Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.

Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth.

Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter?

This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Philip Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser?

We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we?

If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?

Sorry this is so long H

Hilary wrote:

Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth.

Doug here:

What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though.

Hilary continued:

Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter?

This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser?

Doug here:

Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.

Hilary continued:

We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we?

Doug here:

Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp?

As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'.

Hilary concluded:

If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long 

Hi Doug my other email was so lengthy that I omitted to mention something I think important.
Stillington had access to Richard Neville through his Yorkshire roots. Thanks to Horrox we know that the wider Stillington family (Ingleby, Constable, Hungate, Gower) were in Richard Neville's affinity before Barnet and Richard inherited them when he married Anne. So Stillington wouldn't just have been some distant Bishop to Warwick, he would have been a local man. And George had lands in Richmond, he wasn't exactly a stranger to the North either.
To return to your questions:
George: this is all I have on him
'for burying George Stillington in the chapel of St. Mary in the cloister 3s 4d 14921493. Accounts of Richard Pomerey, Keeper of the Fabric, from Michaelmas, 1492, to Michaelmas, 1493. Wells From: 'Fabric accounts: 1492-3', Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean & Chapter of Wells: volume 2 (1914), pp. 130-133. '
He clearly wasn't a priest there because priests are described as such.I have found a John Stillington collated to the Prebendary of Shalford in 1477 and never, as far as I can see, heard of again. And there is a William Stillington who continues to be a priest but who could also have been the son of the Bishop's brother, Thomas
The Hamptons: the John Hampton of Kinver that you found on wiki was a distant relation. He did well under Henry VI, died in about 1472 (I recall) and left no children. There is correspondence between him and his cousin Thomas from Southampton in the Stonor papers. 'Our' John Hampton is as follows:
'The Hampton manor of Badgeworth (given by King John) together with other properties in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, was held in the fifteenth century by his descendant Philip (d. (440), to whom Alice Catecot brought the inheritance of Catecot and Gournay. As the Gournays were the heirs of the Harptrees, the representation not only of Gournay but of the Harptrees (who were descended from John of Harptrce, the ancestor of Level of Castle Cary, Level of Minster Level, and of Perceval of Stowell and Westonin-Gordano), passed by this marriage to the Hamptons. Among these properties was the ominously named Richmont Castle, " in the Rote of Mendip,' the scanty ruins of which yet remain about a quarter of a mile to the south- west of East Harptree church. Richard Hampton's daughter Katherine was married to Richard Perceval (d. 1482) of weston-in-Gordano.'! Easton-in-Gordano passed, after the Duke of York's death, to his son George, Duke of Clarence, who for a consideration allowed Henry VI's tenant to retain the property. These circumstances, together with his Nevill marriage, suggest that Richard Hampton may have supported York, the Nevills and/or Clarence. The probability is strengthened by the marriage in about 1460-65 of his son and heir, John, to the Yorkist bishop's daughter. Richard Hampton died between November 146816 and March 1472, the absence of either will or Inquisition Post Mortem pointing to a sudden death, probably during the battles of 146971. Stillington, then, had provided well for his daughter.'
This is from a paper by W. E Hampton on Bishop Stillington's Chapel in Wells and his family in Somerset. I think Marie will know where you can get the full copy. Most of it is taken from a very good Victorian history of Somerset. Both are well worth reading. Note the reference to Clarence yet again in that area. Richard Hampton born in 1415 (father's IPM), John's father, supposedly married an Egelina Nevill, niece of Cis, but she is elusive. I reckon Hampton's assessment of the date of Juliana's marriage is a bit early. She had three children in straight succession (and then probably died) which says to me they were conceived soon after her marriage. John Hampton witnessed a deed in 1480 (with a lovely group of later 1483 rebels) and was dead by 1483, when his girls are in the charge of the Chokkes.
Who would gain the most from the marriage? Difficult to say, who could predict the eclipse of the Nevills after Barnet (although their eclipse led to the temporary rise of George). I would call the families into which the girls married 'fence-sitters'. None turned out for Bosworth. They'd done well under Edward but the Newtons and Gorges had significant Welsh connections so it was win win. The Chokkes went bust within a generation, as did the husband of Lucy, John ap Morgan. Given the girls were mopped up so quickly and passed around among the families I would say it was Juliana would stood to gain the most. Most bishops' children could expect to make middling marriages.
Finally, looking at Stillington's own background through his mother, it's possible that he thought he had a more distinguished ancestry than the Plantagenets. We tend to take them as the benchmark, but some who came with the Conqueror regarded their own pedigree as superior and the Plantagenets as upstarts. We see that with people like the Courtenays and other Magna Carta knights. In fact these families never really got over believing they could tell the king what to do.
I'll shut up now. H (who spent a lifetime doing stats for the gov and being grilled by auditors. It's a good discipline for on here. You all provide a marvellous audit :) :)




From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017, 18:21
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Hilary wrote: Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth. Doug here: What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though. Hilary continued: Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter? This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser? Doug here: Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.
Hilary continued: We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we? Doug here: Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp? As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'. Hilary concluded:
If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long  Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary something that has occurred to me, and it may or may not be relevant, there is a connection between Brittany and Wales for example similarities between their languages. David's post about the de Guer/ Gower families made me think about it. There were the Gowers of Settringham in Yorkshire who fought for Richard at Bosworth but there are Welsh Gower families too. I have Gowers on both sides of my family tree. Not long ago I saw a programme about the Celts and some research that was done suggested that the Celts had originally come from Spain into Cornwall and Wales and from there to Ireland. Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think that they also went to Brittany too and that the connection between Wales and Brittany stems from that. My niece has recently had her DNA checked by Ancestry and it comes up 53% Irish Celtic but from my researches into our side of the family we don't have any Irish ancestry and her father's family were from Norfolk and that would account for the Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian parts of her DNA.

Mary wrote:

Hilary something that has occurred to me, and it may or may not be relevant, there is a connection between Brittany and Wales for example similarities between their languages. David's post about the de Guer/ Gower families made me think about it. There were the Gowers of Settringham in Yorkshire who fought for Richard at Bosworth but there are Welsh Gower families too. I have Gowers on both sides of my family tree. Not long ago I saw a programme about the Celts and some research that was done suggested that the Celts had originally come from Spain into Cornwall and Wales and from there to Ireland. Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think that they also went to Brittany too and that the connection between Wales and Brittany stems from that.

