reply to Maria

Maria wrote:
"...From what I've read, Morton was a dedicated Lancastrian..."

No arguements there! I feel, though, that with the death of H6 and
Edward of Lancaster Morton was faced with the lack of any viable
Lancastrian candidates, while the Yorkists had E4, his son(s),
Clarence, and Richard at the very least. So Morton made his peace
with
Edward and was used (but not trusted, certainly) for various
assigments.
When Edward died, Morton was useful to the Woodville/Hastings group
and allied with them knowing he would most likely get no preferment
from Richard. I can't find anything about Morton's attitude towards a
Protectorate, but we know he was involved in the attempt to prevent
Richard from claiming the crown.
I feel that, originally, Morton was simply working to get a
Protectorate; with Buckingham as Protector. I'm still trying to
reason
out what happened while Morton and Buckingham were together in Wales.
We know WHAT happened, it's the HOW and WHY that intrigues.

Doug

On May 20, 2005, at 02:38, destamate wrote:

> I feel that, originally, Morton was simply working to get a
> Protectorate; with Buckingham as Protector. I'm still trying to
> reason
> out what happened while Morton and Buckingham were together in Wales.

I don't think Morton would have thought about a protectorate at all.
I think both Buckingham and Morton were dreaming of King Henry. But
Buckingham of course was thinking
that he would be that king, not Tudor.
Paul

Its unfortunate Richard did not have him, Morton, executed at the same time as
Buckingham. Who knows with this major conspirator out of the way maybe things might
have turned out differently for Richard - at least he would have had one less enemy.
Eileen



-- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
> On May 20, 2005, at 02:38, destamate wrote:
>
> > I feel that, originally, Morton was simply working to get a
> > Protectorate; with Buckingham as Protector. I'm still trying to
> > reason
> > out what happened while Morton and Buckingham were together in Wales.
>
> I don't think Morton would have thought about a protectorate at all.
> I think both Buckingham and Morton were dreaming of King Henry. But
> Buckingham of course was thinking
> that he would be that king, not Tudor.
> Paul

I almost hate to say it, but I'd rather have had Morton working for
Richard than against him!
Paul

On May 20, 2005, at 22:35, eileen wrote:

> Its unfortunate Richard did not have him, Morton, executed at the same
> time as
> Buckingham. Who knows with this major conspirator out of the way
> maybe things might
> have turned out differently for Richard - at least he would have had
> one less enemy.
> Eileen
>
>
>
> -- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>
>> On May 20, 2005, at 02:38, destamate wrote:
>>
>>> I feel that, originally, Morton was simply working to get a
>>> Protectorate; with Buckingham as Protector. I'm still trying to
>>> reason
>>> out what happened while Morton and Buckingham were together in Wales.
>>
>> I don't think Morton would have thought about a protectorate at all.
>> I think both Buckingham and Morton were dreaming of King Henry. But
>> Buckingham of course was thinking
>> that he would be that king, not Tudor.
>> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes I do agree with you there Paul - he would have made the most dangerous of enemies
Eileen


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@b...>
wrote:
> I almost hate to say it, but I'd rather have had Morton working for
> Richard than against him!
> Paul
>
> On May 20, 2005, at 22:35, eileen wrote:
>
> > Its unfortunate Richard did not have him, Morton, executed at the same
> > time as
> > Buckingham. Who knows with this major conspirator out of the way
> > maybe things might
> > have turned out differently for Richard - at least he would have had
> > one less enemy.
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 20, 2005, at 02:38, destamate wrote:
> >>
> >>> I feel that, originally, Morton was simply working to get a
> >>> Protectorate; with Buckingham as Protector. I'm still trying to
> >>> reason
> >>> out what happened while Morton and Buckingham were together in Wales.
> >>
> >> I don't think Morton would have thought about a protectorate at all.
> >> I think both Buckingham and Morton were dreaming of King Henry. But
> >> Buckingham of course was thinking
> >> that he would be that king, not Tudor.
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> Its unfortunate Richard did not have him, Morton, executed at the
same time as Buckingham.


