Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re:Buckin

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, 6:22 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Oh yes. She knows the subject and cites primary sources.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bale Paul Trevr bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 06 February 2018 18:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham'sRebellion and the Precontract


Glad you got Annette's book. Very good it is too, as are all he writings on Richard and those about him and during his time.
Paul

On 6 Feb 2018, at 18:00, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

I have both the Carson volumes to hand, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector and HIGH CONSTABLE of England. When I have a moment, I shall consult the latter in full, including the Henry V-VI precedent, but can be sure that they will confirm:
1) Edward IV's codicil named Richard as Lord Protector. NOBODY, even the Wydevilles, contradicted this; they just tried to limit his powers.
2) The Constable's powers survived one monarch into the reign of the next, as Paul has stated at least twice.
3) Logically, Stillington either witnessed the 1461 marriage as a Canon or was told soon afterwards by Edward. His promotion to the see of Bath and Wells comes within months of the bigamy at the first possible opportunity afterwards. It is unnecessary to invent a second, third or fourth priest to transmit any message to him by whatever means.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 05 February 2018 10:25
To:
Subject: Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract


I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.

Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.

A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.

BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H

On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@...[] <> wrote:


Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract




Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council........
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?


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

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, 6:22 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Oh yes. She knows the subject and cites primary sources.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bale Paul Trevr bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 06 February 2018 18:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham'sRebellion and the Precontract


Glad you got Annette's book. Very good it is too, as are all he writings on Richard and those about him and during his time.
Paul

On 6 Feb 2018, at 18:00, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

I have both the Carson volumes to hand, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector and HIGH CONSTABLE of England. When I have a moment, I shall consult the latter in full, including the Henry V-VI precedent, but can be sure that they will confirm:
1) Edward IV's codicil named Richard as Lord Protector. NOBODY, even the Wydevilles, contradicted this; they just tried to limit his powers.
2) The Constable's powers survived one monarch into the reign of the next, as Paul has stated at least twice.
3) Logically, Stillington either witnessed the 1461 marriage as a Canon or was told soon afterwards by Edward. His promotion to the see of Bath and Wells comes within months of the bigamy at the first possible opportunity afterwards. It is unnecessary to invent a second, third or fourth priest to transmit any message to him by whatever means.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 05 February 2018 10:25
To:
Subject: Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract


I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.

Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.

A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.

BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H

On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@...[] <> wrote:


Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract




Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council........
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?


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

This is a matter of logic, as pointed out in Eleanor. The see of Carlisle was vacant in early 1464 but Edward appointed someone else. Then he married Wydeville and translated Canon Stillington to Bath and Wells, the next vacancy. Stillington evidently knew about the first marriage already, meaning that he is most likely to have attended it if anyone did, or to have been told by Edward soon afterwards  it is the simplest possible explanation that is consistent with all the facts.
Chapuys, incidentally, was born only shortly before Stillington's death and came to England nearly thirty-five years later. I wonder to which lost sources on this he had access? The Vatican archives? Something Vergil shredded?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 06 February 2018 19:36
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckin


Stephen/Paul

What worries me more than our tiny spats are the total untruths which are creeping in online from 'popular historians'.

Take Anne Idley, EOM's nurse. Amy Licence has her coming from Market Drayton in Shropshire! And EOM's wet nurse was Isabel Burgh, the daughter of Hugh Burgh, who was given an annuity by Richard. It's apparently in the Court Records. Really?

And then there's the fact (!) that Richard wanted to invoke Benevolences again, but Parliament over-ruled him in 1484. Was Oliver Cromwell there?

We should be united in dealing with this. As I said a long time ago, Richard is a money-spinner, truth to some doesn't matter at all. Even Hicks has Richard paying an annuity to 'Isabel' Burgh. H

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018, 19:13:54 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Cite me your sources on Stillington witnessing the Pre Contract or being told by Edward Stephen. Contemporary, not Chapuys.
I'm sorry I don't agree with JAH on this but I'm not the enemy. I like all of us search for the truth. You set me on it. You have to accept when l (and others) don't agree. Not agreeing doesn't make me a nasty, or incompetent, person. We are all searching. Cheers and let's be Ricardian friends!. H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, 6:22 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Oh yes. She knows the subject and cites primary sources.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bale Paul Trevr bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 06 February 2018 18:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham'sRebellion and the Precontract


Glad you got Annette's book. Very good it is too, as are all he writings on Richard and those about him and during his time.
Paul

On 6 Feb 2018, at 18:00, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

I have both the Carson volumes to hand, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector and HIGH CONSTABLE of England. When I have a moment, I shall consult the latter in full, including the Henry V-VI precedent, but can be sure that they will confirm:
1) Edward IV's codicil named Richard as Lord Protector. NOBODY, even the Wydevilles, contradicted this; they just tried to limit his powers.
2) The Constable's powers survived one monarch into the reign of the next, as Paul has stated at least twice.
3) Logically, Stillington either witnessed the 1461 marriage as a Canon or was told soon afterwards by Edward. His promotion to the see of Bath and Wells comes within months of the bigamy at the first possible opportunity afterwards. It is unnecessary to invent a second, third or fourth priest to transmit any message to him by whatever means.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 05 February 2018 10:25
To:
Subject: Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract


I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.

Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.

A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.

BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H

On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@...[] <> wrote:


Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract




Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council..........
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?


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

Stephen/Paul
What worries me more than our tiny spats are the total untruths which are creeping in online from 'popular historians'.
Take Anne Idley, EOM's nurse. Amy Licence has her coming from Market Drayton in Shropshire! And EOM's wet nurse was Isabel Burgh, the daughter of Hugh Burgh, who was given an annuity by Richard. It's apparently in the Court Records. Really?
And then there's the fact (!) that Richard wanted to invoke Benevolences again, but Parliament over-ruled him in 1484. Was Oliver Cromwell there?
We should be united in dealing with this. As I said a long time ago, Richard is a money-spinner, truth to some doesn't matter at all. Even Hicks has Richard paying an annuity to 'Isabel' Burgh. H
On Tuesday, 6 February 2018, 19:13:54 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Cite me your sources on Stillington witnessing the Pre Contract or being told by Edward Stephen. Contemporary, not Chapuys. I'm sorry I don't agree with JAH on this but I'm not the enemy. I like all of us search for the truth. You set me on it. You have to accept when l (and others) don't agree. Not agreeing doesn't make me a nasty, or incompetent, person. We are all searching. Cheers and let's be Ricardian friends!. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, 6:22 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Oh yes. She knows the subject and cites primary sources.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bale Paul Trevr bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 06 February 2018 18:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham'sRebellion and the Precontract


Glad you got Annette's book. Very good it is too, as are all he writings on Richard and those about him and during his time.
Paul

On 6 Feb 2018, at 18:00, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

I have both the Carson volumes to hand, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector and HIGH CONSTABLE of England. When I have a moment, I shall consult the latter in full, including the Henry V-VI precedent, but can be sure that they will confirm:
1) Edward IV's codicil named Richard as Lord Protector. NOBODY, even the Wydevilles, contradicted this; they just tried to limit his powers.
2) The Constable's powers survived one monarch into the reign of the next, as Paul has stated at least twice.
3) Logically, Stillington either witnessed the 1461 marriage as a Canon or was told soon afterwards by Edward. His promotion to the see of Bath and Wells comes within months of the bigamy at the first possible opportunity afterwards. It is unnecessary to invent a second, third or fourth priest to transmit any message to him by whatever means.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 05 February 2018 10:25
To:
Subject: Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract


I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.

Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.

A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.

BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H

On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@...[] <> wrote:


Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract




Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council.........
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?


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

Hi Hillary, hi all,

Back again at last.

Thanks so much for finding this, Hilary. I was inclined to think Amy Licence had concocted the wetnurse Isabel Burgh out of Alice Burgh, the gentlewoman annuitant.

It's hard to be sure if she was a wetnurse or just a nanny since she's just called Edward's nurse in the grant.

Since I've never actually seen a reference to a wetnurse in a medieval text, I decided to look up the Oxford English Dictionary to see the history. The earliest usage recorded there is from 1627. The wet-nurse/ dry-nurse distinction seems to become very common then. So, given the etymology of the word nurse (nourrice), can we assume that all the nurses referred to in medieval texts were wetnurses? Anybody any thoughts? It certainly seems likely there would have been quite a staff in a prince's nursery, although only the 'nurse' or the Mistress of the Nursery (in Edward of Middleham's case, Anne Idley) ever seem to have received annuities, viz, from a website on medieval childhood:-

"A Prince might have two nurses, four cradle rockers, one or more chambermaids, and a laundress."

Looking at other examples - Edward Earl of Warwick and the children of Edward IV and Henry VII - their nurses often bore surnames associated with landed families (Warwick's was an unidentifiable Stanley, Prince Cecily's was a Stiddolph, Princess Anne's was a Butler, Edward V's a Wells, and the nurse brought in ready for Elizabeth of York's last baby was a Harcourt), which suggests that if these were wetnurses they were of some status. And yet they must have been breastfeeding their own babies.

Or are these rewards for what would later be called the drynurse?

Help, please.

Marie

Stephen/Paul
What worries me more than our tiny spats are the total untruths which are creeping in online from 'popular historians'.
Take Anne Idley, EOM's nurse. Amy Licence has her coming from Market Drayton in Shropshire! And EOM's wet nurse was Isabel Burgh, the daughter of Hugh Burgh, who was given an annuity by Richard. It's apparently in the Court Records. Really?
And then there's the fact (!) that Richard wanted to invoke Benevolences again, but Parliament over-ruled him in 1484. Was Oliver Cromwell there?
We should be united in dealing with this. As I said a long time ago, Richard is a money-spinner, truth to some doesn't matter at all. Even Hicks has Richard paying an annuity to 'Isabel' Burgh. H
On Tuesday, 6 February 2018, 19:13:54 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Cite me your sources on Stillington witnessing the Pre Contract or being told by Edward Stephen. Contemporary, not Chapuys. I'm sorry I don't agree with JAH on this but I'm not the enemy. I like all of us search for the truth. You set me on it. You have to accept when l (and others) don't agree. Not agreeing doesn't make me a nasty, or incompetent, person. We are all searching. Cheers and let's be Ricardian friends!. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, 6:22 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Oh yes. She knows the subject and cites primary sources.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bale Paul Trevr bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 06 February 2018 18:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham'sRebellion and the Precontract


Glad you got Annette's book. Very good it is too, as are all he writings on Richard and those about him and during his time.
Paul

On 6 Feb 2018, at 18:00, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

I have both the Carson volumes to hand, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector and HIGH CONSTABLE of England. When I have a moment, I shall consult the latter in full, including the Henry V-VI precedent, but can be sure that they will confirm:
1) Edward IV's codicil named Richard as Lord Protector. NOBODY, even the Wydevilles, contradicted this; they just tried to limit his powers.
2) The Constable's powers survived one monarch into the reign of the next, as Paul has stated at least twice.
3) Logically, Stillington either witnessed the 1461 marriage as a Canon or was told soon afterwards by Edward. His promotion to the see of Bath and Wells comes within months of the bigamy at the first possible opportunity afterwards. It is unnecessary to invent a second, third or fourth priest to transmit any message to him by whatever means.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 05 February 2018 10:25
To:
Subject: Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract


I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.

Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.

A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.

BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H

On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@...[] <> wrote:


Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract




Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council.........
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?


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

What is the famous line, Truth is still pulling on his tights while rumour runs around the world.

Stephen/Paul
What worries me more than our tiny spats are the total untruths which are creeping in online from 'popular historians'.
Take Anne Idley, EOM's nurse. Amy Licence has her coming from Market Drayton in Shropshire! And EOM's wet nurse was Isabel Burgh, the daughter of Hugh Burgh, who was given an annuity by Richard. It's apparently in the Court Records. Really?
And then there's the fact (!) that Richard wanted to invoke Benevolences again, but Parliament over-ruled him in 1484. Was Oliver Cromwell there?
We should be united in dealing with this. As I said a long time ago, Richard is a money-spinner, truth to some doesn't matter at all. Even Hicks has Richard paying an annuity to 'Isabel' Burgh. H
On Tuesday, 6 February 2018, 19:13:54 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Cite me your sources on Stillington witnessing the Pre Contract or being told by Edward Stephen. Contemporary, not Chapuys. I'm sorry I don't agree with JAH on this but I'm not the enemy. I like all of us search for the truth. You set me on it. You have to accept when l (and others) don't agree. Not agreeing doesn't make me a nasty, or incompetent, person. We are all searching. Cheers and let's be Ricardian friends!. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, 6:22 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Oh yes. She knows the subject and cites primary sources.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Bale Paul Trevr bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 06 February 2018 18:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham'sRebellion and the Precontract


Glad you got Annette's book. Very good it is too, as are all he writings on Richard and those about him and during his time.
Paul

On 6 Feb 2018, at 18:00, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

I have both the Carson volumes to hand, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector and HIGH CONSTABLE of England. When I have a moment, I shall consult the latter in full, including the Henry V-VI precedent, but can be sure that they will confirm:
1) Edward IV's codicil named Richard as Lord Protector. NOBODY, even the Wydevilles, contradicted this; they just tried to limit his powers.
2) The Constable's powers survived one monarch into the reign of the next, as Paul has stated at least twice.
3) Logically, Stillington either witnessed the 1461 marriage as a Canon or was told soon afterwards by Edward. His promotion to the see of Bath and Wells comes within months of the bigamy at the first possible opportunity afterwards. It is unnecessary to invent a second, third or fourth priest to transmit any message to him by whatever means.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 05 February 2018 10:25
To:
Subject: Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract


I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.

Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.

A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.

BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H

On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@...[] <> wrote:


Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract




Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council.........
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?


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

Hi Carol,

I take your point. Clearly the word nursery was in use for children up to the age of seven.

From what I can see, the term dry nurse came in slightly earlier than wet nurse (as early as 1602), with 'nurse' for a time meaning wet nurse , as in Sir Walter Raleigh's Remains (1618), where he addresses his grown son:

"Remember, when thou wert a sucking Child, that then thou didst love thy Nurse, and that thou wert fond of her, after a while thou didst love thy Drie#nurse, and didst forget the other...."

It also indicates that the child would have been old enough, when weaned, to remember it later in life.

Of 'nurse', The Oxford English Dictionary says it meant "Originally: a wet-nurse (now arch.). In later use: a woman employed or trained to take charge of a young child or children.'

References include John Trevisa (1398) : "A norse hath þe name of norischinge for sche is I-ordeyned to Norische and to fede þe childe."

I'm now thinking along the lines of there not being a distinction between the roles of wetnurse and drynurse until about 1600. If there had been, we'd surely see distinct terms being used? My guess is that pre- Reformation suckling a baby would not have been looked down on quite so much as it would later be, so that (wet)nurses to royalty and aristocracy could be sourced from families of reasonable standing in the community? When the child was weaned I presume the nurse would have gone on looking after its needs until he or she reached the age of seven and left the nursery? Elizabeth of York's rush in getting Mistress Harcourt up to London when she went into labour (she was brought up immediately) tends to suggest that she would have been needed to suckle the baby?

Questions, really.

By the by, Carol, did you manage to find what you wanted about my thoughts on Russell and Crowland?

Hi Carol,

I take your point. Clearly the word nursery was in use for children up to the age of seven.

From what I can see, the term dry nurse came in slightly earlier than wet nurse (as early as 1602), with 'nurse' for a time meaning wet nurse , as in Sir Walter Raleigh's Remains (1618), where he addresses his grown son:

"Remember, when thou wert a sucking Child, that then thou didst love thy Nurse, and that thou wert fond of her, after a while thou didst love thy Drie#nurse, and didst forget the other...."

It also indicates that the child would have been old enough, when weaned, to remember it later in life.

Of 'nurse', The Oxford English Dictionary says it meant "Originally: a wet-nurse (now arch.). In later use: a woman employed or trained to take charge of a young child or children.'

References include John Trevisa (1398) : "A norse hath þe name of norischinge for sche is I-ordeyned to Norische and to fede þe childe."

I'm now thinking along the lines of there not being a distinction between the roles of wetnurse and drynurse until about 1600. If there had been, we'd surely see distinct terms being used? My guess is that pre- Reformation suckling a baby would not have been looked down on quite so much as it would later be, so that (wet)nurses to royalty and aristocracy could be sourced from families of reasonable standing in the community? When the child was weaned I presume the nurse would have gone on looking after its needs until he or she reached the age of seven and left the nursery? Elizabeth of York's rush in getting Mistress Harcourt up to London when she went into labour (she was brought up immediately) tends to suggest that she would have been needed to suckle the baby?

Questions, really.

By the by, Carol, did you manage to find what you wanted about my thoughts on Russell and Crowland?

Welcome back Marie! Hope the following helps a bit:
I can't cut and paste the CPR but it's as follows

'Grant for life to Henry Burgh and Isabel his wife for their good service to the king, and his consort Anne, and especially to his son Edward deceased, whose nurse the said Isabel was, of an annuity of 20 marks from the issues of the lordship of Middleham.' 28 Jun 1484 Westminster.
Sad isn't it?
The letter to Sir William Stonor asking him to make sure William and Elizabeth Idley pay their sister Anne calls her 'our right welbeloved servant Anne Idley, Maistres of our Nurcery'. It was written on 9 July in the year assumed to be 1479 and signed by John Kendale and Richard himself as R. Goucestre - we know how dodgy Kingsford is on dates but it obviously comes from the time before Richard became King. Her annuity though is 5 marks.
Firstly, I think the Alice and Isabel Burgh thing comes from Alison Weir - unreferenced of course and Amy Licence has copied without reference. I seem to recall it's in the preamble to one of Weir's novels. I can't find any relevant Henry Burghs amongst the Catterick or Gainsborough lot but Henry Burgh of Manton and Withcote Rutland seems to have been the great nephew of the MP John Burgh and launched a claim on his property in the 1480/90s. He has an IPM in 1494 so I can order that though I would have thought it should have appeared under the published Henry VII ones. His son died in 1500 and also has an IPM.
I can find no reference to Anne Idley in the CPR. Some women authors have her being employed because she was the second wife of Peter Idley who wrote 'Instructions to his son' and this was used as a model for Edward. She came from Drayton, Oxfordshire (not Market Drayton) because Peter had married as his first wife Elizabeth Drayton, heiress of the Draytons. Licence gives her surname as Cretyng, but other than a Sir Edward Cretyng a century before, I can find no trace of that - unless it's spelt wrong of course. Not Cressing is it?
BTW I wasn't on the trail of any of this - I was chasing John Rushe through the Stonor Papers. That's the way things go with all this! H
On Wednesday, 7 February 2018, 20:52:13 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Carol,

I take your point. Clearly the word nursery was in use for children up to the age of seven.

From what I can see, the term dry nurse came in slightly earlier than wet nurse (as early as 1602), with 'nurse' for a time meaning wet nurse , as in Sir Walter Raleigh's Remains (1618), where he addresses his grown son:

"Remember, when thou wert a sucking Child, that then thou didst love thy Nurse, and that thou wert fond of her, after a while thou didst love thy Drie#nurse, and didst forget the other...."

It also indicates that the child would have been old enough, when weaned, to remember it later in life.

Of 'nurse', The Oxford English Dictionary says it meant "Originally: a wet-nurse (now arch.). In later use: a woman employed or trained to take charge of a young child or children.'

References include John Trevisa (1398) : "A norse hath þe name of norischinge for sche is I-ordeyned to Norische and to fede þe childe."

I'm now thinking along the lines of there not being a distinction between the roles of wetnurse and drynurse until about 1600. If there had been, we'd surely see distinct terms being used? My guess is that pre- Reformation suckling a baby would not have been looked down on quite so much as it would later be, so that (wet)nurses to royalty and aristocracy could be sourced from families of reasonable standing in the community? When the child was weaned I presume the nurse would have gone on looking after its needs until he or she reached the age of seven and left the nursery? Elizabeth of York's rush in getting Mistress Harcourt up to London when she went into labour (she was brought up immediately) tends to suggest that she would have been needed to suckle the baby?

Questions, really.

By the by, Carol, did you manage to find what you wanted about my thoughts on Russell and Crowland?

Hi Marie I've managed to track down online the IPM of Henry Burgh of Leicestershire. There's no member of a wife but his son Robert, who was aged 19 at the time of Henry's death on 17 Mar 1495, would have been born about 1476 - about the same time as Edward of Middleham? H
On Thursday, 8 February 2018, 10:25:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Welcome back Marie! Hope the following helps a bit:
I can't cut and paste the CPR but it's as follows

'Grant for life to Henry Burgh and Isabel his wife for their good service to the king, and his consort Anne, and especially to his son Edward deceased, whose nurse the said Isabel was, of an annuity of 20 marks from the issues of the lordship of Middleham.' 28 Jun 1484 Westminster.
Sad isn't it?
The letter to Sir William Stonor asking him to make sure William and Elizabeth Idley pay their sister Anne calls her 'our right welbeloved servant Anne Idley, Maistres of our Nurcery'. It was written on 9 July in the year assumed to be 1479 and signed by John Kendale and Richard himself as R. Goucestre - we know how dodgy Kingsford is on dates but it obviously comes from the time before Richard became King. Her annuity though is 5 marks.
Firstly, I think the Alice and Isabel Burgh thing comes from Alison Weir - unreferenced of course and Amy Licence has copied without reference. I seem to recall it's in the preamble to one of Weir's novels. I can't find any relevant Henry Burghs amongst the Catterick or Gainsborough lot but Henry Burgh of Manton and Withcote Rutland seems to have been the great nephew of the MP John Burgh and launched a claim on his property in the 1480/90s. He has an IPM in 1494 so I can order that though I would have thought it should have appeared under the published Henry VII ones. His son died in 1500 and also has an IPM.
I can find no reference to Anne Idley in the CPR. Some women authors have her being employed because she was the second wife of Peter Idley who wrote 'Instructions to his son' and this was used as a model for Edward. She came from Drayton, Oxfordshire (not Market Drayton) because Peter had married as his first wife Elizabeth Drayton, heiress of the Draytons. Licence gives her surname as Cretyng, but other than a Sir Edward Cretyng a century before, I can find no trace of that - unless it's spelt wrong of course. Not Cressing is it?
BTW I wasn't on the trail of any of this - I was chasing John Rushe through the Stonor Papers. That's the way things go with all this! H
On Wednesday, 7 February 2018, 20:52:13 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Carol,

I take your point. Clearly the word nursery was in use for children up to the age of seven.

