Clarence's Household

Doug you asked me whether any of George's household joined the 1483 rebels. Here is my list:

Nicholas Latimer, John St Lo, Roger Tocotes, William Norreys, Thomas Lynde, William Twynyho (not of his household but John Twynyho was George's friend).

Most are in our West Country circle except Latimer and Norreys (who had been married to De Vere's sister and came from a Lancastrian family, his father had been Keeper of the Wardrobe to Henry VI). Like Latimer, he hailed from Woodville country - Berkshire/Northants/Oxon.

I do think we need to look more closely at George's household. It's interesting to compare it with Richard's which I now know pretty well. Richard's comprised mainly of Neville retainers. They'd intermarried for generations, they were religious, principled, straightforward, ambitious but loyal. You could say they shaped Richard, who grew to maturity with them. Horrox says he bought them off. Given their decisions in the next fifty years after Bosworth I would think that unlikely. Richard also had the advantage that York and the North were virtually an isolated kingdom. Apart from Percy and a bit of Stanley dabbling you didn't bump into a lot of other interests.

I need to know more about how George chose his household. One assumes that the Warwick one was inherited from Richard Neville, but there would be loyalties and historic conflicts with the Beauchamps, for example I recall that Thomas Burdet's father was at one point in conflict with them, the Catesbys had had their spats. In East Warwickshire he'd also bump into Hastings and the Greys, and over the border in Oxfordshire and Northants, the Lovells, Woodvilles, De Veres and several powerful gentry.

We've talked about Farleigh, where George was sitting in the estate of an attainted traitor with the Mortons meddling just down the road. He does seem to have been somewhat of a sitting duck; or indeed a focus for rebellion himself, given what Edward had done to those families. Add to that the nice little cocktail of Bristolian wealth and Welsh connections and the South West was an even worst acquisition than Warwick.

Do I think George could have dealt with the Woodvilles? I actually think it's a higher possibility than Hastings dealing with them. After all, if he knew about the Pre Contract and they didn't, he could have had some twisted idea that if he and they got rid of Edward thinking they were putting their heir on the throne, he could then step in and get them out the way too?

Like everything in this it needs a lot more work! H

"Doug . . . asked me whether any of George's household joined the 1483 rebels. Here is my list: Nicholas Latimer, John St Lo, Roger Tocotes, William Norreys, Thomas Lynde, William Twynyho (not of his household but John Twynyho was George's friend)."

Those indeed are the very good questions Carol. Most are long-term old Lancastrians whom George probably inherited with the estates, but the Woodvilles were also once Lancastrians from that area who could use them in 1483. I reckon they would have rebelled against anyone on the throne if it wasn't someone they could control. Nobody has ever yet pointed out what Richard did wrong to spark rebellion; that is except to take a throne he was legally offered. You usually get rebellions about taxation rises, repression or religion, not a legal transfer of power; people are too self-interested unless it directly hits them. 
When did Richard first moot his legal reforms does anyone know (I know they surfaced in the Parl of 1484)? There are an awful lot of Judges in the background of this and I'm uncovering more and more inheritance scams (see the Wayte and Twynyho posts). They are the only thing I can think which might cause some discomfort. 
PS I'm aware I owe you another list Carol re the coronation knights. I'll get that to you this week. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2017, 16:53
Subject: Re: Clarence's Household

 


Hilary wrote:

"Doug . . . asked me whether any of George's household joined the 1483 rebels. Here is my list: Nicholas Latimer, John St Lo, Roger Tocotes, William Norreys, Thomas Lynde, William Twynyho (not of his household but John Twynyho was George's friend)."

Carol responds:

Probably this is an overly simplistic question, but do you think the primary loyalties of these men (the Twynyhos aside) was either Lancastrian or Woodville? If not, what would have prompted them to rebel against Richard? Surely, they didn't blame him for George's death. That was Edward's (and Parliament's) doing, and the pro-Woodville faction probably had no objections to his execution. Was George sitting in a nest of traitors, to himself and to his brothers?

Carol

Not exactly his legal reforms, but he did speak about justice from the very day he took the throne, making clear his expectations. Sutton and Visser-Fuchs keep describing Richard as holding "conventional" beliefs. I'm wondering if what made him unconventional was his personal adherence to practicing those beliefs. People like that can sometimes be very difficult to deal with.