Marie:

The Irish Celts almost certainly reached Ireland directly from Spain, as their own legends suggest. The Irish language belongs to a different branch than Welsh and Breton.

The close connection between Wales and Brittany is that both are places where the Britons fetched up after the Saxon invasions (same goes for Cornwall). That is why their languages are so similar, and that is why Brittany is called Brittany. Used to be known as Little Britain, in contrast to Great Britain.

And the Cornish connection explains why one of the provinces of Brittany is called Cornouaille.

When I first learnt about the story of Edward and Elizabeth, I thought it was extremely romantic and unusual : the king who married for love. But once I knew more about the consequences of that marriage, I realized what a catastrophic decision it had been on a political level. It of course began the rift between Warwick and Edward, with a new civil war and Edward nearly losing his throne as a consequence. And it also led Edward to favor an alliance with Burgundy, whereas Charles the Bold was a very poor choice as a reliable ally. Not only was he as untrustworthy as Louis XI could have been, but he was stupid. Allied, England and France might have divided Charles's possessions between them, and there would nave been no empire of Charles V, at least in Europe.Opinions are divided as to whether the pre-contract to Eleanor Butler actually existed or not. But anyway, it would have been more difficult to declare that the children of a foreign princess were bastards. It could be done of course, but probably with much more difficulties with the princess's family and with the Pope, as it happened to Henry VIII.Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?Anyway, that foolish secret marriage to Elizabeth shows that he might very well have been irresponsible enough for the pre-contract story to be true. 
Romane


---In @ yahoogroups.com, <maryfriend@...> wrote :

Romane, off the top of my head I can't remember the source, however, I didn't quote it to suggest that Edward wasn't R of Y's son but to suggest what I think Cecily meant by that remark, if indeed she did make it. I think she meant that Edward marrying EW was not the correct way for a king to behave and I think that she would have  meant that Edward wasn't like his father who would not have done such a thing. Warwick was negotiating a marriage with the French for the hand of Bona of Savoy and Edward had allowed him to carry on his negotiating for four months after he was married to Elizabeth. This was the beginning of the rift between Edward and Warwick.
Mary

Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe.  I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward.  I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason.  

Your last point's very interesting, Nico. Edward certainly side-lined Cis and she was 'proud Cis'. It's ironic that although EW's picture sits in Queens, it's Richard that they love. They even have his boar motto on the paper napkins they use every day. They hate HT with a vengeance for taking Richard's funding away. Pity we can't find that portrait of Anne to replace it. H  

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: "@ yahoogroups.com" <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

  Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did.  I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona.  However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him.  However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer.  He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops.   Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly?  This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt.  If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question.  There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time.  May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date.  However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.)  It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her.  However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual.  The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in.  There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary

Nico :

As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Romane :

I think that Richard knew nothing before Stiligton's revelation, for it seems that he was genuinely planning to crown his nephew in the beginning. But I agree, he was certainly devastated. It's obvious that he was completely devoted to Edward in his youth. Then, maybe, they might have somehow drifted apart, being so different and living so far from each other. But to discover that Edward had lied to him that much was certainly terrible for him. Or so it seems, considering how harshly his once beloved brother's reign is criticized in the Titulus Regius and in some other of Richard's proclamations as a king. All these passages about Edward's bad counselors, encouraging his debauched ways, about the complete lack of moral and order during Edward's reign& Was it really necessary in order to convince people of Richard's right to rule ? He was the rightful king because one of his nephew was a bastard and the other was attainted. Not because Edward had been a bad ruler. But maybe this is Richard' s way of venting his bitter disappointment in his deceitful and irresponsible brother.

And deceitful and irresponsible he was. Even without the pre-contract story, the country was apparently on the brink of civil war at Edward's death, with the Woodvilles' attempt to seize all the power, and magnates such as Hastings set on preventing them to do so, because they were upstarts. I suspect that in spite of Mancini'as account, most of the people was very relieved by the idea of Richard as they new king.

Nico :

Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly?

Romane :

Indeed. Had Edward thought of freeing himself from this second marriage as well ? Horspool quotes a letter for John Howard to Lord Rivers, saying that the people and the lords were very dissatisfied of the marriage and that « for the sake of finding means to annul it, all the nobles are holding great consultations in the town of Reading, where the King is. » So the nobles apparently discussed how to annul the marriage without Edward telling them to stop. Horspool uses that letter to suggest that the pre-contract never existed, for Edward could have freed himself by revealing it. & Except that he obviously didn't want to find himself married to Eleanor Butler either. So IMO, that letter doesn't prove anything.

Maybe Edward realized how foolish that marriage was, and let his nobles try to find a way of freeing him. Or maybe he just let them try, knowing that they could not. For IMO, the way he showered Elizabeth's family with gifts and positions, and the numerous children he had with her seems to speak against the idea that he ever considered to annul his marriage.

Eileen :

Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe. I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward. I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason.

Romane :

Could she have been a spy for the Woodvilles ? Or something could have made Clarence think so ? Anyway, in the accounts we have of Clarence's behavior, it seems that he often behaved like a complete madman after Isabel's death. He seems to have become quite paranoid. So who could know what incident might have raised his suspicion ?

And what if it was the huge secret he had discovered that had eaten him alive and made him lose his balance ? He might have thought that all he had to do was to wait for Edward's death, and reveal what he knows to become king. That could be why he apparently tried to ask an astrologer to calculate the date of his brother's death. But he could not prevent himself for becoming too bold and to hint at what he knew, which became his death warrant.

I too, wonder where does that reputation as a drunk come from. Most of the novels use it, but I've not found any mention of that in the history books so far.

What a thought provoking question.
I dont know if 'hate' is the right word for what I feel for HT.   I despise him that for sure.  Is that worse than hate.
Funnily enough I feel something akin to hate towards the Stanleys, MB and Morton because the Weasle would never had got there if it had not been for their input.   
Detest EW..with some pity..as she paid a big price for her crap.
Dislike..thats not so strong as hate....dislike Elizabeth of York, Jane/Elizabeth Shore, Catesby, Edward IV

Admire John Howard Duke of York, Warwick, Cicely Neville, Richard Duke of York.
Like George Duke of Clarence. 