From what I can see, the term dry nurse came in slightly earlier than wet nurse (as early as 1602), with 'nurse' for a time meaning wet nurse , as in Sir Walter Raleigh's Remains (1618), where he addresses his grown son:

"Remember, when thou wert a sucking Child, that then thou didst love thy Nurse, and that thou wert fond of her, after a while thou didst love thy Drie#nurse, and didst forget the other...."

It also indicates that the child would have been old enough, when weaned, to remember it later in life.

Of 'nurse', The Oxford English Dictionary says it meant "Originally: a wet-nurse (now arch.). In later use: a woman employed or trained to take charge of a young child or children.'

References include John Trevisa (1398) : "A norse hath þe name of norischinge for sche is I-ordeyned to Norische and to fede þe childe."

I'm now thinking along the lines of there not being a distinction between the roles of wetnurse and drynurse until about 1600. If there had been, we'd surely see distinct terms being used? My guess is that pre- Reformation suckling a baby would not have been looked down on quite so much as it would later be, so that (wet)nurses to royalty and aristocracy could be sourced from families of reasonable standing in the community? When the child was weaned I presume the nurse would have gone on looking after its needs until he or she reached the age of seven and left the nursery? Elizabeth of York's rush in getting Mistress Harcourt up to London when she went into labour (she was brought up immediately) tends to suggest that she would have been needed to suckle the baby?

Questions, really.

By the by, Carol, did you manage to find what you wanted about my thoughts on Russell and Crowland?

I've now got a proof age age for Robert. He was born on 22 Dec 1476 H
On Thursday, 8 February 2018, 14:22:16 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie I've managed to track down online the IPM of Henry Burgh of Leicestershire. There's no member of a wife but his son Robert, who was aged 19 at the time of Henry's death on 17 Mar 1495, would have been born about 1476 - about the same time as Edward of Middleham? H
On Thursday, 8 February 2018, 10:25:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Welcome back Marie! Hope the following helps a bit:
I can't cut and paste the CPR but it's as follows

'Grant for life to Henry Burgh and Isabel his wife for their good service to the king, and his consort Anne, and especially to his son Edward deceased, whose nurse the said Isabel was, of an annuity of 20 marks from the issues of the lordship of Middleham.' 28 Jun 1484 Westminster.
Sad isn't it?
The letter to Sir William Stonor asking him to make sure William and Elizabeth Idley pay their sister Anne calls her 'our right welbeloved servant Anne Idley, Maistres of our Nurcery'. It was written on 9 July in the year assumed to be 1479 and signed by John Kendale and Richard himself as R. Goucestre - we know how dodgy Kingsford is on dates but it obviously comes from the time before Richard became King. Her annuity though is 5 marks.
Firstly, I think the Alice and Isabel Burgh thing comes from Alison Weir - unreferenced of course and Amy Licence has copied without reference. I seem to recall it's in the preamble to one of Weir's novels. I can't find any relevant Henry Burghs amongst the Catterick or Gainsborough lot but Henry Burgh of Manton and Withcote Rutland seems to have been the great nephew of the MP John Burgh and launched a claim on his property in the 1480/90s. He has an IPM in 1494 so I can order that though I would have thought it should have appeared under the published Henry VII ones. His son died in 1500 and also has an IPM.
I can find no reference to Anne Idley in the CPR. Some women authors have her being employed because she was the second wife of Peter Idley who wrote 'Instructions to his son' and this was used as a model for Edward. She came from Drayton, Oxfordshire (not Market Drayton) because Peter had married as his first wife Elizabeth Drayton, heiress of the Draytons. Licence gives her surname as Cretyng, but other than a Sir Edward Cretyng a century before, I can find no trace of that - unless it's spelt wrong of course. Not Cressing is it?
BTW I wasn't on the trail of any of this - I was chasing John Rushe through the Stonor Papers. That's the way things go with all this! H
On Wednesday, 7 February 2018, 20:52:13 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Carol,

I take your point. Clearly the word nursery was in use for children up to the age of seven.

From what I can see, the term dry nurse came in slightly earlier than wet nurse (as early as 1602), with 'nurse' for a time meaning wet nurse , as in Sir Walter Raleigh's Remains (1618), where he addresses his grown son:

"Remember, when thou wert a sucking Child, that then thou didst love thy Nurse, and that thou wert fond of her, after a while thou didst love thy Drie#nurse, and didst forget the other...."

It also indicates that the child would have been old enough, when weaned, to remember it later in life.

Of 'nurse', The Oxford English Dictionary says it meant "Originally: a wet-nurse (now arch.). In later use: a woman employed or trained to take charge of a young child or children.'

References include John Trevisa (1398) : "A norse hath þe name of norischinge for sche is I-ordeyned to Norische and to fede þe childe."

I'm now thinking along the lines of there not being a distinction between the roles of wetnurse and drynurse until about 1600. If there had been, we'd surely see distinct terms being used? My guess is that pre- Reformation suckling a baby would not have been looked down on quite so much as it would later be, so that (wet)nurses to royalty and aristocracy could be sourced from families of reasonable standing in the community? When the child was weaned I presume the nurse would have gone on looking after its needs until he or she reached the age of seven and left the nursery? Elizabeth of York's rush in getting Mistress Harcourt up to London when she went into labour (she was brought up immediately) tends to suggest that she would have been needed to suckle the baby?

Questions, really.

By the by, Carol, did you manage to find what you wanted about my thoughts on Russell and Crowland?

Hi Hilary.

Yes, I know about Anne Idley - I have a copy of the Stonor Papers and I think there was once an article in the Ricardian. The details you've read are reliable.

There would have been a lot of Henry Burghs around, of course. My guess is that this one lived in the Middleham-Richmond catchment area since he was serving Richard and his wife was nursing Richard's son. I've not succeeded in identifying any of these nurses with confidence* (Anne Idley's job was supervisory so you'd expect her to be a step further up the social scale), so although they carry the surnames of county families they are probably poor relations - i.e. clean with good manners but not too posh, or too flush, to agree to getting involved in the physical, messy side of baby care.

If you trawl through the Common Pleas indexes, you'll see there were a lot of people called Burgh popping up here and yon. I guess Henry and Isabel were mostly likely poor relations of the Burghs of Brough, although it's not wholly impossible that they were offshoots of the Burghs of Gainsborough since Sir Thomas had an annuity from Richard.

*Warwick's nurse once he was transferred to the royal household, Agnes Stanley, may possibly have been the wife of the Lionel Stanley who delivered her payment to her one time. A Lionel Stanley is named as a yeoman of the Crown early in Henry VIII's reign.

Hi Hilary.

Yes, I know about Anne Idley - I have a copy of the Stonor Papers and I think there was once an article in the Ricardian. The details you've read are reliable.

There would have been a lot of Henry Burghs around, of course. My guess is that this one lived in the Middleham-Richmond catchment area since he was serving Richard and his wife was nursing Richard's son. I've not succeeded in identifying any of these nurses with confidence* (Anne Idley's job was supervisory so you'd expect her to be a step further up the social scale), so although they carry the surnames of county families they are probably poor relations - i.e. clean with good manners but not too posh, or too flush, to agree to getting involved in the physical, messy side of baby care.

If you trawl through the Common Pleas indexes, you'll see there were a lot of people called Burgh popping up here and yon. I guess Henry and Isabel were mostly likely poor relations of the Burghs of Brough, although it's not wholly impossible that they were offshoots of the Burghs of Gainsborough since Sir Thomas had an annuity from Richard.

*Warwick's nurse once he was transferred to the royal household, Agnes Stanley, may possibly have been the wife of the Lionel Stanley who delivered her payment to her one time. A Lionel Stanley is named as a yeoman of the Crown early in Henry VIII's reign.

Carol wrote:

Hi, Marie. I'm having too much trouble with the website (posts not loading properly) to check old posts. I'd appreciate it if you'd just briefly summarize, giving the point at which you think Russell takes over and why you think it was him. I know about his visit to Croyland in 1486(?), but he wasn't alone and the continuator could have been a member of his party. I just can't see Russell showing hostility to Richard given his enthusiasm about Richard continuing his role as Protector after the (planned) coronation of E5 and his participation in Richard's regime.

Thanks very much for asking (and for your interesting contributions on the role of nurses).

Marie replies:

Thanks for the thanks, Carol - appreciated.

But Woah! Slow down there. That's a lot of assumptions. There's no hostility to Richard in the shot section I identified as coming from Russell, and there is one very important detail that suggest it would have been written by him rather than by another member of his party.

I'm using the Pronay and Cox translation here.

The first thing to clear out of the way is the old idea that the note about "all this being done" during ten days in April 1486 refers to the writing of the whole chronicle - it refers just to the legal transfer of the parish of Bringhurst which Russell and his team had gone to the Abbey to effect. That's pretty much agreed by all historians now.

Now, to explain where I think Russell comes in, I'm going to have to go back a bit. You've got the account of Richard's reign, and then of Bosworth. The writer praises Henry. Then "And so ends the history we promised to set out. . . ." And then the same author goes on, still writing in the first person, to add the verse about the Three Richards written by 'a certain poet' (a verse which has now been shown to have been doing the rounds after Bosworth).

Then there's another of the passages recording the history of the monastery.

Then it starts again, with either the same writer or another appending a glowing record of the marriage of Henry and Elizabeth and some nasty words about Yorkshire Rebellion of April 1486, events which had clearly not occurred when the original ending was made. In other words, we can tell for sure that all the history up until the Three Richards poem was finished before the end of 1485.

Then there's a moralising poem about the mutabilities of the world and the damage done to the stability of the kingdom by the struggles of rival kings. It seems to point the finger at Richard, but also strongly criticises Edward's attempt to take the throne of France, and it ends with an exhortation to accept the dual dynasty that God is now offering, in order to avoid further bloodshed. Part of this poem is omitted and replaced by a vry brief prose precis - P & C were not clear whether this is how the original chronicle read, or whether the 17th century editor (Fulman), who seems to have had difficulty making sense of, or physically reading, this poem, just gave up at this point (the original MS was badly damaged by fire, and we are reliant on a 17thC copy for all of the part dealing with Richard's reign and beyond). If this is how the original read, then we seem, yet again, to have a poem that was already in existence and simply copied - or half copied - into the chronicle.

Then there's another poem, which could well be Russell's work, in which a priest says how he envies the monastic life. I don't know if you've read the latest Ricardian, but apparently these were Russell's sentiments exactly. He had lodgings in the London Charterhouse and was very keen to retire from public affairs to live the contemplative life. The poem says "It would be sweet for a father [i.e. a priest] to be a brother [i.e. a monk] in a community devoid of all envy amongst brothers."

Then we have the note about all this being done and completed at Crowland in April 1486, in the space of ten days - which seems to be a note - perhaps an addition or an item of marginalia - which either the 17th century editor or the compiler of the original fair copy misplaced.