A J

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Those indeed are the very good questions Carol. Most are long-term old Lancastrians whom George probably inherited with the estates, but the Woodvilles were also once Lancastrians from that area who could use them in 1483. I reckon they would have rebelled against anyone on the throne if it wasn't someone they could control. Nobody has ever yet pointed out what Richard did wrong to spark rebellion; that is except to take a throne he was legally offered. You usually get rebellions about taxation rises, repression or religion, not a legal transfer of power; people are too self-interested unless it directly hits them. 
When did Richard first moot his legal reforms does anyone know (I know they surfaced in the Parl of 1484)? There are an awful lot of Judges in the background of this and I'm uncovering more and more inheritance scams (see the Wayte and Twynyho posts). They are the only thing I can think which might cause some discomfort. 
PS I'm aware I owe you another list Carol re the coronation knights. I'll get that to you this week. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2017, 16:53
Subject: Re: Clarence's Household

 


Hilary wrote:

"Doug . . . asked me whether any of George's household joined the 1483 rebels. Here is my list: Nicholas Latimer, John St Lo, Roger Tocotes, William Norreys, Thomas Lynde, William Twynyho (not of his household but John Twynyho was George's friend)."

Carol responds:

Probably this is an overly simplistic question, but do you think the primary loyalties of these men (the Twynyhos aside) was either Lancastrian or Woodville? If not, what would have prompted them to rebel against Richard? Surely, they didn't blame him for George's death. That was Edward's (and Parliament's) doing, and the pro-Woodville faction probably had no objections to his execution. Was George sitting in a nest of traitors, to himself and to his brothers?

Carol

On the day of his coronation didn't Richard exort his judges to give justice to all his citizens not just the nobility? He also stopped them taking peoples possessions before they were tried. Apparently there was a case when one of the Aldermen of London was arrested on, I think, false charges and the delightful Jacquetta took his possessions including a tapestry which she had been coveting. I would imagine the gentry and nobility wouldn't have wanted the poor people to have rights. This could have been a reason for them turning against Richard.
Mary

You know I have great difficulty with the so called piety of the Catholic Middle Ages. Isn't "Thou shalt not covet" just basic Christianity? All I see is a big deal made if paying for prayers, building chapels, and lively ceremonious but the love if God us not in them. They take the anise and cumin and forget the weightier matters if the law like justice and mervy., as Jesus said. That's why I don't believe in their belief. It was just politics. I think people ignored the Church when they could get away with it.
On Sep 24, 2017 10:05 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:

On the day of his coronation didn't Richard exort his judges to give justice to all his citizens not just the nobility? He also stopped them taking peoples possessions before they were tried. Apparently there was a case when one of the Aldermen of London was arrested on, I think, false charges and the delightful Jacquetta took his possessions including a tapestry which she had been coveting. I would imagine the gentry and nobility wouldn't have wanted the poor people to have rights. This could have been a reason for them turning against Richard.

What I see Karen/Paul is that most (not all) lived their lives selfishly, much like most of us, but they had this sort of insurance policy at the end which involved a lot of money and masses - just in case they were needed!
I know that's immensely cynical but I see the Church as a sort of control mechanism before the days of police and sleuths and, until Protestantism offered a perhaps more personal/liberal interpretation, it really didn't face much opposition because, after all where else was there the promise of an afterlife in what was often a brutal world? And people who really believed, like Richard, would find it hard indeed to understand those who did so half-heartedly. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 September 2017, 18:23
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's Household

  You know I have great difficulty with the so called piety of the Catholic Middle Ages. Isn't "Thou shalt not covet" just basic Christianity? All I see is a big deal made if paying for prayers, building chapels, and lively ceremonious but the love if God us not in them. They take the anise and cumin and forget the weightier matters if the law like justice and mervy., as Jesus said.   That's why I don't believe in their belief. It was just politics. I think people ignored the Church when they could get away with it.
On Sep 24, 2017 10:05 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  On the day of his coronation didn't Richard exort his judges to give justice to all his citizens not just the nobility? He also stopped them taking peoples possessions before they were tried. Apparently there was a case when one of the Aldermen of London was arrested on, I think, false charges and the delightful Jacquetta took his possessions including a tapestry which she had been coveting. I would imagine the gentry and nobility wouldn't have wanted the poor people to have rights. This could have been a reason for them turning against Richard.
Mary

What I see Karen/Paul is that most (not all) lived their lives selfishly, much like most of us, but they had this sort of insurance policy at the end which involved a lot of money and masses - just in case they were needed!
I know that's immensely cynical but I see the Church as a sort of control mechanism before the days of police and sleuths and, until Protestantism offered a perhaps more personal/liberal interpretation, it really didn't face much opposition because, after all where else was there the promise of an afterlife in what was often a brutal world? And people who really believed, like Richard, would find it hard indeed to understand those who did so half-heartedly. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 September 2017, 18:23
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's Household