Also as well as walking a mile in someone else's shoes we don't know what other things that he had to put up with. The fact that Edward refused to let Isabel and Anne marry George and Richard, was Edward trying to marry them off to two of the Woodvilles?
Mary

Thanks David, I'm working on this. Interestingly, the Mortons seem to have originated in Yorkshire and then moved south via Nottingham. I find that a lot of these Breton links come via marriage with a 'gateway' ancestor. But I think it would have been something of which people were very much aware and the tradition is carried via names. In Yorkshire I've traced quite a few but, for example, I haven't traced the Askes. Yet with a prevalence of Conans and Johns you can bet Breton ancestry is there somewhere. As you know, it's complex. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2017, 23:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary Another fascinating post that mentions one of the probable Breton families that I knew about. Gower - erroneously linked to a place near Paris is more likely de Guer. Guer apparently was an apanage granted to the cadets of the house of de Malestroit. By coincidence, the family de Malestroit built the castle of Largöet and its Tower of Elven, where Henry Tudor was accommodated. By then the castle had passed by marriage to Jean IV de Rieux, one of the key players of the period.
The Gowers were settled before the Conquest.
As an as side, I find John Morton's coat of arms intriguing - the ermine is often a sign of Breton descent, but I have not found a link.
Regards David
On 23 Jun 2017 10:01 a.m., "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Hi Doug my other email was so lengthy that I omitted to mention something I think important.
Stillington had access to Richard Neville through his Yorkshire roots. Thanks to Horrox we know that the wider Stillington family (Ingleby, Constable, Hungate, Gower) were in Richard Neville's affinity before Barnet and Richard inherited them when he married Anne. So Stillington wouldn't just have been some distant Bishop to Warwick, he would have been a local man. And George had lands in Richmond, he wasn't exactly a stranger to the North either.
To return to your questions:
George: this is all I have on him
'for burying George Stillington in the chapel of St. Mary in the cloister 3s 4d 14921493. Accounts of Richard Pomerey, Keeper of the Fabric, from Michaelmas, 1492, to Michaelmas, 1493. Wells From: 'Fabric accounts: 1492-3', Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean & Chapter of Wells: volume 2 (1914), pp. 130-133. '
He clearly wasn't a priest there because priests are described as such.I have found a John Stillington collated to the Prebendary of Shalford in 1477 and never, as far as I can see, heard of again. And there is a William Stillington who continues to be a priest but who could also have been the son of the Bishop's brother, Thomas
The Hamptons: the John Hampton of Kinver that you found on wiki was a distant relation. He did well under Henry VI, died in about 1472 (I recall) and left no children. There is correspondence between him and his cousin Thomas from Southampton in the Stonor papers. 'Our' John Hampton is as follows:
'The Hampton manor of Badgeworth (given by King John) together with other properties in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, was held in the fifteenth century by his descendant Philip (d. (440), to whom Alice Catecot brought the inheritance of Catecot and Gournay. As the Gournays were the heirs of the Harptrees, the representation not only of Gournay but of the Harptrees (who were descended from John of Harptrce, the ancestor of Level of Castle Cary, Level of Minster Level, and of Perceval of Stowell and Westonin-Gordano), passed by this marriage to the Hamptons. Among these properties was the ominously named Richmont Castle, " in the Rote of Mendip,' the scanty ruins of which yet remain about a quarter of a mile to the south- west of East Harptree church. Richard Hampton's daughter Katherine was married to Richard Perceval (d. 1482) of weston-in-Gordano.'! Easton-in-Gordano passed, after the Duke of York's death, to his son George, Duke of Clarence, who for a consideration allowed Henry VI's tenant to retain the property. These circumstances, together with his Nevill marriage, suggest that Richard Hampton may have supported York, the Nevills and/or Clarence. The probability is strengthened by the marriage in about 1460-65 of his son and heir, John, to the Yorkist bishop's daughter. Richard Hampton died between November 146816 and March 1472, the absence of either will or Inquisition Post Mortem pointing to a sudden death, probably during the battles of 146971. Stillington, then, had provided well for his daughter.'
This is from a paper by W. E Hampton on Bishop Stillington's Chapel in Wells and his family in Somerset. I think Marie will know where you can get the full copy. Most of it is taken from a very good Victorian history of Somerset. Both are well worth reading. Note the reference to Clarence yet again in that area. Richard Hampton born in 1415 (father's IPM), John's father, supposedly married an Egelina Nevill, niece of Cis, but she is elusive. I reckon Hampton's assessment of the date of Juliana's marriage is a bit early. She had three children in straight succession (and then probably died) which says to me they were conceived soon after her marriage. John Hampton witnessed a deed in 1480 (with a lovely group of later 1483 rebels) and was dead by 1483, when his girls are in the charge of the Chokkes.
Who would gain the most from the marriage? Difficult to say, who could predict the eclipse of the Nevills after Barnet (although their eclipse led to the temporary rise of George). I would call the families into which the girls married 'fence-sitters'. None turned out for Bosworth. They'd done well under Edward but the Newtons and Gorges had significant Welsh connections so it was win win. The Chokkes went bust within a generation, as did the husband of Lucy, John ap Morgan. Given the girls were mopped up so quickly and passed around among the families I would say it was Juliana would stood to gain the most. Most bishops' children could expect to make middling marriages.
Finally, looking at Stillington's own background through his mother, it's possible that he thought he had a more distinguished ancestry than the Plantagenets. We tend to take them as the benchmark, but some who came with the Conqueror regarded their own pedigree as superior and the Plantagenets as upstarts. We see that with people like the Courtenays and other Magna Carta knights. In fact these families never really got over believing they could tell the king what to do.
I'll shut up now. H (who spent a lifetime doing stats for the gov and being grilled by auditors. It's a good discipline for on here. You all provide a marvellous audit :) :)




From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017, 18:21
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Hilary wrote: Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth. Doug here: What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though. Hilary continued: Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter? This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser? Doug here: Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.
Hilary continued: We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we? Doug here: Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp? As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'. Hilary concluded:
If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long  Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary

David :

Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.

Romane :

But can we sure that we can believe the rebels on that point ? It was in their interest to say so.