Then immediately after this there's a completely fresh prose account which begins "Although the narrator of the immediately preceding history, whoever he may be, set a limit to his work . . . ." I've got things I would like to record, don't you know, and so here they are.

This is where I believe Russell's contribution starts. He starts with Henry's parliament (which of course Russell attended as one of the lords spiritual) and launches into a blistering attack on Henry's attainder of the men who had fought for Richard at Bosworth. Then he records the death of Cardinal Bourchier close to Easter, and says how it reminds him of the death of Cardinal Beaufort at the same time of year, when he called all the neighbouring clergy to his palace at Winchester to have a requiem recited in his presence as he lay in his bed waiting to die. He goes on to describe the funeral, and the public reading out of the Cardinal's will. 'For he who has written this was there and saw and heard it all . . . .' At the time in question, John Russell, a native of a village close to Winchester, was a student at Winchester School.

Then the writer returns to the Easter of 1486, describing how Henry VII spent the feast at Lincoln. It's the only part of Henry's progress that this writer bothers to record, and of course Bishop Russell had been at Lincoln acting as Henry's host.

We then get another record of the Yorkshire Rebellion, this time without any partisan invective, and the writer also records the fact - airbrushed out of all the other Tudor histories - that Henry was nearly captured by the rebels when he was in York, and that some of the perpetrators were hanged.

And that ends the political account.

It's followed by a paragraph, in the third person, recording the visit of Russell and his team to do the conveyancing for the Bringhurst appropriation.

My current feeling about the chronicle is similar to that of some, though not all, writers on the subject - i.e. that like the contents of most registers it is a compilation of what would have been lots of separate little accounts written on loose sheets, and that Russell, as well as writing the above passage, may have volunteered to organise these bits of paper ready for copying into the register. And he may have provided other titbits of information to the abbey scribe in the process. For instance, the marginal note against the passage describing the diplomatic mission of 'one of the king's councillors' to Calais and Burgundy in the late summer of 1471 identifies the councillor in question as 'he who compiled this history'. Note the word is compiled (compilavit), not wrote - apparently the distinction is meaningful in Latin. Also, Livia Visser Fuchs pointed out to me that the phrase about the strength of the threefold knot, which occurs in the section describing Richard and George's quarrel over Anne and the Warwick inheritance, is a biblical reference which also appears in a speech Bishop Russell made to Duke Charles on one of his embassies.

Carol wrote:

Hi, Marie. I'm having too much trouble with the website (posts not loading properly) to check old posts. I'd appreciate it if you'd just briefly summarize, giving the point at which you think Russell takes over and why you think it was him. I know about his visit to Croyland in 1486(?), but he wasn't alone and the continuator could have been a member of his party. I just can't see Russell showing hostility to Richard given his enthusiasm about Richard continuing his role as Protector after the (planned) coronation of E5 and his participation in Richard's regime.

Thanks very much for asking (and for your interesting contributions on the role of nurses).

Marie replies:

Thanks for the thanks, Carol - appreciated.

But Woah! Slow down there. That's a lot of assumptions. There's no hostility to Richard in the shot section I identified as coming from Russell, and there is one very important detail that suggest it would have been written by him rather than by another member of his party.

I'm using the Pronay and Cox translation here.

The first thing to clear out of the way is the old idea that the note about "all this being done" during ten days in April 1486 refers to the writing of the whole chronicle - it refers just to the legal transfer of the parish of Bringhurst which Russell and his team had gone to the Abbey to effect. That's pretty much agreed by all historians now.

Now, to explain where I think Russell comes in, I'm going to have to go back a bit. You've got the account of Richard's reign, and then of Bosworth. The writer praises Henry. Then "And so ends the history we promised to set out. . . ." And then the same author goes on, still writing in the first person, to add the verse about the Three Richards written by 'a certain poet' (a verse which has now been shown to have been doing the rounds after Bosworth).

Then there's another of the passages recording the history of the monastery.

Then it starts again, with either the same writer or another appending a glowing record of the marriage of Henry and Elizabeth and some nasty words about Yorkshire Rebellion of April 1486, events which had clearly not occurred when the original ending was made. In other words, we can tell for sure that all the history up until the Three Richards poem was finished before the end of 1485.

Then there's a moralising poem about the mutabilities of the world and the damage done to the stability of the kingdom by the struggles of rival kings. It seems to point the finger at Richard, but also strongly criticises Edward's attempt to take the throne of France, and it ends with an exhortation to accept the dual dynasty that God is now offering, in order to avoid further bloodshed. Part of this poem is omitted and replaced by a vry brief prose precis - P & C were not clear whether this is how the original chronicle read, or whether the 17th century editor (Fulman), who seems to have had difficulty making sense of, or physically reading, this poem, just gave up at this point (the original MS was badly damaged by fire, and we are reliant on a 17thC copy for all of the part dealing with Richard's reign and beyond). If this is how the original read, then we seem, yet again, to have a poem that was already in existence and simply copied - or half copied - into the chronicle.

Then there's another poem, which could well be Russell's work, in which a priest says how he envies the monastic life. I don't know if you've read the latest Ricardian, but apparently these were Russell's sentiments exactly. He had lodgings in the London Charterhouse and was very keen to retire from public affairs to live the contemplative life. The poem says "It would be sweet for a father [i.e. a priest] to be a brother [i.e. a monk] in a community devoid of all envy amongst brothers."

Then we have the note about all this being done and completed at Crowland in April 1486, in the space of ten days - which seems to be a note - perhaps an addition or an item of marginalia - which either the 17th century editor or the compiler of the original fair copy misplaced.

Then immediately after this there's a completely fresh prose account which begins "Although the narrator of the immediately preceding history, whoever he may be, set a limit to his work . . . ." I've got things I would like to record, don't you know, and so here they are.

This is where I believe Russell's contribution starts. He starts with Henry's parliament (which of course Russell attended as one of the lords spiritual) and launches into a blistering attack on Henry's attainder of the men who had fought for Richard at Bosworth. Then he records the death of Cardinal Bourchier close to Easter, and says how it reminds him of the death of Cardinal Beaufort at the same time of year, when he called all the neighbouring clergy to his palace at Winchester to have a requiem recited in his presence as he lay in his bed waiting to die. He goes on to describe the funeral, and the public reading out of the Cardinal's will. 'For he who has written this was there and saw and heard it all . . . .' At the time in question, John Russell, a native of a village close to Winchester, was a student at Winchester School.

Then the writer returns to the Easter of 1486, describing how Henry VII spent the feast at Lincoln. It's the only part of Henry's progress that this writer bothers to record, and of course Bishop Russell had been at Lincoln acting as Henry's host.

We then get another record of the Yorkshire Rebellion, this time without any partisan invective, and the writer also records the fact - airbrushed out of all the other Tudor histories - that Henry was nearly captured by the rebels when he was in York, and that some of the perpetrators were hanged.

And that ends the political account.

It's followed by a paragraph, in the third person, recording the visit of Russell and his team to do the conveyancing for the Bringhurst appropriation.

My current feeling about the chronicle is similar to that of some, though not all, writers on the subject - i.e. that like the contents of most registers it is a compilation of what would have been lots of separate little accounts written on loose sheets, and that Russell, as well as writing the above passage, may have volunteered to organise these bits of paper ready for copying into the register. And he may have provided other titbits of information to the abbey scribe in the process. For instance, the marginal note against the passage describing the diplomatic mission of 'one of the king's councillors' to Calais and Burgundy in the late summer of 1471 identifies the councillor in question as 'he who compiled this history'. Note the word is compiled (compilavit), not wrote - apparently the distinction is meaningful in Latin. Also, Livia Visser Fuchs pointed out to me that the phrase about the strength of the threefold knot, which occurs in the section describing Richard and George's quarrel over Anne and the Warwick inheritance, is a biblical reference which also appears in a speech Bishop Russell made to Duke Charles on one of his embassies.

Hilary wrote:

"In the Vatican Regesta for August 1486 there is a communication from the Pope to John Russell accepting his resignation on the grounds of frailty - but Russell never pursued it and carried on to his death. Is this a mistake in the date (I don't trust any any longer) or was this an indication of Russell's wish to take up the monastic life, or perhaps get away from HT, but he then decided against? The editors clearly don't understand what happened."

Marie here:

Hi Hilary - Can you lay your hands on the recent (2017) Ricardian? It's all there in Anne Sutton & Livia's article on Russell and the Charterhouse. I know you're not a great believer in chronic illness, but Russell is another sufferer, I'm afraid.

Re the Wellesbournes - I had put together a few notes many years back but not got that far when I put aside the rebellions of 1486-7 for other things. If you're not in a big rush, let me see what I can do with it in spare moments. I will need to get back to it at some time.

Marie

"Then immediately after this there's a completely fresh prose account which begins "Although the narrator of the immediately preceding history, whoever he may be, set a limit to his work . . . ." I've got things I would like to record, don't you know, and so here they are.

This is where I believe Russell's contribution starts. He starts with Henry's parliament (which of course Russell attended as one of the lords spiritual) and launches into a blistering attack on Henry's attainder of the men who had fought for Richard at Bosworth. [snip]

"Then the writer returns to the Easter of 1486, describing how Henry VII spent the feast at Lincoln. It's the only part of Henry's progress that this writer bothers to record, and of course Bishop Russell had been at Lincoln acting as Henry's host. We then get another record of the Yorkshire Rebellion, this time without any partisan invective, and the writer also records the fact - airbrushed out of all the other Tudor histories - that Henry was nearly captured by the rebels when he was in York, and that some of the perpetrators were hanged.

"And that ends the political account. It's followed by a paragraph, in the third person, recording the visit of Russell and his team to do the conveyancing for the Bringhurst appropriation.

"My current feeling about the chronicle is similar to that of some, though not all, writers on the subject - i.e. that like the contents of most registers it is a compilation of what would have been lots of separate little accounts written on loose sheets, and that Russell, as well as writing the above passage, may have volunteered to organise these bits of paper ready for copying into the register. And he may have provided other titbits of information to the abbey scribe in the process. For instance, the marginal note against the passage describing the diplomatic mission of 'one of the king's councillors' to Calais and Burgundy in the late summer of 1471 identifies the councillor in question as 'he who compiled this history'. Note the word is compiled (compilavit), not wrote - apparently the distinction is meaningful in Latin. Also, Livia Visser Fuchs pointed out to me that the phrase about the strength of the threefold knot, which occurs in the section describing Richard and George's quarrel over Anne and the Warwick inheritance, is a biblical reference which also appears in a speech Bishop Russell made to Duke Charles on one of his embassies."

Carol responds:

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, which I don't remember reading in an earlier post and could not have found given the difficulties I'm now experiencing with the forum. (At the best of times, it's hard to search for old posts.)

I had forgotten about the part where the author laments Henry's action in attainting Richard's followers, which might well have come from Russell, but the part where the compiler (and, yes, I think you're right about compiling rather than writing) refers to Russell in the third person as having *previously* visited the abbey seems to argue against it. At any rate, I'm glad you don't think he wrote or compiled the inaccurate and hostile accounts in Part IX (complete with the statements that the Earl of Richmond, later referred to as "that glorious conqueror," "made straight for King Richard," and that such men as Robert Brackenbury and Robert Percy, both of whom died fighting for Richard, "took flight without engaging"). That entire section, complete with Richard's dream of demons, the absence of chaplains, and the [disregarded] order to execute Lord Strange immediately, should (in my opinion) be relegated to the realm of Tudor myth.

