Rolls of Parliament

wise sheweth and beseechech youre humble Oratour

James Stanley Clerk, Deane of youre free Chappell of

St Martyns the Great in London. That where all the

Arch Bishoprickes and Bishoprickcs of thys your Noble

Reame of England, being suffitiently endowed, so that

the Arch Bishopps and Bishopps of the same, need

not, nor by the laudable Lawes and Custumes of thys

youre Land, have nor occupye, ne had any other Dignitee,

Benefice, or in any wise augmentacone by Comendam,

Provisione or otherwise. Wherefore and for the

horrible and haneous offences ymagined and doune by the

Bishop of Bath, as well ayenst your Highnesis as otherwise,

and because he, contrary to the premes, had and

occupied the Deanry of your said free Chappell with

th' appurtenaunces; may hit please your Highness to

graunt by youre L[etters] Pattentes unto the said James,

for terme of his Lyfe, the said Deanery with th' appurtenaunces,

by force whereof, he is therein enstalled

in corporall Possione of the siame, wherein the said

Bishop of Bath intendeth to vex and trouble youre said

Suppliaunt. . . ."

(In other words, "Stillington is a traitor and is giving me a hard time. Please give me the deanery he wants.")

Carol wrote:

"I did, however, find the act relating to Stillington's "horrible and haneous offenses." Turns out that in this case we can't blame Henry for the vague and exaggerated language. The words come from a petition by one James Stanley (related in some way to Thomas and William?), dean of St. Martin's, against Stillington, presented to Henry's first Parliament, held November 17, 1485. The relevant portion reads:

"To the King oure Soveraine Lord [Henry]; in most humble

wise sheweth and beseechech youre humble Oratour

James Stanley Clerk, Deane of youre free Chappell of

St Martyns the Great in London. That where all the

Arch Bishoprickes and Bishoprickcs of thys your Noble

Reame of England, being suffitiently endowed, so that

the Arch Bishopps and Bishopps of the same, need

not, nor by the laudable Lawes and Custumes of thys

youre Land, have nor occupye, ne had any other Dignitee,

Benefice, or in any wise augmentacone by Comendam,

Provisione or otherwise. Wherefore and for the

horrible and haneous offences ymagined and doune by the

Bishop of Bath, as well ayenst your Highnesis as otherwise,

and because he, contrary to the premes, had and

occupied the Deanry of your said free Chappell with

th' appurtenaunces; may hit please your Highness to

graunt by youre L[etters] Pattentes unto the said James,

for terme of his Lyfe, the said Deanery with th' appurtenaunces,

by force whereof, he is therein enstalled

in corporall Possione of the siame, wherein the said

Bishop of Bath intendeth to vex and trouble youre said

Suppliaunt. . . ."

(In other words, "Stillington is a traitor and is giving me a hard time. Please give me the deanery he wants.")"

Marie here:

It wasn't "please give me the deanery he wants" but rather "Please force him to vacate the deanery, which he used to hold but which you granted to me when he was imprisoned." Stillington had been Dean of St Martin's since 1458.

James Stanley was a son or nephew of the new earl of Derby, and was at this time Archdeacon of Chester. He eventually became Bishop of Ely.

Marie wrote:

"It wasn't "please give me the deanery he wants" but rather "Please force him to vacate the deanery, which he used to hold but which you granted to me when he was imprisoned." Stillington had been Dean of St Martin's since 1458. James Stanley was a son or nephew of the new earl of Derby, and was at this time Archdeacon of Chester. He eventually became Bishop of Ely."

Carol responds:

Thanks for the clarification. That helps me make sense of the earlier part of the petition, which I didn't quote, where he seems to be saying that Richard's appointments are invalid. (Forgive my vague memory; I don't have the document in front of me and this was the first time I've seen it.)

So he's saying that Stillington is "vexing" him and is guilty of "horrible and haneous offenses," so for those reasons, he (Stanley) should be allowed to keep it rather than have Stillington take it back (as he has done or is trying to do)?

But my point was mainly that Stanley, not Henry, accused Stillington of unnamed "horrible and haneous offenses," of which one must have been supporting Richard and another might have been writing Titulus Regius.

Who was the new Earl of Derby, and was James Stanley connected with Thomas and William?

Bishop of Ely, eh? I'll reserve comment on that!

Carol

Carol wrote:

"Who was the new Earl of Derby, and was James Stanley connected with Thomas and William?"

Marie:

The new earl of Derby was Thomas, Lord Stanley. It was his reward for his valuable services at Bosworth.

Incidentally, I wonder if we should revisit the idea that it was Sir William, not Lord Thomas, who came in on Tudor's side at Bosworth, given that Thomas got an earldom, etc, whilst Sir William got no reward at all and was later executed.

Hilary said:

Now Ian Arthurson says that Sir William had always been an 'Edward man' and turned against Richard because of the Eleanor Butler story. He does give us quite a lot of info about how Edward buttered Sir William and it was sort of mutual adoration. When Henry didn't (literally) embrace him in the same way, he turned against him and backed the Yorkist cause - his Yorkist chain of office was found amongst his most treasured possessions.