David :

1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.

Romane :

Yes, but then he would have ended up married to Eleanor Butler.

The idea is not that he married Elizabeth to avoid marrying Bona, of course. Just that he decided he could marry Elizabeth because marrying any princess might cause huge diplomatic problems. And as many recently said, it's very possible that he had in mind to cast her aside as he'd done with Eleanor. Only he couldn't, because Elizabeth was not likely to behave as Eleanor had, to shut her mouth and to bury herself in a nunnery.

David :

2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses

- that Eleanor may have been a mistress

- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.

Romane :

The reason I tend to think that the story was genuine is the face that in the 1470s, the most interesting story for George was that of Edward's own illegitimacy. A story useful only if the king die', considering the age and robust health of the man at that time, was not likely to be very interesting for George.

But if it was true, and if George was almost bursting from trying to shut his mouth, wondering how and when he could use the secret , then it can explain some part of George's dangerous defiance of his brother. And the fact that he asked for his brother's horoscope.

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/is-this-the-face-of-clarences-daughter/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/is-this-the-face-of-clarences-daughter/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.

Interesting! Re who spilled the beans on him to Richard could it have come through the Jane Shore/Dorset route. Jane Shore's penance always seems very odd to me. H 

From: "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 19:41
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

  I posted about Hastings previously but it seems to have got lost. Some years ago I read an article in the Bulletin about Hastings. He had the wardship  of Thomas Grey before Edward married Elizabeth  so that could be how Edward met her. Just a thought.
Mary

No connection, really.

The Poles (Pooles), such as Geoffrey who was Lady Margaret's father-in-law, were from Cheshire .

The de la Poles were from Hull . There was a family by the same name that moved from Normandy to Wales but Horrox assures me that they were not related.

The real connections are that Richard's sister married into one and his niece the other, whilst the Tudors persecuted both lines.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 13:06
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Thanks, Stephen and Eileen! The portrait is fascinating! Thanks for the link and the further info!

I have been aware of this portrait at some time in the past, and at the time at least, it seemed to me that the barrel was a pointed allusion to the alleged manner of George's demise. Other than that, well, frankly, I can't imagine that barrel charms were common in that day, and I have to think it is an allusion  even if the truth is just that George was fond of Malmsey and was privileged to be allowed a tipple prior to his execution by beheading.

What is the connection (if any) between the Poles and the de la Poles? (Forgive question born of ignorance. = )

And what is your assessment of K.L. Clark's recent book, *The Nevills of Middleham: England 's Most Powerful Family in the Wars of the Roses. I bought it at Foyle's when I was in London in December, but I haven't cracked it yet.

Johanne

I purchased
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []<mailto: >
Sent: June 27, 2017 8:03 AM
To: <mailto: >
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/is-this-the-face-of-clarences-daughter/


From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.

Other writers think so but Horrox does not.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 15:33
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Stephen, I always thought that the de la Poles were descended from Gwenwynwyn and his son Owain Pwll or in English Owain of the Pool and then it became de la Pole. I believe Owain was rewarded by E1 because he fought for him against Llewellyn ap Gruffydd.

Mary

Johanne I guess it's got to be one or the other....either drowned in it or liked it.  You can like a drink but that doesn't make you an alcoholic which is an illness.  Incidentally there must have been an awful lot ot drinking going on by everybody,,,just depending on class whether it was watered down ale or good wine.  Were they all wandering around inebriated or slightly merry?  

Agree Eileen. Another thing that has just occurred to me could he have been affected by all that he had experienced in his late teenage years. Nowadays, if your younger brother, who you were probably very fond of because you spent years living together away from family, had been brutally murdered and then you witness your father's head hanging from Mickelgate Bar, you would probably have been given counselling. Before that he had to flee the country with Warwick not knowing what had happened to the rest of his family. There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or  visited them every day. That said his later actions spelt doom for his family and for this country under the Tudors.
Mary

I cannot see how such childhood wounds could not have affected them all. Post traumatic stress, insecurity, grief and the constant threat of having to go to war yet again . The horrific things they must have witnessed. For myself I have never witnessed an act of violence in my life that was not on television. Everyone seems to think Richard was this calm cool logical courageous warrior. It occurs to me this was a mask. He was taught to be stoic of course but what was underneath?
On Jun 27, 2017 10:26 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:

Agree Eileen. Another thing that has just occurred to me could he have been affected by all that he had experienced in his late teenage years. Nowadays, if your younger brother, who you were probably very fond of because you spent years living together away from family, had been brutally murdered and then you witness your father's head hanging from Mickelgate Bar, you would probably have been given counselling. Before that he had to flee the country with Warwick not knowing what had happened to the rest of his family. There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or visited them every day. That said his later actions spelt doom for his family and for this country under the Tudors.

I agree, but there had been war and fighting for many years. Life was not quite as precious the, because of violence, disease, nat Rao disasters........ probably a lot of people were injured to tragedy.
On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

    I cannot see how such childhood wounds could not have affected them all. Post traumatic stress, insecurity, grief and the constant threat of having to go to war yet again . The horrific things they must have witnessed. For myself I have never witnessed an act of violence in my life that was not on television.    Everyone seems to think Richard was this calm cool logical courageous warrior. It occurs to me this was a mask. He was taught to be stoic of course but what was underneath?
On Jun 27, 2017 10:26 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Agree Eileen. Another thing that has just occurred to me could he have been affected by all that he had experienced in his late teenage years. Nowadays, if your younger brother, who you were probably very fond of because you spent years living together away from family, had been brutally murdered and then you witness your father's head hanging from Mickelgate Bar, you would probably have been given counselling. Before that he had to flee the country with Warwick not knowing what had happened to the rest of his family. There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or  visited them every day. That said his later actions spelt doom for his family and for this country under the Tudors.

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 6:08 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

HIlary this has always been a fine bit of mud to throw at George - this poor old dear dragged out of her house, her daughter trailing behind her and then hung from the nearest post on a trumped up charge - just George spitting his dummy out. If i recall JAH wrote that this was not a spur of the moment thing as George had been to Ireland in the interim.

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 6:28 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary :

Lots of things like your description of George were once (still are) written about Richard. And just like Richard they are assumptions, not evidenced.