Carol

Marie wrote:

Hi Hillary, hi all,

Back again at last.

Thanks so much for finding this, Hilary. I was inclined to think Amy Licence had concocted the wetnurse Isabel Burgh out of Alice Burgh, the gentlewoman annuitant.

It's hard to be sure if she was a wetnurse or just a nanny since she's just called Edward's nurse in the grant.

Since I've never actually seen a reference to a wetnurse in a medieval text, I decided to look up the Oxford English Dictionary to see the history. The earliest usage recorded there is from 1627. The wet-nurse/ dry-nurse distinction seems to become very common then. So, given the etymology of the word nurse (nourrice), can we assume that all the nurses referred to in medieval texts were wetnurses? Anybody any thoughts? It certainly seems likely there would have been quite a staff in a prince's nursery, although only the 'nurse' or the Mistress of the Nursery (in Edwar d of Middleham's case, Anne Idley) ever seem to have received annuities, viz, from a website on medieval childhood:-

"A Prince might have two nurses, four cradle rockers, one or more chambermaids, and a laundress."

Looking at other examples - Edward Earl of Warwick and the children of Edward IV and Henry VII - their nurses often bore surnames associated with landed families (Warwick's was an unidentifiable Stanley, Prince Cecily's was a Stiddolph, Princess Anne's was a Butler, Edward V's a Wells, and the nurse brought in ready for Elizabeth of York's last baby was a Harcourt), which suggests that if these were wetnurses they were of some status. And yet they must have been breastfeeding their own babies.

Or are these rewards for what would later be called the drynurse?

Help, please.

Thanks, Doug. Poor relations of high-class families is the way I was thinking, but we're generally told that, whilst that might be true for nurses/governesses and paid companions, wetnurses were generally from a lower social class.

What I was wondering was, was the general nurse at this period perhaps expected to be wetnurse as well? And, if so, does this mean the wetnurse role was somewhat less menial than it later came to be regarded? My hunch is that this was probably the case, that the example of the Virgin Mary suckling Jesus would have sanctified breastfeeding in a way that was later lost, however unfashionable breastfeeding may actually have been with top ladies leading busy public lives.

I jut wondered if anyone knew of any more concrete evidence.

Hilary wrote:

"In the Vatican Regesta for August 1486 there is a communication from the Pope to John Russell accepting his resignation on the grounds of frailty - but Russell never pursued it and carried on to his death. Is this a mistake in the date (I don't trust any any longer) or was this an indication of Russell's wish to take up the monastic life, or perhaps get away from HT, but he then decided against? The editors clearly don't understand what happened."

Marie here:

Hi Hilary - Can you lay your hands on the recent (2017) Ricardian? It's all there in Anne Sutton & Livia's article on Russell and the Charterhouse. I know you're not a great believer in chronic illness, but Russell is another sufferer, I'm afraid.

Re the Wellesbournes - I had put together a few notes many years back but not got that far when I put aside the rebellions of 1486-7 for other things. If you're not in a big rush, let me see what I can do with it in spare moments. I will need to get back to it at some time.

Marie

Thanks, Doug. Poor relations of high-class families is the way I was thinking, but we're generally told that, whilst that might be true for nurses/governesses and paid companions, wetnurses were generally from a lower social class.

What I was wondering was, was the general nurse at this period perhaps expected to be wetnurse as well? And, if so, does this mean the wetnurse role was somewhat less menial than it later came to be regarded? My hunch is that this was probably the case, that the example of the Virgin Mary suckling Jesus would have sanctified breastfeeding in a way that was later lost, however unfashionable breastfeeding may actually have been with top ladies leading busy public lives.

I jut wondered if anyone knew of any more concrete evidence.

Hilary wrote:

"The only tiny bit more is in Ian Mortimer's 'Time Traveller's guide'.

"It is provided and commanded, that no woman of the City shall from henceforth go to market, or in the King's highway, out of her house, with a hood furred with other than lambskin or rabbitskin, on pain of losing her hood to the use of the Sheriffs; save only those ladies who wear furred capes, the hoods of which may have such furs as they may think proper. And this, because that regratresses, nurses and other servants, and women of loose life, bedizen themselves, and wear hoods furred with gros vair and with minever, in guise of good ladies."

So there it refers simply to nurses, not wetnurses, and gives them as an example of a female servant. I don't think 'regrateresses' here is another example of a servant, but simply of a class of woman who should not be bedizening herself. It doesn't mean 'shop girl' in the sense of shop employee - I'm not sure they had them. They were own shopkeepers or stallholders in their own right - women who made a living buying up goods wholesale to resell at market at a profit. We'd call it retailing and see it as respectable, but the medievals simply viewed it as a bad practice that forced up prices to the consumer.

I somehow don't think the city fathers were thinking about the servants of lords and princes, whose dress would have been regulated by strict household rules that suited their powerful employers.

Looked at another way, it actually indicates that women employed as nurses by London citizens were not that poor. Regrateresses and successful prostitutes had money to spend on themselves because they were earning it, so either nurses and other servants were being paid very well - or, more likely, given the mistress's hand-me-downs as presents - or they came from families that were not much worse off than those they were working for.

Hilary wrote:

"The only tiny bit more is in Ian Mortimer's 'Time Traveller's guide'.

"It is provided and commanded, that no woman of the City shall from henceforth go to market, or in the King's highway, out of her house, with a hood furred with other than lambskin or rabbitskin, on pain of losing her hood to the use of the Sheriffs; save only those ladies who wear furred capes, the hoods of which may have such furs as they may think proper. And this, because that regratresses, nurses and other servants, and women of loose life, bedizen themselves, and wear hoods furred with gros vair and with minever, in guise of good ladies."

So there it refers simply to nurses, not wetnurses, and gives them as an example of a female servant. I don't think 'regrateresses' here is another example of a servant, but simply of a class of woman who should not be bedizening herself. It doesn't mean 'shop girl' in the sense of shop employee - I'm not sure they had them. They were own shopkeepers or stallholders in their own right - women who made a living buying up goods wholesale to resell at market at a profit. We'd call it retailing and see it as respectable, but the medievals simply viewed it as a bad practice that forced up prices to the consumer.

I somehow don't think the city fathers were thinking about the servants of lords and princes, whose dress would have been regulated by strict household rules that suited their powerful employers.

Looked at another way, it actually indicates that women employed as nurses by London citizens were not that poor. Regrateresses and successful prostitutes had money to spend on themselves because they were earning it, so either nurses and other servants were being paid very well - or, more likely, given the mistress's hand-me-downs as presents - or they came from families that were not much worse off than those they were working for.

Marie wrote:
Thanks for the thanks, Carol - appreciated.

But Woah! Slow down there. That's a lot of assumptions. There's no hostility to Richard in the shot section I identified as coming from Russell, and there is one very imp ortant detail that suggest it would have been written by him rather than by another member of his party.

I'm using the Pronay and Cox translation here.

The first thing to clear out of the way is the old idea that the note about "all this being done" during ten days in April 1486 refers to the writing of the whole chronicle - it refers just to the legal transfer of the parish of Bringhurst which Russell and his team had gone to the Abbey to effect. That's pretty much agreed by all historians now.

Now, to explain where I think Russell comes in, I'm going to have to go back a bit. You've got the account of Richard's reign, and then of Bosworth. The writer praises Henry. Then "And so ends the history we promised to set out. . . ." And then the same author goes on, still writing in the first person, to add the verse about the Three Richards written by 'a certain poet' (a ver se which has now been shown to have been doing the ro unds after Bosworth).

Then there's another of the passages recording the history of the monastery.

Then it starts again, with either the same writer or another appending a glowing record of the marriage of Henry and Elizabeth and some nasty words about Yorkshire Rebellion of April 1486, events which had clearly not occurred when the original ending was made. In other words, we can tell for sure that all the history up until the Three Richards poem was finished before the end of 1485.

Then there's a moralising poem about the mutabilities of the world and the damage done to the stability of the kingdom by the struggles of rival kings. It seems to point the finger at Richard, but also strongly criticises Edward's attempt to take the throne of France, and it ends with an exhortation to accept the dual dynasty that God is now offering, in order to avoid further bloodshed. Part of this poem is omitted and rep laced by a vry brief prose precis - P & C were not clear whether this is how the original chronicle read, or whether the 17th century editor (Fulman), who seems to have had difficulty making sense of, or physically reading, this poem, just gave up at this point (the original MS was badly damaged by fire, and we are reliant on a 17thC copy for all of the part dealing with Richard's reign and beyond). If this is how the original read, then we seem, yet again, to have a poem that was already in existence and simply copied - or half copied - into the chronicle.

Then there's another poem, which could well be Russell's work, in which a priest says how he envies the monastic life. I don't know if you've read the latest Ricardian, but apparently these were Russell's sentiments exactly. He had lodgings in the London Charterhouse and was very keen to retire from public affairs to live the contemplative life. The poem says "It woul d be sweet for a father [i.e. a priest] to be a broth er [i.e. a monk] in a community devoid of all envy amongst brothers."

Then we have the note about all this being done and completed at Crowland in April 1486, in the space of ten days - which seems to be a note - perhaps an addition or an item of marginalia - which either the 17th century editor or the compiler of the original fair copy misplaced.

Then immediately after this there's a completely fresh prose account which begins "Although the narrator of the immediately preceding history, whoever he may be, set a limit to his work . . . ." I've got things I would like to record, don't you know, and so here they are.

This is where I believe Russell's contribution starts. He starts with Henry's parliament (which of course Russell attended as one of the lords spiritual) and launches into a blistering attack on Henry's attainder of the men who had fought for Richard at Boswo rth. Then he records the death of Cardinal Bourchier close to Easter, and says how it reminds him of the death of Cardinal Beaufort at the same time of year, when he called all the neighbouring clergy to his palace at Winchester to have a requiem recited in his presence as he lay in his bed waiting to die. He goes on to describe the funeral, and the public reading out of the Cardinal's will. 'For he who has written this was there and saw and heard it all . . . .' At the time in question, John Russell, a native of a village close to Winchester, was a student at Winchester School.

Then the writer returns to the Easter of 1486, describing how Henry VII spent the feast at Lincoln. It's the only part of Henry's progress that this writer bothers to record, and of course Bishop Russell had been at Lincoln acting as Henry's host.

We then get another record of the Yorkshire Rebellion, this time without any p artisan invective, and the writer also records the fa ct - airbrushed out of all the other Tudor histories - that Henry was nearly captured by the rebels when he was in York, and that some of the perpetrators were hanged.

And that ends the political account.

It's followed by a paragraph, in the third person, recording the visit of Russell and his team to do the conveyancing for the Bringhurst appropriation.