I think attempting to execute a bishop would have brought a great deal
of trouble onto Richard. The clergy, especially the high churchmen,
enjoyed a great deal of protection from secular matters -- it was not
called benefit of clergy for nothing.

Katy

>I think attempting to execute a bishop would have brought a great deal
>of trouble onto Richard. The clergy, especially the high churchmen,
>enjoyed a great deal of protection from secular matters -- it was not
>called benefit of clergy for nothing.

>Katy

He would have been well advised to following the precedent established in the leading case of R v Archbishop Scrope of York, 1405.

Brian

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@g...> wrote:
>
>
> >I think attempting to execute a bishop would have brought a
great
deal
> >of trouble onto Richard. The clergy, especially the high
churchmen,
> >enjoyed a great deal of protection from secular matters -- it
was
not
> >called benefit of clergy for nothing.
>
> >Katy
>
> He would have been well advised to following the precedent
established in the leading case of R v Archbishop Scrope of York,
1405.
>
> Brian

I read Pugh's book on the Southampton plot over Christmas and
remember
Archbishop Scrope being mentioned. Can you remind me of his fate?
Incidentally, Thomas Cranmer was convicted, attainted and deprived
over
his part in crowning Jane. Does this just point towards the different
type of society that existed by the middle of the sixteenth century?
>
>

> He would have been well advised to following the precedent
established in the leading case of R v Archbishop Scrope of York,
1405.

>I read Pugh's book on the Southampton plot over Christmas and
>remember
>Archbishop Scrope being mentioned. Can you remind me of his fate?
Having been out in armed rebellion, and having made the mistake of agreeing to negotiate and disarm, the Archbishop was taken by Ralph Neville Earl of Westmorland, and treated as a traitor. On the King's orders Scrope was tried by a sort of drum head court martial and promply marched to the block along with the eighteen year old Earl Marshal, Thomas Mowbray, and Sir Robert Plumpton. This was despite the protests of Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury.

When the Pope protested, Henry IV sent him Scrope's armour with the question "Is this your son's coat?" To which the Pope replied "It is certain that a wild beast has devoured him."

Anyway, Henry IV suffered no earthly consequences, although his worsening illness/debility was popularly ascribed to Scrope's curse, and Scrope was treated as a semi-saint by the locals up until the Reformation, especially (unsurprisingly!) during the Yorkist era. I have an idea Edward IV tried to get him (Scrope) canonized, but I can't recall for sure.

Regards
Brian

On May 21, 2005, at 09:30, stephenmlark wrote:

> Incidentally, Thomas Cranmer was convicted, attainted and deprived
> over
> his part in crowning Jane. Does this just point towards the different
> type of society that existed by the middle of the sixteenth century?
>
Well of course as far as Mary Tudor was concerned Cranmer wasn't part
of the church,
her church anyway. From Henry 8th on anyone was game, queen, bishop,
noble,
anybody.
Paul

--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<Brian@g...> wrote:

> Having been out in armed rebellion, and having made the mistake of
agreeing to negotiate and disarm, the Archbishop was taken by Ralph
Neville Earl of Westmorland, and treated as a traitor. On the King's
orders Scrope was tried by a sort of drum head court martial and
promply marched to the block along with the eighteen year old Earl
Marshal, Thomas Mowbray, and Sir Robert Plumpton. This was despite the
protests of Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury.
>

I had forgotten about Scrope. I believe he was mentioned briefly in
what I read -- your account is more interesting and memorable.

But not quite a parallel with Morton. Morton did not take up arms
against the Crown -- during the fracas in the council chamber he took
refuge under a table, remember -- so behind-the-scenes conniving rather
than direct confrontation, seems to have been more to his taste. I do
think, though, that he is more deserving of the "king-maker"
appellation than Warwick.

Katy