.
Well, once HT was back in England and not in the
Tower...
Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

A good point. More digging methinks. H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2016, 16:42 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Croyland
Hilary
wrote:
Thanks Doug. I recall where it is
now, having driven through it on the odd occasion. It's by Spalding in the fens,
if you know that. Yes it is remote - I had to drive 25 miles and back on narrow
roads with deep ditches on either side, not much fun. Re its remoteness I was up
the road at Sempringham, which is so remote that Gwenllian, the daughter of
Llywelyn was imprisoned there for her whole life. A good place to hide out
indeed, in fact another communication from the Pope allows them to eat meat on
forbidden occasions because the weather is so harsh.
Doug here:
It makes one wonder if some of those chroniclers
were there on their own volition, doesn't it? I know in another post I wondered
what had happened to Morton's retinue while he was in Wales; to be more
specific, what happened to his secretaries? Certainly Morton didn't personally
write all his correspondence?
And a secretary would be just the person to know
quite a bit about what had happened, but not to the extent an actual participant
(Morton/Russell) would.
Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary
wrote:
A good point. More digging
methinks.
Doug here:
Do we have a Golden Shovel
award?
Because I can think of a
nominee...
Doug
(apologies for the delay in
posting)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I just dig the periphery fences Doug - others on here are much better at the core stuff! H From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> To: Sent: Monday, 10 October 2016, 15:30 Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Croyland
Hilary
wrote:
A good point. More digging
methinks.
Doug here:
Do we have a Golden Shovel
award?
Because I can think of a
nominee...
Doug
(apologies for the delay in
posting)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.