Romane :

I what you call my assumptions' are what I said about Edward maybe realizing that George was made of less solid stuff than Richard, and then giving him less responsibilities even at an early age, I admit that these are pure speculations.

But please notice that I made as well the hypothesis that maybe the two just didn't get along, and that it could be Edward's early and not justified distrust that could have pushed George toward Warwick's side. As you say, all this is pure speculation, coming from my surprise at the discovery that apparently Richard was given a commission of array at 11, and George none. Maybe George had good reasons to feel put aside.

On another hand, George's betrayal of his brother and king, and then of Warwick at a critical moment, are facts, not speculations.

Richard might have killed his nephew. He might have betrayed his oath to Edward V if the pre-contract never existed. But we are not sure, it's a matter of opinion. Those who pretend to be sure that he did kill the boys are maligning him because they don't take some clues into account, and above all because they transform a possibility into a fact.

George's many changes of side are facts. Whatever Edward's wrongs against him, he indeed broke the moral code of that time by betraying his king, and then his new ally. That many of the magnates of the time did exactly the same doesn't change the judgement that was passed upon such a conduct. And as for what drove him on this particular occasion, it's difficult to avoid the fact that he abandoned Warwick once he was no longer the one that his fatherin-law planned to crown. So, the same way I think that the word monster' would perfectly define Richard, had it been proved that he killed his nephews, the same way, I m afraid I still think that fleeting' and perjur'd' are a rather accurate definition of Clarence, in these occasions at least. I would not agree with false', though. If George had been more skillful at dissembling, he might not have ended up as he did.

Whatever, I completely agree that the one who doesn't take enough blame regarding George's bad choices and ultimate fate is Edward. It is indeed strange that he hadn't yet provided a good marriage for his brother when he forbade him to marry Isabel Neville, because of his quarrel with Warwick, because of his own catastrophic decision to marry Elizabeth. And nothing, even the secret of the pre-contract, can justify Edward's final decision to put his own brother to death, and not only according to our own moral code, so different from the one of this time. Even in Middle Age, fratricide, like child murder, horrified people.

      Hilary wrote: You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :)   Seems Mr Shakespeare has won.  Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire.  I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB .....   Doug here: It's not so much not liking George, as recognizing he was quite willing to sell out his brother for a shot at the throne; IOW, George does fit that false, fleeting, perjured bit. Which isn't exactly an admirable trait. My view of George is that he was extremely self-centered, which doesn't prevent him from being charming or even well-remembered. It does mean, however, that when such a person occupies a position of prominence in a royal dynasty, as George did, the results can be a disaster. Notice that while Isabel was alive, and after the wrangling over the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance, we really don't hear much about George. It's only when George is on his own, that things  happen. The thought also occurs to me; how much of that being remembered with affection in Warwickshire was due to Isabel? George turned on Edward in 1469, hoping to be made the heir to the throne, when anyone with half a brain would realize that any deal between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou would entail Warwick supporting the return of Henry VI to the throne, and Edward of Lancaster to his position as Henry's heir. IOW, Warwick was using George for Warwick's ends, not George's. Also note that George only switched back to his brother's side after he was no longer in consideration as a replacement for Edward. Then there's the question of what would happen to George's brother, aka King Edward IV, if Warwick's support of Henry VI was successful in returning Henry to the throne? Ex-kings, especially non-dotty ones, didn't have a long life expectancy. IOW, whether George realized it or not, and he certainly should have, replacing Edward as king, whether with Henry VI or himself, would be signing Edward's death warrant, either on the battlefield or the block. Even though he welcomed George back, I seriously doubt that thought had never crossed Edward's mind. George may be viewed as being put upon and/or side-lined by Edward; made fun of, and even slandered about his drinking by later writers, but none of that masks the fact that George was a traitor and from all the available known facts, either willing to see his brother dead so he, George, could be king, or else was too stupid; perhaps self-absorbed would be a better term, to realize that the only way he could get the throne was through his brother's death. George may have been the epitome of personal charm, but he does, at least in my opinion, need to be held responsible for his actions. Doug Who really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really.  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 7:20 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary...um...we didn't win Doug over....

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 7:57 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Gave it a good try, though...

Hilary...um...we didn't win Doug over....

--
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 David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: K Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Hilary :

Of course the knowledge could have come later from Edward's confessor, John Ingleby, who could only break confession to a senior clergyman and just happened to be the brother of Stillington's nephew.

Romane :

That seems to be a very interesting hypothesis. Maybe the king's confessor found such a secret too heavy to bear alone, and told it to Stillington in his own confession. It's true that it could seem strange that Edward would have wanted Stillington as his confidant. But then, it means that Stilligton himself broke a very sacred rule for a catholic priest, the secrecy of confession.

Doug :

My view, as of now anyway, is that Stillington didn't know about the Pre-Contract until some time after the events of 1469/70, and most likely not until after the George affair which would mean after 1478. Mostly my view is based on the reasoning that such a secret as the King not legally being married to EW and, most importantly, his children being illegitimate, once known by more than the immediate participants, Edward, Eleanor, and the officiating priest, wouldn't stay a secret. It couldn't, if only because Edward's actions struck at the very basis of the social order  trying to pass a bastard off as legitimate. Not only as legitimate, but the legal heir to the throne!

Romane :

Why wouldn't it remain a secret ? Stillington might have kept silent for years (after all, it was something heard in confession), and then have chosen to disclose it to George - or not, if it's not the reason why George was sentenced to death.

Anyway,it was clear that the ones who would have dared to utter a word about it would have been efficiently silenced very soon. As it happened : George by death, Stillingon by a stay in the Tower.

Doug :

1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information  if it was known.

Romane :

You're right, so Stilligton probably learnt about it later.

Hilary :

I don't believe he witnessed it because I doubt Edward would have been stupid enough to choose an ex high-ranking Lancastrian, with a sharp legal mind and a penchant for petitioning the Pope. I do think he could have fallen out of favour because he doesn't come across as an easy man. If could have been something as simple as giving Anne sanctuary in St Martin's?

Romane :

I agree that Stilligton probably didn't witness it, the reasons you give for that are very good. But the alleged reason for his being sent to the Tower (strangely around the moment when George was executed) was that he had said thing detrimental to the king. So the reason is known and it fits very well with the idea that he could have disclosed the secret to George. A secret that was valuable only after Edward's death.