  You know I have great difficulty with the so called piety of the Catholic Middle Ages. Isn't "Thou shalt not covet" just basic Christianity? All I see is a big deal made if paying for prayers, building chapels, and lively ceremonious but the love if God us not in them. They take the anise and cumin and forget the weightier matters if the law like justice and mervy., as Jesus said.   That's why I don't believe in their belief. It was just politics. I think people ignored the Church when they could get away with it.
On Sep 24, 2017 10:05 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
  On the day of his coronation didn't Richard exort his judges to give justice to all his citizens not just the nobility? He also stopped them taking peoples possessions before they were tried. Apparently there was a case when one of the Aldermen of London was arrested on, I think, false charges and the delightful Jacquetta took his possessions including a tapestry which she had been coveting. I would imagine the gentry and nobility wouldn't have wanted the poor people to have rights. This could have been a reason for them turning against Richard.
Mary

I remember being amazed when reading about King John, In the midst of a raging feud with the Vatican, telling the Pope he'd convert England to Islam if he didn't get his way. When told it would be impossible his reaction was, you want me to try? John wasn't all that convinced of English piety either! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 24 sept. 2017 à 19:23, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

 

You know I have great difficulty with the so called piety of the Catholic Middle Ages. Isn't "Thou shalt not covet" just basic Christianity? All I see is a big deal made if paying for prayers, building chapels, and lively ceremonious but the love if God us not in them. They take the anise and cumin and forget the weightier matters if the law like justice and mervy., as Jesus said.   That's why I don't believe in their belief. It was just politics. I think people ignored the Church when they could get away with it.
On Sep 24, 2017 10:05 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

On the day of his coronation didn't Richard exort his judges to give justice to all his citizens not just the nobility? He also stopped them taking peoples possessions before they were tried. Apparently there was a case when one of the Aldermen of London was arrested on, I think, false charges and the delightful Jacquetta took his possessions including a tapestry which she had been coveting. I would imagine the gentry and nobility wouldn't have wanted the poor people to have rights. This could have been a reason for them turning against Richard.

AJ I'll have a go.
Firstly, I know from my own experience that if you take financial accounts as your prime source, which Horrox did and I admire her research very much, then it's easily tempting to interpret them as motives, bribes, you name it. In a similar, but lesser situation, I looked at revenue collectors for the Staffords and one could very easily conclude that they were creatures of that family but were they? 
That said, I agree mostly with her assessment. Richard appears to have followed the successful model he adopted when he took over the Warwick estates in the early 1470s, i.e.in this case to retain and win over the people who had supported his brother. It had worked for him in the North and, as a respected deputy, he knew these people and hoped they knew him. If you look at his northern supporters there doesn't seem to have been any ambition on their part to grow their empires. That is apart from Percy who may have had a secret ambition to succeed him as Lord of the North.  I can't think of anyone with overriding ambition to wade into the South. Halnath Mauleverer is often cited, but he'd been married to a Cornish heiress and living there for years. It's only when Richard was fearful of his fate in that summer that he had to call upon them as loyal supporters and later install them in certain areas to hopefully calm things down.   
In another post some time ago we talked about power. Plantagenets monarchs didn't delegate power to anyone. That is when they were of age. They didn't have a Wolsey or a Cecil to advise them, that wasn't how it worked, so forget the Cat the Rat and the Dog. The only chance of exerting any influence was when a king was in his minority like Edward III, Henry VI - and Edward V. 1483 was the Woodvilles' only chance to cling on to retaining any influence - which might of course Have been short lived anyway. It's very difficult to separate Edward IV supporters from Woodville supporters, except perhaps Hastings who I will never buy as a Woodville convert. But I reckon that those who stuck their neck out (literally) and supported the 'Edward V' cause did so, not because they had some altruistic allegiance to Edward IV, but because, for two or three years at least it offered the path to advancement and, in HT's case, the only way to come home.
I've written this late at night and hope it doesn't sound like rubbish. If I haven't really answered your question come back to me. H 

From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: "@ yahoogroups.com" <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 25 September 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's Household

  Taking a slight side step here, but it is the season to be considering the October rebellion. I revisited your old post about analyzing who the rebels were. One of the things you said was

It doesn't take a master strategist to envisage a Woodville amnesty - support our new young king and you can have your lands and Offices back. Richard was part of the regime that took them, you'll never be restored to favour with him.