Marie responds:

I hadn't questioned motive - what was concerning me is that the way Henry behaved after Bosworth suggests he was far more grateful to Thomas Stanley than to William, and indeed that he felt no cause for gratitude towards Sir William at all. Henry was generally very loyal and grateful towards those who had supported him in exile and protected him during the battle (Philibert de Chandee went home to France with an earldom), so his treatment of Sir William doesn't fit, and I just feel that this is something that needs to be squared up to.

I haven't studied the sources for Bosworth so I can't comment on the evidence from chronicles, etc, for Sir William having been the hero of the hour, but what I can say is that Mike Jones' argument for Thomas not having been present at Bosworth is rather weak: viz, it is recorded that, in his deposition to the papal legate regarding a dispensation for Henry and Elizabeth, Thomas Stanley claimed to have known Henry since 24th August - ie two days after the battle. But *all* the witnesses who had first met Henry after the battle are recorded as giving the date as 24th August, so it seems that what we have is a general error regarding the date of the battle by the notary who took down gist of the statements.

>>Carol wrote:

>>"Who was the new Earl of Derby, and was James Stanley connected with Thomas and William?"

>Marie:

>The new earl of Derby was Thomas, Lord Stanley. It was his reward for his valuable services at Bosworth.

>Incidentally, I wonder if we should revisit the idea that it was Sir William, not Lord Thomas, who came in on Tudor's side at Bosworth, given that Thomas got an earldom, etc, whilst Sir William got no reward at all and was later executed.

Weds writes:

And then there's Lord Thomas's later claim to the Tudor that he wasn't even at the battle? Or am I misremembering that claim?

Of course, there's also the legend that it was Lord Thomas who placed Richard's crown on the Tudor's head after the battle. There's so much spin, how do you tell who did what f'r real?

Weds wrote:

And then there's Lord Thomas's later claim to the Tudor that he wasn't even at the battle? Or am I misremembering that claim?

Marie:

I've never heard of this, I'm afraid. The only claim of which I'm aware that Thomas is said to have made is the one I referred to, in his answer to the legate who had been asked to issue Henry's marriage dispensation, and that simply says TS first met Tudor on 24th August. But, as I say, so did everyone else questioned who had not known Tudor previously, so the notary seems to have used 24th August as inaccurate shorthand for "since the battle at which he won his crown" ; if so, of course, then it is actually testimony from Thomas Stanley that he *was* at the battle.

"The new earl of Derby was Thomas, Lord Stanley. It was his reward for his valuable services at Bosworth. Incidentally, I wonder if we should revisit the idea that it was Sir William, not Lord Thomas, who came in on Tudor's side at Bosworth, given that Thomas got an earldom, etc, whilst Sir William got no reward at all and was later executed."

Carol responds:

Thanks. I thought so but wasn't unsure. It certainly is ironic that Sir William (who, of course, later rebelled and seems to have been a closet Edwardian Yorkist) got no reward and Thomas, who allegedly sat out the battle, was rewarded. Just being Henry's stepfather doesn't seem enough to explain it. And Northumberland, who also allegedly sat out the battle, got the same punishment as the Earl of Surrey (Thomas Howard), who unquestionably fought for Richard and was wounded in the battle.

Are we looking at deliberate obscuring of the facts in Tudor accounts, do you think? (I mean, with regard to these particulars--we know about other obscured or distorted facts, such as the "Duke of Gloucester" rebelling against the "rightful king"!) And how would we go about revisiting this question? I don't trust "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" or other Stanley-based "sources."

Carol

Carol wrote:

"Thanks. I thought so but wasn't unsure. It certainly is ironic that Sir William (who, of course, later rebelled and seems to have been a closet Edwardian Yorkist) got no reward and Thomas, who allegedly sat out the battle, was rewarded. Just being Henry's stepfather doesn't seem enough to explain it. And Northumberland, who also allegedly sat out the battle, got the same punishment as the Earl of Surrey (Thomas Howard), who unquestionably fought for Richard and was wounded in the battle.

Are we looking at deliberate obscuring of the facts in Tudor accounts, do you think? (I mean, with regard to these particulars--we know about other obscured or distorted facts, such as the "Duke of Gloucester" rebelling against the "rightful king"!) And how would we go about revisiting this question? I don't trust "The Ballad of Lady Bessy" or other Stanley-based 'sources.'"

Hilary wrote:

"So Baldwin was right - it didn't go through the proper parliamentary process of being read, discussed and repealed."

Marie responds:

Well, in saying that he was not saying anything new - it's an oft-repeated fact, isn't it? The claim by Baldwin to which our attention was being drawn at the start of this discussion - can't remember who by at this stage I'm afraid - is that the repeal was therefore illegal (hence, presumably void?). This is the point to which I have been addressing myself, but it seems I haven't made my understanding of the situation clear. The legality was ensured by Henry's prior meeting with the justices, at which they approved this method of repeal (even Carol, in saying I dealt with the legality question in my second para, evidently missed this point). The bare bones of the CJs' debate with the king, and their advice, were recorded by the lawyers in their Year Book for 1 Henry VII - i.e. it was set down as new legal ruling. One thing Henry can't be accused of, and that is failing to cover all the bases.