My current feeling about the chronicle is similar to that of some, though not all, writers on the subject - i.e. that like the contents of most registers it is a compilation of what would have been lots of separate little accounts written on loose sheets, and that Russell, as well as writing the above passage, may have volunteered to organise these bits of paper ready for copying into the register. And he may have provided other titbits of information to the abbey scribe in the process. For instance, the marginal note against the passage describing the diplomatic mi ssion of 'one of the king's councillors' to Calais and Burgundy in the late summer of 1471 identifies the councillor in question as 'he who compiled this history'. Note the word is compiled (compilavit), not wrote - apparently the distinction is meaningful in Latin. Also, Livia Visser Fuchs pointed out to me that the phrase about the strength of the threefold knot, which occurs in the section describing Richard and George's quarrel over Anne and the Warwick inheritance, is a biblical reference which also appears in a speech Bishop Russell made to Duke Charles on one of his embassies.

Doug wrote:

"It is provided and commanded, that no woman of the City shall from henceforth go to market, or in the King's highway, out of her house, with a hood furred with other than lambskin or rabbitskin, on pain of losing her hood to the use of the Sheriffs; save only those ladies who wear furred capes, the hoods of which may have such furs as they may think proper. And this, because that regratresses, nurses and other servants, and women of loose life, bedizen themselves, and wear hoods furred with gros vair and with minever, in guise of good ladies."

So there it refers simply to nurses, not wetnurses, and gives them as an example of a female servant. I don't think 'regrateresses' here is another example of a servant, but simply of a class of woman who should not be bedizening herself. It doesn't mean 'shop girl' in the sense of shop employee - I'm not sure they had them. They were own shopkeepers or stallholders in their own right - women who made a living buying up goods wholesale to resell at market at a profit. We'd call it retailing and see it as respectable, but the medievals simply viewed it as a bad practice that forced up prices to the consumer.

I somehow don't think the city fathers were thinking about the servants of lords and princes, whose dress would have been regulated by strict household rules that suited their powerful employers.

Looked at another way, it actually indicates that women employed as nurses by London citizens were not that poor. Regrateresses and successful prostitutes had money to spend on themselves because they were earning it, so either nurses and other servants were being paid very well - or, more likely, given the mistress's hand-me-downs as presents - or they came from families that were not much worse off than those they were working for.

Marie wrote:

Thanks, Doug. Poor relations of high-class families is the way I was thinking, but we're generally told that, whilst that might be true for nurses/governesses and paid companions, wetnurses were generally from a lower social class.

What I was wondering was, was the general nurse at this period perhaps expected to be wetnurse as well? And, if so, does this mean the wetnurse role was somewhat less menial than it later came to be regarded? My hunch is that this was probably the case, that the example of the Virgin Mary suckling Jesus would have sanctified breastfeeding in a way that was later lost, however unfashionable breastfeeding may actually have been with top ladies leading busy public lives.

I jut wondered if anyone knew of any more concrete evidence.

"It is provided and commanded, that no woman of the City shall from henceforth go to market, or in the King's highway, out of her house, with a hood furred with other than lambskin or rabbitskin, on pain of losing her hood to the use of the Sheriffs; save only those ladies who wear furred capes, the hoods of which may have such furs as they may think proper. And this, because that regratresses, nurses and other servants, and women of loose life, bedizen themselves, and wear hoods furred with gros vair and with minever, in guise of good ladies."

So there it refers simply to nurses, not wetnurses, and gives them as an example of a female servant. I don't think 'regrateresses' here is another example of a servant, but simply of a class of woman who should not be bedizening herself. It doesn't mean 'shop girl' in the sense of shop employee - I'm not sure they had them. They were own shopkeepers or stallholders in their own right - women who made a living buying up goods wholesale to resell at market at a profit. We'd call it retailing and see it as respectable, but the medievals simply viewed it as a bad practice that forced up prices to the consumer.

I somehow don't think the city fathers were thinking about the servants of lords and princes, whose dress would have been regulated by strict household rules that suited their powerful employers.

Looked at another way, it actually indicates that women employed as nurses by London citizens were not that poor. Regrateresses and successful prostitutes had money to spend on themselves because they were earning it, so either nurses and other servants were being paid very well - or, more likely, given the mistress's hand-me-downs as presents - or they came from families that were not much worse off than those they were working for.

Doug wrote:

That regrateress intrigued me, so I looked it up and discovered it referred to women who would purchase some item, often bread apparently, and then enter London to resell their wares. Not shop girls, but rather female peddlars. Since gros vair is the winter coat of the red squirrel and of course miniver was ermine, those regrateresses must have been doing fairly well...

Marie:

Yes, I think they must have been doing fairly well because regrating was regarded as such a big problem. If I've got it right, it went hand in hand with forestalling, which was intercepting people on their way to market and buying their goods off them (thus saving them a day's work and the market toll). Then they took these forestalled goods into market to regrate - i.e. sell on at a profit.

A bit like the dealers these days who pounce on car boot sales as they're opening up, and buy up all the stuff worth having to resell at a big profit.

Hi Hilary,

I've done a bit more on the Wellesbournes. I can't answer the question about Christopher's motives, I'm afraid, at least not yet, but this is what I've discovered so far:

FAMILY

1) Christopher and Giles are generally said to have been brothers. There were at least two other brother, Humphrey Wellesbourne and Edward.

2) The family belonged to Chepping Wycombe, a market town about 3 miles east of High Wycombe, but they also had some property in Oxfordshire. You find them associated in deeds with families such as the Barantynes and the Mores of More End in Oxfordshire.

3) Christopher, Giles and Humphrey appear to have been the sons of Thomas Wellesbourne (d. 1484), who had been yeoman of the Chamber to Edward IV, an MP in the parliament of 1478, and Escheator of Beds and Bucks in 1478-..

CHRISTOPHER WELLESBOURNE

1) There's no evidence that Christopher was ever employed by the Stonors. He certainly does seem to have helped put down Buckingham's Rebellion - we are not just reliant for that on the 16th account attributed to Elizabeth Mores-Delabere - because Richard afterwards granted him the duke's Buckinghamshire manor of Easington, the grant referring to Christopher as 'the king's servant'.

This may have resulted in his being placed on a watch list after Bosworth, we just don't know.

2) The riots for which Christopher and Giles were ordered to be arrested on 6 March 1486 have often been assumed to be the first move in what was to become known as the Humphrey Stafford rebellion, but I would question this. First, they were much too early. The commission to arrest them and bring them before the King and Council was issued on 6 March, but Humphrey Stafford did not launch his rebellion until 24 April. Secondly, the rather fuller summary of the commission given in Campbell's Materials describes the alleged offences as riots, trespasses and other misdemeanours. I would submit that this is not a case of treason or insurrection - there was a standard set of terms used for inquisitions into rebellions which this doesn't match. Also, trespasses were non-hanging offences. I've not found in indictment relating to this, but my view is that we can drop the Wellesbournes from the list of Yorkist rebels against Henry VII.

3) Christopher received a general pardon of offences in August 1487.

4) Still living in March 1516, when his brother Humphrey left him 10 marks in his will.

GILES WELLESBOURNE

1) Giles was clearly a member of Stonor's household, but he cannot have been his ward as his father was still living.

2) As you will have read, the riot at Watlington which took place on 25 August 1483 was led by Giles Wellesbourne of Stonor and another resident of Stonor (Thomas Fachall). I imagine both were servants of Sir William Stonor as the manor of Watlington also belonged to Sir William. They may or may not have been acting on Stonor's behalf. The men they attacked and robbed were all servants of John Barantyne, Esquire.

I'd made this note for myself about Barantyne, and William Stedeman, one of the servants of his who were attacked:

"John Barantyne was the husband of Sir William Stonor's sister Mary and also the son by her first marriage of Lady Elizabeth Boteler, widow of Sir John Boteler of Badminton. William Stedeman, gentleman, in 1477, then a servant of Sir John Boteler, was one of those who had been accused along with Lady Elizabeth of Sir John's murder had fled to sanctuary (TNA KB 8/1, rot. 80)."

So my guess is that this riot too was not political, but had to do with a disagreement either between Sir William Stonor and his brother-in-law Barantyne, or between their respective bands of servants, possibly over money.

3) As above, probably the riots he indulged in with Christopher in February/March 1486 had nothing to do with national politics either.

4) In the late 1480s Giles married Anne Chalers, a Hertfordshire heiress who had previously been the wife of John Harcourt, esquire. This would place her firmly in the pro-Tudor camp. Anne may not have been the mother of John Harcourt's son and heir, Robert, as her own heir was her daughter Margery Harcourt.

5) Giles died, probably towards the end of 1493.

HUMPHREY WELLESBOURNE

1) The first reference I have found is from 1477, when Humphrey Wellesbourne of Burnham, Berkshire, (near Slough) was a mainpernor for his ?father Thomas Wellesbourne, for the keeping of a royal watermill and associated land in Oxfordshire

3) On Christmas Day 1484 Humphrey Wellesborne witnessed a will in Isleworth.

4) After his brother Giles' marriage to Anne Chalers, Humphrey (perhaps a widower) married Anne's daughter and heir, Margery Harcourt (b. c. 1476). The marriage, however, soon faced opposition from one John Russheton, who claimed that Margery had already made a contract of marriage with him. Russheton's case evidently failed, and Margarey and Humphrey remained married.

5) After Giles' death, Margery's mother Anne moved in with Humphrey and Margery. She seems to have been in financial difficulties owing to debts left by both of her husband. In January 1494, therefore, she came to an arrangement with Humphrey whereby he would take thee issues of her two Herts. manors in return for paying off her debts and supporting her and her maidservant for as long as she remained in his household. If she left his household, then he was to pay her 40 marks a year.

6) Mother-in-law survived only another two months, dying on 10 March 1494.

7) Humphrey's political leanings are rather evident in the names he gave his children: viz. sons Arthur, Hardwin, Jasper and Henry, and daughters Elizabeth, Cecily and Agas (Agatha).

8) He made his will on 1 March 1516, describing himself as Humphrey Wellysburn of Bustlesham Montagu (i.e. Bisham) in the county of Berkshire. His wife Margery was still living. He named 'sir Edward Wellysburne my brother' as one of his executors, and left 'to my broder Christofer Wellysborne x marke sterlinge'.

The will was proved on 14 April

EDWARD WELLESBOURNE

A priest.

1493 - Instituted as Master of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist in High Wycombe.

March 1516 - Appointed by his brother Humphrey as one of the executors of his will.

Hilary wrote:

Re the nurse thing, it being a wet day I decided to do a BHOL search on 'nurse' in the fifteenth century. Now I didn't plough through the lot but what became abundantly clear was that the term 'nurse' applied only to those supervising children, mostly of royal or aristocratic backgrounds and the term appeared a lot more frequently than wet-nurse. One guy conveniently left a will in which he gives a bequest to his 'nurse'. But the translation from the Latin is not 'nurse' but 'guardian in his infirmity'.

Marie asks:

Have you got any actual examples of wetnurse? Would you possibly be able to give me the refs?

Hi Hilary,

I've done a bit more on the Wellesbournes. I can't answer the question about Christopher's motives, I'm afraid, at least not yet, but this is what I've discovered so far:

FAMILY

1) Christopher and Giles are generally said to have been brothers. There were at least two other brother, Humphrey Wellesbourne and Edward.