[You had described the three groups of rebels you'd found--a. Woodville supporters
b. old Lancaster from 'De Vere' land around Oxfordshire and Northants
c. the grudge brigade in the South West - important families punished and subject to attainder by the House of York (yes they]

On the other hand, I've been reading Horrox's chapter 3 since it's recommended as the best analysis (my words). I've come along as far as the point where she wrote:

As this suggests, although Richard's own men are a new, and therefore noticeable, element in the patronage of July-September, they form only a minority of recipients. Most grants continued to go to men with a background of service to Edward IV. In part this was because many of Richard's early grants simply renewed his brother's appointments, although this was not always stated. ... But even among the new grants, Edward's men seem to have been holding their own. The patronage granted at this time was in any case only a fraction of the total, and the overall continuity was largely to the benefit of Edward's servants. As far as royal office was concerned, Richard's accession, far from prompting a take-over by the former ducal retinue, was followed by the placing of a small number of new men within an existing power structure.
   Something similar may have happened within the royal household, although in the complete absence of household records for Richard's reign this can only be a matter of speculation.

Part of the problem with reading Horrox, is that she tells us what she has found, rather than showing us, so we can't judge for ourselves whether we agree with her assessment.
I guess that's question (1) for you Hilary - do you agree with her assessment?and question (2) is if that is all true, then what was inflaming the Woodville supporters - were they, although Edward's men, selectively disadvantaged?
A J

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:57 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
Interesting idea about the College of Arms. Since it was incorporated on (or about) March 2, 1484, it doesn't look as if its foundation itself was part of the mix of the October rebellion. But perhaps the ideas you mention were in circulation.
A J

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  What I see Karen/Paul is that most (not all) lived their lives selfishly, much like most of us, but they had this sort of insurance policy at the end which involved a lot of money and masses - just in case they were needed!
I know that's immensely cynical but I see the Church as a sort of control mechanism before the days of police and sleuths and, until Protestantism offered a perhaps more personal/liberal interpretation, it really didn't face much opposition because, after all where else was there the promise of an afterlife in what was often a brutal world? And people who really believed, like Richard, would find it hard indeed to understand those who did so half-heartedly. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 September 2017, 18:23
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's Household

  You know I have great difficulty with the so called piety of the Catholic Middle Ages. Isn't "Thou shalt not covet" just basic Christianity? All I see is a big deal made if paying for prayers, building chapels, and lively ceremonious but the love if God us not in them. They take the anise and cumin and forget the weightier matters if the law like justice and mervy., as Jesus said.   That's why I don't believe in their belief. It was just politics. I think people ignored the Church when they could get away with it.
On Sep 24, 2017 10:05 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
  On the day of his coronation didn't Richard exort his judges to give justice to all his citizens not just the nobility? He also stopped them taking peoples possessions before they were tried. Apparently there was a case when one of the Aldermen of London was arrested on, I think, false charges and the delightful Jacquetta took his possessions including a tapestry which she had been coveting. I would imagine the gentry and nobility wouldn't have wanted the poor people to have rights. This could have been a reason for them turning against Richard.
Mary

Thanks Hilary - makes sense.

I do have a general bias against what we see out of many historians (Horrox I believe belongs to that crew) who assume that every human being has only the motive of self-interest all the time. Having worked as a physician employed by the American Red Cross, that has definitely not been my life's experience (although I understand that is possible to turn even altruism on its head and make it a matter of self-service). It seems like putting historical analysis into a straitjacket which limits what we can learn from it.
A J