Hilary :

Where I do have a problem is Richard going along with something like this, and I do think the scenario of Hastings knowing of the Pre Contract really explains what happened with him - I could never buy him going over to the Woodvilles. If, on the other hand, Stillington didn't tell Richard the truth (i.e. that it was a lie) and Richard because he was a Bishop believed him then I could go with it.

Romane :

But what would have been Stilligton's interest in telling such a lie to Richard ? As you say, the bishop was taking a huge risk. Besides, he was a member of Edward V's council and wasn't particularly close to Richard. Of course, there is the possibility that the two were accomplice. But Stilligton didn't receive any spectacular reward after his revelation.

I agree with you Doug, George may have been handsome and charming, but he was also definitely unstable, selfish, and always looking for the main chance.
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 28 juin 2017 à 19:30, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary wrote: You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :) Seems Mr Shakespeare has won. Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire. I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB ..... Doug here: It's not so much not liking George, as recognizing he was quite willing to sell out his brother for a shot at the throne; IOW, George does fit that false, fleeting, perjured bit. Which isn't exactly an admirable trait. My view of George is that he was extremely self-centered, which doesn't prevent him from being charming or even well-remembered. It does mean, however, that when such a person occupies a position of prominence in a royal dynasty, as George did, the results can be a disaster. Notice that while Isabel was alive, and after the wrangling over the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance, we really don't hear much about George. It's only when George is on his own, that things  happen. The thought also occurs to me; how much of that being remembered with affection in Warwickshire was due to Isabel? George turned on Edward in 1469, hoping to be made the heir to the throne, when anyone with half a brain would realize that any deal between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou would entail Warwick supporting the return of Henry VI to the throne, and Edward of Lancaster to his position as Henry's heir. IOW, Warwick was using George for Warwick's ends, not George's. Also note that George only switched back to his brother's side after he was no longer in consideration as a replacement for Edward. Then there's the question of what would happen to George's brother, aka King Edward IV, if Warwick's support of Henry VI was successful in returning Henry to the throne? Ex-kings, especially non-dotty ones, didn't have a long life expectancy. IOW, whether George realized it or not, and he certainly should have, replacing Edward as king, whether with Henry VI or himself, would be signing Edward's death warrant, either on the battlefield or the block. Even though he welcomed George back, I seriously doubt that thought had never crossed Edward's mind. George may be viewed as being put upon and/or side-lined by Edward; made fun of, and even slandered about his drinking by later writers, but none of that masks the fact that George was a traitor and from all the available known facts, either willing to see his brother dead so he, George, could be king, or else was too stupid; perhaps self-absorbed would be a better term, to realize that the only way he could get the throne was through his brother's death. George may have been the epitome of personal charm, but he does, at least in my opinion, need to be held responsible for his actions. Doug Who really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

This is a long one. Sorry, have been reading along but have had no time to comment, and will have to read the following comments tomorrow evening, as I have to get back to work.

Hilary, you make excellent points re our contemporary perusals and judgments about the participants.

Doug, I'll go to the wall for Stillington's silence being honest. Whether or not he was a professional churchman, he had served Edward from the beginning of the reign. He did not have to be Edward's official confessor to have learned Edward's secrets. He may even have been the person Edward sent to Eleanor Butler to tell her it was over  I don't doubt that only a pragmatic priest would have the skill and patience to counsel her, and help her find the presence of mind to keep quiet about the entire matter, lest she be held up to ridicule and ruin whatever hopes her prospective brother-in-law might have in the new reign. Edward would have presumed Stillington's silence  he later set him up with an ungodly amount of income from Bath and Wells - until, suddenly, he throws the man into prison for several months for, apparently, no good reason (unless Hilary or someone else has found one), right about the time George behaves incredibly foolishly and with such arrogance, that he is slapped into confinement, tried and found guilty of lese majesty, and then, however it happened, became judicially dead.

People seem to discount the fact that, from birth to death, the Church still had everyone by the soul, codpiece and cassock. Whatever Stillington knew, he did not hear it in the confessional, or we would not even have the information that has survived. He was there, daily  at the time of the Butler incident he was Keeper of the Seal, always handy to the new king. It is not at all surprising that he kept silent. His livelihood depended upon his discretion.

To all intents and purposes, Eleanor had retired from the world. I don't understand why nobody has pointed out that, although she was still young enough (and obviously attractive) she never publicly remarried. The obvious reason is that she (and Stillington  and, perhaps, her sister, who could say nothing) knew she was already married. In that age, a widowed young woman of good family, even one with no living children, was marriage material for any widower with no need of another dowry but having half-orphaned children of his own to raise and a household manager who was obligated to sleep with him.

She had two choices: marriage or the cloister. She could not marry. There wouldn't be a Carmelite nunnery in England for another thirteen years; nevertheless, she finally took vows as a Carmelite tertiary, to live in the world but not as a part of it, and was dead twenty-seven months later, age thirty-two.

Within two months, Edward bound himself to Elizabeth Woodville Grey.

No doubt that, at Reading, Stillington was even more shocked than Warwick, when Edward said, I've made my choice. Live with it.

And there they all were.

Although to some of you it would be a simple primer, I wish you'd take a look at KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries. It was separated from the play edition and intended as basic guide for people (and actors) not familiar with the milieu, a gift for the ignorant. It is a lot of work being presently ignored and needs stand-alone Amazon reviews. I'd appreciate your informed comments.

Hope I haven't worn out my welcome.

Hilary, Re Point 2 - the previously used plot
It goes like this...
Clarence spends many years as heir presumptive. Stillington falls out of favour with Edward for various reasons and sees his power diminish. Stillington sees that Clarence is dissatisfied and has been put further down the pecking order by the Woodville marriage. Stillington approaches Clarence with intention of replacing Edward, Stillington would be back in favour Clarence points out that he is no longer heir and the young Edward would be crowned Stillington says he would claim to have previously married Edward to Eleanor, knowing Edward had helped her and / or she had been his mistress - she is now dead and it would be difficult to disprove if Edward was also gone
Fast forward to 1483. Richard gets himself in a bind by his rash actions after Edward's death, Stillington has a ready made solution.
My argument would be that providing a vector by means of which the 'knowledge of the pre-contract' can be traced is begging the question.
The fact that Clarence was planning to send his son abroad is another instance of separation of heirs. He would become very important if Clarence was going for the throne.
Hope this makes sense.
Regards David


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress - that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: K Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress - that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress - that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had e

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Richard Duke of York had proven very popular in Ireland - 

Any part of Edward IV’s lifetime was a bad time to reveal this.