2) The family belonged to Chepping Wycombe, a market town about 3 miles east of High Wycombe, but they also had some property in Oxfordshire. You find them associated in deeds with families such as the Barantynes and the Mores of More End in Oxfordshire.

3) Christopher, Giles and Humphrey appear to have been the sons of Thomas Wellesbourne (d. 1484), who had been yeoman of the Chamber to Edward IV, an MP in the parliament of 1478, and Escheator of Beds and Bucks in 1478-..

CHRISTOPHER WELLESBOURNE

1) There's no evidence that Christopher was ever employed by the Stonors. He certainly does seem to have helped put down Buckingham's Rebellion - we are not just reliant for that on the 16th account attributed to Elizabeth Mores-Delabere - because Richard afterwards granted him the duke's Buckinghamshire manor of Easington, the grant referring to Christopher as 'the king's servant'.

This may have resulted in his being placed on a watch list after Bosworth, we just don't know.

2) The riots for which Christopher and Giles were ordered to be arrested on 6 March 1486 have often been assumed to be the first move in what was to become known as the Humphrey Stafford rebellion, but I would question this. First, they were much too early. The commission to arrest them and bring them before the King and Council was issued on 6 March, but Humphrey Stafford did not launch his rebellion until 24 April. Secondly, the rather fuller summary of the commission given in Campbell's Materials describes the alleged offences as riots, trespasses and other misdemeanours. I would submit that this is not a case of treason or insurrection - there was a standard set of terms used for inquisitions into rebellions which this doesn't match. Also, trespasses were non-hanging offences. I've not found in indictment relating to this, but my view is that we can drop the Wellesbournes from the list of Yorkist rebels against Henry VII.

3) Christopher received a general pardon of offences in August 1487.

4) Still living in March 1516, when his brother Humphrey left him 10 marks in his will.

GILES WELLESBOURNE

1) Giles was clearly a member of Stonor's household, but he cannot have been his ward as his father was still living.

2) As you will have read, the riot at Watlington which took place on 25 August 1483 was led by Giles Wellesbourne of Stonor and another resident of Stonor (Thomas Fachall). I imagine both were servants of Sir William Stonor as the manor of Watlington also belonged to Sir William. They may or may not have been acting on Stonor's behalf. The men they attacked and robbed were all servants of John Barantyne, Esquire.

I'd made this note for myself about Barantyne, and William Stedeman, one of the servants of his who were attacked:

"John Barantyne was the husband of Sir William Stonor's sister Mary and also the son by her first marriage of Lady Elizabeth Boteler, widow of Sir John Boteler of Badminton. William Stedeman, gentleman, in 1477, then a servant of Sir John Boteler, was one of those who had been accused along with Lady Elizabeth of Sir John's murder had fled to sanctuary (TNA KB 8/1, rot. 80)."

So my guess is that this riot too was not political, but had to do with a disagreement either between Sir William Stonor and his brother-in-law Barantyne, or between their respective bands of servants, possibly over money.

3) As above, probably the riots he indulged in with Christopher in February/March 1486 had nothing to do with national politics either.

4) In the late 1480s Giles married Anne Chalers, a Hertfordshire heiress who had previously been the wife of John Harcourt, esquire. This would place her firmly in the pro-Tudor camp. Anne may not have been the mother of John Harcourt's son and heir, Robert, as her own heir was her daughter Margery Harcourt.

5) Giles died, probably towards the end of 1493.

HUMPHREY WELLESBOURNE

1) The first reference I have found is from 1477, when Humphrey Wellesbourne of Burnham, Berkshire, (near Slough) was a mainpernor for his ?father Thomas Wellesbourne, for the keeping of a royal watermill and associated land in Oxfordshire

3) On Christmas Day 1484 Humphrey Wellesborne witnessed a will in Isleworth.

4) After his brother Giles' marriage to Anne Chalers, Humphrey (perhaps a widower) married Anne's daughter and heir, Margery Harcourt (b. c. 1476). The marriage, however, soon faced opposition from one John Russheton, who claimed that Margery had already made a contract of marriage with him. Russheton's case evidently failed, and Margarey and Humphrey remained married.

5) After Giles' death, Margery's mother Anne moved in with Humphrey and Margery. She seems to have been in financial difficulties owing to debts left by both of her husband. In January 1494, therefore, she came to an arrangement with Humphrey whereby he would take thee issues of her two Herts. manors in return for paying off her debts and supporting her and her maidservant for as long as she remained in his household. If she left his household, then he was to pay her 40 marks a year.

6) Mother-in-law survived only another two months, dying on 10 March 1494.

7) Humphrey's political leanings are rather evident in the names he gave his children: viz. sons Arthur, Hardwin, Jasper and Henry, and daughters Elizabeth, Cecily and Agas (Agatha).

8) He made his will on 1 March 1516, describing himself as Humphrey Wellysburn of Bustlesham Montagu (i.e. Bisham) in the county of Berkshire. His wife Margery was still living. He named 'sir Edward Wellysburne my brother' as one of his executors, and left 'to my broder Christofer Wellysborne x marke sterlinge'.

The will was proved on 14 April

EDWARD WELLESBOURNE

A priest.

1493 - Instituted as Master of the Hospital of St. John the Baptist in High Wycombe.

March 1516 - Appointed by his brother Humphrey as one of the executors of his will.

Marie wrote

Yes, I think they must have been doing fairly well because regrating was regarded as such a big problem. If I've got it right, it went hand in hand with forestalling, which was intercepting people on their way to market and buying their goods off them (thus saving them a day's work and the market toll). Then they took these forestalled goods into market to regrate - i.e. sell on at a profit. A bit like the dealers these days who pounce on car boot sales as they're opening up, and buy up all the stuff worth having to resell at a big profit.

Doug here:

Well, no wonder there were laws against regratresses dressing up and forestallers enabling them! They were cutting into the income of the local authorities! I presume there were fees for setting up a market stall?

Hilary wrote:1) I reckon in the telling of the tale re Buckingham, Gyles and Christopher have become confused. It's Gill who has Gyles as Stonor's ward on the grounds that Stonor bought him some shoes (which he did). One wouldn't usually do that for a servant but who knows?. 2)Thomas Wellesbourne seems to have changed his coat at least once - he was ordered to be arrested in 1471 but had gained Edward (or EW's favour) by December 1476. 3) Buckinghamshire history has Gyles escorting Buckingham to Salisbury and Christopher hunting down his wife and child.4) Certainly as you say Christopher was rewarded with Buckingham's manor of Easington in the CPR of Mar 1484 where he is referred to as the 'king's servant' 5) and several local histories have him as the servant of Sir James Tyrell. 6) They have both Gyles and Christopher participating in the Stafford rebellion (which like you I doubt) 7) and Christopher being imprisoned in the Tower with Tyrell at the time of his execution. I haven't attempted to track any of that down8) Re the others, we both have the same, though I also have a John who died around September 1521.9) Standing back from all this, one does wonder why someone like William Stonor, who had plenty going on, bothered to get involved. His family hadn't been attainted, although he was in the middle of a lot of families who were 'on the other side'. Quite a few people, like him, seem to have had fluctuating financial fortunes though (even Buckingham). I wonder if a financial incentive was offered by the Woodvilles?
MarieHi Hilary. I Hope you don't mind me adding the point numbers - it makes it easier to respond.1) I hear where you're coming from about the shoes. One of the three for whom shoes were to have been made (Master Gattan) was definitely was a ward of Stonor's according to Kingsford; the other is 'Master Hampton's son'. Maybe it's more a case of Giles having finished his education in the Stonor household. I also made this note regarding the sums of money spent on the shoes for the three individuals name:-" Gatton's shoes average at 2½d a pair, Hampton's at 5d and Wellesbourne's at 6d, which may be an indication of the differences in foot size." 2) I don't know about Thomas Wellesbourne being arrested in 1471. Wedgwood claimed he obtained a pardon in December, but a) lots of people did just in order to cover themselves, b) I've not been able to track this down, and b) as early as June 1471 King Edward had appointed him to commissions to arrest men. Wedgwood also claims that Thomas obtained a pardon in January 1484, but again I'm afraid I've not yet located it.2) The only source I'm aware of for Christopher Wellesbourne's role in Buckingham's Rebellion is the account attributed to Lady Elizabeth Delabeare, then Mores and in service with the Delabeares, which says: "And so all the gent[lemen] of Harrefordshyre weare send for by pryvie seale to King Richard to Salisburie and by that tyme Duke Henrie of Buckingham was brought by Sir James Tyler [sic] the thirde daie wheare he was pittiffull murdered by the said Kinge for raisinge power to bringe in King Henrie the Seventh. . . .And then came Christopher Wellesborne from Sir James Tyler [sic] to Kynnardsley, and said his father commanded to have the said Lorde Stafforde delivered."So Tyrell brought Buckingham to Salisbury, and then sent Christopher Wellesbourne to take custody of his elder son. Giles doesn't feature. 5) It is on the basis of the above statement, I think, that Christopher is assumed to have been a servant of Sir James Tyrell. He may have been, as I think Tyrell had interests in the Thames Valley area, but Harley 433 also names him as a royal servant. The family had a tradition of serving as yeomen of the Crown.7) They probably assume that Christopher was the Wellesbourne held in the Tower with Tyrell on the strength of the More account again. But in fact there are two sources which refer to him by his full name - he was Robert Wellesbourne. He turned King's Evidence and was pardoned. The pardon actually names him as "Robert Wellysbourne, alias Hogekynson". 8) I only included the Wellesbournes whom I could definitely place on Giles and Christopher's family tree. I also found a John Wellesbourne, suing a man in King's Bench in 1484 for a trespass committed at Waterstoke in Oxfordshire. Plus Robert who was taken with Sir James Tyrell, and also a Reginald or Reynold Wellesbourne (the doc is in Latin so calls him Reginaldus) who in 1481 was one of seven men ordered to seize craftsmen, canon and weapons for the Scots War. I'm still working on it.

Hi hilary
Replied earlier but post lost so I'll be brief.

You're right about Thomas arrest _ or nearly. I misread cos in a rush- soz. Actually a commission to arrest him and others but it was repeated a month later so not clear if he was ever taken or pleaded for pardon from hiding.
This wasn't a turn of coat bec family was Lancastrian. Dad a yeoman to Hvi and Thomas not serving Eiv tilll c1476.
Currently my last seen for Thomas is 1490 (common pleas).

Now not sure about parentage of Chris et al. 17th C visitation has Sir John wellesbourne d1548 as son of Thomas by his wife Margery day of Thomas Power and Elizabeth Danvers.Two Powers were ordered to be arrested with Thomas in 1471.
1484 a John Wellesbourne was suing in King's Bench for trespass at Waterstoke, which belonged to Margery Danvers' family.
But the dates seem a stretch for this Thomas and Sir John to be father and son. . More work needed but I'm going away again.

Hi Hilary,

1) No I couldn't find a death for Thomas Wellesbourne either, but the last reference I could find at that time was that supposed pardon in January 1484 in Wedgwood, which we haven't verified. It was the girders website I think which suggested he may have died in 1484. I've made a bit more progress since, and have found references to Thomas in the indexed CP 40 files (Common Pleas rolls), the last one being Hilary term 1490. So he was still alive then.