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

AJ I'll have a go.
Firstly, I know from my own experience that if you take financial accounts as your prime source, which Horrox did and I admire her research very much, then it's easily tempting to interpret them as motives, bribes, you name it. In a similar, but lesser situation, I looked at revenue collectors for the Staffords and one could very easily conclude that they were creatures of that family but were they? 
That said, I agree mostly with her assessment. Richard appears to have followed the successful model he adopted when he took over the Warwick estates in the early 1470s, i.e.in this case to retain and win over the people who had supported his brother. It had worked for him in the North and, as a respected deputy, he knew these people and hoped they knew him. If you look at his northern supporters there doesn't seem to have been any ambition on their part to grow their empires. That is apart from Percy who may have had a secret ambition to succeed him as Lord of the North.  I can't think of anyone with overriding ambition to wade into the South. Halnath Mauleverer is often cited, but he'd been married to a Cornish heiress and living there for years. It's only when Richard was fearful of his fate in that summer that he had to call upon them as loyal supporters and later install them in certain areas to hopefully calm things down.   
In another post some time ago we talked about power. Plantagenets monarchs didn't delegate power to anyone. That is when they were of age. They didn't have a Wolsey or a Cecil to advise them, that wasn't how it worked, so forget the Cat the Rat and the Dog. The only chance of exerting any influence was when a king was in his minority like Edward III, Henry VI - and Edward V. 1483 was the Woodvilles' only chance to cling on to retaining any influence - which might of course Have been short lived anyway. It's very difficult to separate Edward IV supporters from Woodville supporters, except perhaps Hastings who I will never buy as a Woodville convert. But I reckon that those who stuck their neck out (literally) and supported the 'Edward V' cause did so, not because they had some altruistic allegiance to Edward IV, but because, for two or three years at least it offered the path to advancement and, in HT's case, the only way to come home.
I've written this late at night and hope it doesn't sound like rubbish. If I haven't really answered your question come back to me. H 

From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: "@ yahoogroups.com" <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 25 September 2017, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's Household

  Taking a slight side step here, but it is the season to be considering the October rebellion. I revisited your old post about analyzing who the rebels were. One of the things you said was

It doesn't take a master strategist to envisage a Woodville amnesty - support our new young king and you can have your lands and Offices back. Richard was part of the regime that took them, you'll never be restored to favour with him.

[You had described the three groups of rebels you'd found--a. Woodville supporters
b. old Lancaster from 'De Vere' land around Oxfordshire and Northants
c. the grudge brigade in the South West - important families punished and subject to attainder by the House of York (yes they]

On the other hand, I've been reading Horrox's chapter 3 since it's recommended as the best analysis (my words). I've come along as far as the point where she wrote:

As this suggests, although Richard's own men are a new, and therefore noticeable, element in the patronage of July-September, they form only a minority of recipients. Most grants continued to go to men with a background of service to Edward IV. In part this was because many of Richard's early grants simply renewed his brother's appointments, although this was not always stated. ... But even among the new grants, Edward's men seem to have been holding their own. The patronage granted at this time was in any case only a fraction of the total, and the overall continuity was largely to the benefit of Edward's servants. As far as royal office was concerned, Richard's accession, far from prompting a take-over by the former ducal retinue, was followed by the placing of a small number of new men within an existing power structure.
   Something similar may have happened within the royal household, although in the complete absence of household records for Richard's reign this can only be a matter of speculation.

Part of the problem with reading Horrox, is that she tells us what she has found, rather than showing us, so we can't judge for ourselves whether we agree with her assessment.
I guess that's question (1) for you Hilary - do you agree with her assessment?and question (2) is if that is all true, then what was inflaming the Woodville supporters - were they, although Edward's men, selectively disadvantaged?
A J

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:57 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
Interesting idea about the College of Arms. Since it was incorporated on (or about) March 2, 1484, it doesn't look as if its foundation itself was part of the mix of the October rebellion. But perhaps the ideas you mention were in circulation.
A J

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  What I see Karen/Paul is that most (not all) lived their lives selfishly, much like most of us, but they had this sort of insurance policy at the end which involved a lot of money and masses - just in case they were needed!
I know that's immensely cynical but I see the Church as a sort of control mechanism before the days of police and sleuths and, until Protestantism offered a perhaps more personal/liberal interpretation, it really didn't face much opposition because, after all where else was there the promise of an afterlife in what was often a brutal world? And people who really believed, like Richard, would find it hard indeed to understand those who did so half-heartedly. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Sunday, 24 September 2017, 18:23
Subject: Re: Re: Clarence's Household

  You know I have great difficulty with the so called piety of the Catholic Middle Ages. Isn't "Thou shalt not covet" just basic Christianity? All I see is a big deal made if paying for prayers, building chapels, and lively ceremonious but the love if God us not in them. They take the anise and cumin and forget the weightier matters if the law like justice and mervy., as Jesus said.   That's why I don't believe in their belief. It was just politics. I think people ignored the Church when they could get away with it.
On Sep 24, 2017 10:05 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
  On the day of his coronation didn't Richard exort his judges to give justice to all his citizens not just the nobility? He also stopped them taking peoples possessions before they were tried. Apparently there was a case when one of the Aldermen of London was arrested on, I think, false charges and the delightful Jacquetta took his possessions including a tapestry which she had been coveting. I would imagine the gentry and nobility wouldn't have wanted the poor people to have rights. This could have been a reason for them turning against Richard.
Mary