Two of the Duchess of Norfolk’s servants were executed in 1468-9 as a warning, just months after Eleanor’s convenient death.
Clarence and the Desmonds were also executed and may have known about it

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 01 July 2017 00:02
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Doug wrote:
"1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information – if it was known."

Romane responded:

"You’re right, so Stilligton probably learnt about it later.

Carol asks:

What good would it have done to reveal the information in 1469 when George was still the heir presumptive and only Edward's daughters would have been illegitimate? Edward's own claim was not affected.

If you have an ace in the hole, you keep it hidden till it can be played. Or is that an ace up your sleeve? But my point is that Stillington would have kept such a dangerous secret (if he knew it) until Edward's death. (I do think it's possible that he told George in 1478, but why then? There seems to be no advantage.)

Carol

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote: A death-bed confession is not different on that matter. It's bound by the seal of confession all the same. But if Stilligton learnt that way about the precontract, he might have wondered whether he'd offend God more by disclosing something heard in confession, of by letting a bastard become England' s anointed king. Doug here: I knew I phrased my question badly. What I'm wondering about is whether, information passed on by someone on their death-bed would necessarily have to be under the seal of the confessional? I know that in law a death-bed statement has been (still is?) considered the equivalent of a sworn statement and can be accepted in court as such. Could this have been the way Stillington, or whoever, received the knowledge of the Pre-Contract? Because, or so it seems to me, there'd be no need for a priest to ask for absolution for performing a marriage ceremony! Any request for absolution would be because he hadn't come forward when one of the two he'd married announced their marriage to another person. And those are two completely separate things. I'm not a theologian nor a legal expert, but is the above possible? Doug Who apologizes for hitting the Send button too by accident!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read m carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote:

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote:

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote:

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 at 10:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Have you got the reference in Commynes for the last para David? I would love to look at it. I don't dislike Commynes. Like Chapuys later he's a great court gossip. Whether the gossip's true or not of course is another thing, and as someone on here said (Mary I think) tales get embroidered so many times before they reach destinations. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 21:53
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Paul, regarding Commynes (re trying after mail failure)
Yes indeed, Commynes did fall out in a big way with the Burgundian court, which since he was Flemish would have been home ground for him. He went on to be the confidential secretary for Louis XI and a member of the royal council until 1485.
Carol had pointed out that the perceived 'positive' view of Richard's actions at Picquigny contrasted with Commynes' view of Richard's accession and rule. She had suggested that his change of allegiance might account for this through the bias present at the French court. However, both events occurred well after his acquisition by Louis, in other words Commynes was working for Louis in 1475.
Personally, I think the impact of his move is overstated provided you take into account his dislike for his former employer.
If you look at where and when he actually wrote his 'memoir' then who he was working for at the time of the actual events seems less important.
He actually produced his work in the 1490s when he had just been released from prison and his punishment had been reduced to house arrest. He had been convicted of taking part in the Orleanist rebellion against the French Government. So the idea that he was producing views in favour of Burgundy in respect of events that happened while he was there (around 20 years earlier) and then writing somehow to undermine Richard when he had been dead for over five years seems a little weak.
He obviously does not get everything right.
The discussion from Hilary's initial post about obtaining an advantageous marriage for one of Stillington's children seems to have gone full circle with Romane's statement that Stillington gained nothing from revealing the precontract.
She obviously had not heard Commynes' account of Stillington's son allegedly arrested onboard ship in the Channel with a story that the son had been promised land and marriage to one of Edward IV for producing the precontract story. According to his account, the reason no benefit was apparent in England was that the son was brought before the parliament in France and accidentally mistreated to death in the Petit Chatelet. Perhaps Romane had never been aware of this account.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read m carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol

David, sorry not to quote your post, but you really seem to misunderstand what I said regarding Commynes. My point was that he actua. lly saw Richard at Picquigny and therefore what he says about him in that context has more weight than what he speculated about his supposed role in the supposed murders of the "princes," which is based solely on (French) rumors. I also indicated that the French view of Richard as a warmonger may stem from his actions at Picquigny.

You seem to be reading in assumptions about my interpretation of events. I couldn't remember whether he was working for Burgundy or France at the time, but never said or implied that he had a Burgundian bias at the time he wrote or observed the events. In fact, he seems more or less objective in relating the events at Picquigny, but his later comments regarding Richard show no such objectivity and have no basis in his own experience. They do, IIRC, reflect his encounters with HT.

Carol

Carol am I right in thinking that the French rumours started after Morton had fled to France?

RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Sunday, July 9, 2017, 5:51 pm, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"Hi Carol, the list isn't in Carson - she just says a meeting of all the Lords Temporal and Spiritual. There is a list of all Bishops of the time in Baldwin's Richard III and it includes Rotherham as a supporter at this point. It's in a chapter called Cultivating the Bishops. I wouldn't recommend it though. He lists 17 of them but says that because Courtenay and Morton were not supporters and Bourchier had been pressured then the majority of bishops were against Richard. He must have had a problem with his maths. He gets their ages wrong too. Says Stillington was 76 when he was 52!


"Re your other point, the only supporter I can think of who 'turned' was Thomas Fitzalan, 17 Earl of Arundel. He was married to a Woodville and went on to become godfather to Prince Arthur. Can't think of any more."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. But the document I'm looking for isn't a list. It's something like a petition (not *the* petition) asking Richard to help them in some way and praising his moral example. I know I didn't make it up, and I'm not talking about the similar praise in Titulus Regius or the words of Langton, Archibald Whitelaw, or the turncoats Rous and Carmeliano.

If I recall correctly (and I'm beginning to wonder about that!), it was signed by Russell, Bourchier, and even Rotherham. If it's not in "Maligned King" (and I could have sworn it was), where could I have seen it? It's not in Kendall, but it has to be in a book favorable to Richard.

