Cicely

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

Eileen

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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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? H

Marie:

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."

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? H

Sent 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

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? H

Marie:

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...

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

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 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; or

2) 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 said

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'.

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).

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.

Hilary said

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'.

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).

Hilary said

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'.

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) 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

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 that

Marie:

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.

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 that

Marie:

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.

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

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

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 lie

Marie:

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.

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 lie

Marie:

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.

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.

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...! Eileen

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.

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.

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

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

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

Doug asked

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.

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

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.

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

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@... []" <@ 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.htm

http://medievalwriting.50megs. com/author/monasticscribe3.htm

Alan


On 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.