Carol

I've seen many arguments that they weren't which is why I put the heading but they were not only geographically close moved in the same cicles - the Twynyhos, Newtons, Chokkes, etc appear together on deeds. I do wonder where the information came from that Stillington never visited his diocese? Commynes again? In the Wells records it says on a couple of occasions that he's in a far part of his diocese - it doesn't say he's out of it. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 21:40
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Re the heading on this thread..Closer than we thought..I always believed that George and Stillington were close. George once stayed at the Bishops Palace at Wells.

The Duchess’s servants are referred to elsewhere and are mentioned in the latest edition of “Eleanor”.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of romanenemo
Sent: 11 July 2017 20:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

---In , <destama@...> wrote :

Doug:

f I also remember it correctly, wasn’t anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.

Romane:

It's true that one of the better arguments against the real existence of the pre contract is the fact that no one said anything when Edward announced his marriage with EW. But they might have been intimidated. According to Eileen, some servants of the Duchess of Norfolk were executed around the time of Edward's marriage with EW, and it might have been a warning.

Or, no one at all knew about the pre contract, except ET, Edward and the priest (Stilligton ?) who had married them.

Anyway, IMO the fact that Eleanor's family didn't protest when the pre contract was made public knowledge by Stilligton and Richard can be seen, on the contrary, as an argument in favor of the real existence of that pre contract. Apparently even if the Talbot didn't know about it before, the proofs of its existence that must have been submitted before Richard could be proclaimed king seemed valid enough to them. Else, they would have had every reason to protest.

Eileen,

It crossed my mind that quiet conversations may have been held with people such as Elizabeth Mowbray in order to provide support for Stillington. What with Eleanor’s connections, by birth and from marriages, any such conversations wouldn’t have been highly-publicized, would they?

If I recall correctly, Titulus Regius doesn’t dwell all that long on Edward’s marriage to Eleanor, simply stating who she was and that a clandestine marriage had occurred. As the Pre-Contract was the cornerstone of Richard’s claim to the throne, one might think the reason for Richard being his brother’s heir would have gotten a bit more space. Perhaps limiting the part about the Pre=Contract, and most importantly with whom, was an effort to ease any hard feelings? Which, as I said, might very well have also resulted in getting as much confirmation as possible, but not via very public methods, such as hauling those involved in front of the Council for questioning.

If I also remember it correctly, wasn’t anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.

Doug

Eileen wrote:

“Its very possible that they/someone did say something..especially Elizabeth Mowbray..Richard undoubtedly would have required back up of Stillington's story..but if they did and who is now lost to us as was Titulous Regius (for a while)..HT and his human shredders would have made sure of that.”

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

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?

Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications. 
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:  

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?

It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 4:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

  Can't remember at this moment, but here is an article that proposed that William Catesby had direct knowledge.http://erenow.com/ biographies/richard-iii-and- the-murder-in-the-tower/3.html

On Jul 12, 2017 6:05 PM, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications. 
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:   How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:   How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..

Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Marhy you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 17:35
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Incidentally, there were two other people executed after Bosworth whose names escape me (of the same family). No-one seems to know why. Does anyone know who I'm talking about? I'm pretty sure their names began with H?"

Carol responds:

Kendall mentions that Henry hanged a father and son named Brecher and calls them "West Country yeomen" https://books.google.com/books?id=thl5CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paul+Murray+Kendall&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip2eel1ovVAhVGymMKHXD7DykQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Catesby&f=false

He speculates that they "did such execution that Oxford's lieutenants marked them in memory." He doesn't name a source.

A different version appears in Hutton, 1788: "Two gentlemen of the north, of the name of Brecher, were beheaded with him [Catesby]. Thus the first regal act performed by Henry, was an act of tyranny, the very fault for which his predecessor was deposed." https://books.google.com/books?id=-rUBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Brecher+Bosworth&source=bl&ots=9uuuQnvNrx&sig=4OuexML61T2W8y4uDiQsF_qyRdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixz-mO2ovVAhWhsFQKHSwSCRwQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Brecher%20Bosworth&f=false

As for the "H," you may be thinking of Humphrey Stafford, who, with his brother Thomas and Viscount Lovell, tried to raise a rebellion against HT after Bosworth. Henry had him pulled from sanctuary and executed.

Carol

Hilary wrote:

"Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Mary you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.
I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward."

Carol responds:

I saw your post and Mary's after I had sent mine. (As I've said before, it's hard to check for responses to messages to see if someone has already answered.)

Do we know where Hutton got his (mis)information or where Kendall got his? Do you know where the record is showing that these two were hanged or beheaded? (I'd venture that "hanged" is correct as they weren't noblemen or knights.)

It still seems very odd that Henry would single them out. (Catesby is another matter. As former Speaker of the Commons, he undoubtedly knew too much about TR/the petition from the Three Estates and may have had a hand in writing it.)

Carol

Carol

Eileen wrote:

"Ok Carol.  I've drawn my conclusions (that  Catesby  ratted on Hastings)  for various reasons.  I guess we will never know for sure frustratingly.  Whether Hastings was guilty of plotting against Richard OR simply framed I still haven't quite made my mind up but veer slightly to he was and because he may have wanted the Woodvilles out of the equation but removIng Edward of Westminster was a step too far.  Just my own musings of course."

Carol responds:

Given that Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham were meeting "in each others' houses," I'm pretty sure that Hastings was guilty. As for who informed on him, we can't know, but Catesby (executed by Henry VII) was a convenient scapegoat for More, just as Tyrrell (also executed by Henry) was (not only for More and Vergil but for earlier Tudor chroniclers).

I'm not a fan of Catesby, I just see no contemporary evidence for his guilt (if "guilt" is the word given Hastings's almost certain treason) in this matter.

Not arguing with you or trying to convince you, just stating my own view of the matter.

Carol

Agreed Mary..have you read The Deceivers by Geoffrey Richardson. We could also add to the list Eleanor Talbot.

He was Paul. I really enjoy his books. Am I right in thinking that he used to have an internet site called Later Medieval Britain. If I remember rightly it was a bit like this forum where you could discuss history with other like minded people.