2) You're right about Thomas's arrest in 1471 - or at least that his arrest had been ordered. I was looking too quickly and thought he was one of the commissioners, not one of the wanted men. My apologies. It's not clear whether he was in fact arrested - the commission to arrest was repeated again in July. You'd need to check Kings Bench records to see if he was ever brought in. He may have managed to secure a pardon from hiding.

2b) Now that I look at the arrest warrant again I see the names of the wanted men are interesting:-

"Thomas Wellesborne, Thomas Codbury, 'yoman,' Robert Power the elder, 'yoman,' Robert Power the younger, 'yoman,' Richard Spereman, 'somner,' William Wedon, 'yoman,' and John Batyn,' husbondman."

I don't see Thomas as a coat-turner. Thomas's father had been a yeoman of the crown to Henry VI, and I don't have a reference to Thomas as a yeoman of the crown to Edward IV until 1476. So it would probably be fair to characterise the family as Lancastrians who had eventually come to terms with the change of regime.

Since my last post on the subject I've discovered that, according to the Berkshire Visitation of 1623 Thomas married Margery, daughter of Thomas Power of Bletchingdon, Oxfordshire, by Elizabeth Danvers. It's a very late source, but there's probably something in it even if it may not be wholly accurate because the 1566 Visitation of Oxfordshire names Margery's husband as _____ Wellesbourne. Both are agreed that Margery and her Wellesbourne husband were the parents of the Sir John Wellesbourne (d.1548) who served Henry VIII, and of his brother Oliver (fl. 1541). To me, the dates seem a bit of a stretch, and I wonder if maybe a generation has been missed somewhere.

I had only been guessing that Christopher, Giles, Humphrey and Edward were sons of Thomas, but if Sir John is Thomas' son, then C, G & H probably had a different father since they seem to have been much older, Humphrey doesn't mention John in his will and the Visitations don't give C, G & H as brothers of Sir John either.

But there does seem to be something in the claims of a Power/Danvers marriage because:-

a) two Robert Powers were ordered to be arrested with Thomas Wellesbourne in 1471,

b) a John Wellesbourne was suing a man in Kings Bench in the Hilary and Easter terms of 1484 for a trespass committed at Waterstoke, Oxfordshire. The manor of Waterstoke or Waterstock belonged to the branch of the Danvers family to which Margery is said to have belonged.

I only found all this last night, though, so haven't had time to investigate further. What is clear is that Thomas, Christopher and Humphrey were all described at various times as belonging to (Chepping) Wycombe, Bucks, but not Sir John. Also, Thomas' father John Wellesbourne the Younger left a widow Cecily, daughter of Giles Brugges, so Giles Wellesbourne is maybe descended from that marriage. I haven't looked into it, but have made myself a note that Cecily may have been too young to have been Thomas' mother; also, when I looked at John W the Younger's will I discovered he had named both his wife Cecily and his son Thomas as executors, but Thomas refused the task. That again hints that Cecily may have been Thomas' stepmother. But could be wrong. Much more work needed, and running out of time again as I am off on my travels again.

5) Giles and Christopher both seem to have liked rioting. There is also an item in the TNA catalogue in which a guy is suing Christopher Wellesbourne and the vicar of High Wycombe for assault.

The surprising thing, given the family background, is Christopher's siding with Richard III, not the pro-Tudor stance of Humphrey and the later Sir John.

I would also like to know where Tyrell's Robert Wellesbourne comes in.

Hi Hilary,

1) No I couldn't find a death for Thomas Wellesbourne either, but the last reference I could find at that time was that supposed pardon in January 1484 in Wedgwood, which we haven't verified. It was the girders website I think which suggested he may have died in 1484. I've made a bit more progress since, and have found references to Thomas in the indexed CP 40 files (Common Pleas rolls), the last one being Hilary term 1490. So he was still alive then.

2) You're right about Thomas's arrest in 1471 - or at least that his arrest had been ordered. I was looking too quickly and thought he was one of the commissioners, not one of the wanted men. My apologies. It's not clear whether he was in fact arrested - the commission to arrest was repeated again in July. You'd need to check Kings Bench records to see if he was ever brought in. He may have managed to secure a pardon from hiding.

2b) Now that I look at the arrest warrant again I see the names of the wanted men are interesting:-

"Thomas Wellesborne, Thomas Codbury, 'yoman,' Robert Power the elder, 'yoman,' Robert Power the younger, 'yoman,' Richard Spereman, 'somner,' William Wedon, 'yoman,' and John Batyn,' husbondman."

I don't see Thomas as a coat-turner. Thomas's father had been a yeoman of the crown to Henry VI, and I don't have a reference to Thomas as a yeoman of the crown to Edward IV until 1476. So it would probably be fair to characterise the family as Lancastrians who had eventually come to terms with the change of regime.

Since my last post on the subject I've discovered that, according to the Berkshire Visitation of 1623 Thomas married Margery, daughter of Thomas Power of Bletchingdon, Oxfordshire, by Elizabeth Danvers. It's a very late source, but there's probably something in it even if it may not be wholly accurate because the 1566 Visitation of Oxfordshire names Margery's husband as _____ Wellesbourne. Both are agreed that Margery and her Wellesbourne husband were the parents of the Sir John Wellesbourne (d.1548) who served Henry VIII, and of his brother Oliver (fl. 1541). To me, the dates seem a bit of a stretch, and I wonder if maybe a generation has been missed somewhere.

I had only been guessing that Christopher, Giles, Humphrey and Edward were sons of Thomas, but if Sir John is Thomas' son, then C, G & H probably had a different father since they seem to have been much older, Humphrey doesn't mention John in his will and the Visitations don't give C, G & H as brothers of Sir John either.

But there does seem to be something in the claims of a Power/Danvers marriage because:-

a) two Robert Powers were ordered to be arrested with Thomas Wellesbourne in 1471,

b) a John Wellesbourne was suing a man in Kings Bench in the Hilary and Easter terms of 1484 for a trespass committed at Waterstoke, Oxfordshire. The manor of Waterstoke or Waterstock belonged to the branch of the Danvers family to which Margery is said to have belonged.

I only found all this last night, though, so haven't had time to investigate further. What is clear is that Thomas, Christopher and Humphrey were all described at various times as belonging to (Chepping) Wycombe, Bucks, but not Sir John. Also, Thomas' father John Wellesbourne the Younger left a widow Cecily, daughter of Giles Brugges, so Giles Wellesbourne is maybe descended from that marriage. I haven't looked into it, but have made myself a note that Cecily may have been too young to have been Thomas' mother; also, when I looked at John W the Younger's will I discovered he had named both his wife Cecily and his son Thomas as executors, but Thomas refused the task. That again hints that Cecily may have been Thomas' stepmother. But could be wrong. Much more work needed, and running out of time again as I am off on my travels again.

5) Giles and Christopher both seem to have liked rioting. There is also an item in the TNA catalogue in which a guy is suing Christopher Wellesbourne and the vicar of High Wycombe for assault.

The surprising thing, given the family background, is Christopher's siding with Richard III, not the pro-Tudor stance of Humphrey and the later Sir John.

I would also like to know where Tyrell's Robert Wellesbourne comes in.

I thought we had mentioned that Margery was Giles' stepdaughter, but maybe not. Not al all uncommon for people to marry close stepkin since the affinity laws didn't prohibit it.

Re Giles & Chris - the only original docs I have seen thus far are the wills of Humphrey & two Johns, plus some King's Bench and Common Pleas records as those are available online.

Giles definitely died late 1493 because we have Margery's IPM - she died 1494. Christopher, on the other hand, was still alive in 1516 when Humphrey made his will because Humphrey left money to him - definitely says Christopher (Xpofer).

(That Xp is the best I could do for chi rho.)

Plus they are, as you say, both named as being involved in the 1486 riots.

Short title: Power v Wellysbourne.

Plaintiffs: Dorothy, wife of John POWER, gentleman.

Defendants: Thomas and Giles WELLYSBOURNE and Thomas POWER.

Subject: Abduction and concealment of the said John at Oxford. Oxfordshire.

SFP

Hi Hilary,

1) No I couldn't find a death for Thomas Wellesbourne either, but the last reference I could find at that time was that supposed pardon in January 1484 in Wedgwood, which we haven't verified. It was the girders website I think which suggested he may have died in 1484. I've made a bit more progress since, and have found references to Thomas in the indexed CP 40 files (Common Pleas rolls), the last one being Hilary term 1490. So he was still alive then.

2) You're right about Thomas's arrest in 1471 - or at least that his arrest had been ordered. I was looking too quickly and thought he was one of the commissioners, not one of the wanted men. My apologies. It's not clear whether he was in fact arrested - the commission to arrest was repeated again in July. You'd need to check Kings Bench records to see if he was ever brought in. He may have managed to secure a pardon from hiding.

2b) Now that I look at the arrest warrant again I see the names of the wanted men are interesting:-

"Thomas Wellesborne, Thomas Codbury, 'yoman,' Robert Power the elder, 'yoman,' Robert Power the younger, 'yoman,' Richard Spereman, 'somner,' William Wedon, 'yoman,' and John Batyn,' husbondman."

I don't see Thomas as a coat-turner. Thomas's father had been a yeoman of the crown to Henry VI, and I don't have a reference to Thomas as a yeoman of the crown to Edward IV until 1476. So it would probably be fair to characterise the family as Lancastrians who had eventually come to terms with the change of regime.

Since my last post on the subject I've discovered that, according to the Berkshire Visitation of 1623 Thomas married Margery, daughter of Thomas Power of Bletchingdon, Oxfordshire, by Elizabeth Danvers. It's a very late source, but there's probably something in it even if it may not be wholly accurate because the 1566 Visitation of Oxfordshire names Margery's husband as _____ Wellesbourne. Both are agreed that Margery and her Wellesbourne husband were the parents of the Sir John Wellesbourne (d.1548) who served Henry VIII, and of his brother Oliver (fl. 1541). To me, the dates seem a bit of a stretch, and I wonder if maybe a generation has been missed somewhere.

I had only been guessing that Christopher, Giles, Humphrey and Edward were sons of Thomas, but if Sir John is Thomas' son, then C, G & H probably had a different father since they seem to have been much older, Humphrey doesn't mention John in his will and the Visitations don't give C, G & H as brothers of Sir John either.

But there does seem to be something in the claims of a Power/Danvers marriage because:-

a) two Robert Powers were ordered to be arrested with Thomas Wellesbourne in 1471,

b) a John Wellesbourne was suing a man in Kings Bench in the Hilary and Easter terms of 1484 for a trespass committed at Waterstoke, Oxfordshire. The manor of Waterstoke or Waterstock belonged to the branch of the Danvers family to which Margery is said to have belonged.

I only found all this last night, though, so haven't had time to investigate further. What is clear is that Thomas, Christopher and Humphrey were all described at various times as belonging to (Chepping) Wycombe, Bucks, but not Sir John. Also, Thomas' father John Wellesbourne the Younger left a widow Cecily, daughter of Giles Brugges, so Giles Wellesbourne is maybe descended from that marriage. I haven't looked into it, but have made myself a note that Cecily may have been too young to have been Thomas' mother; also, when I looked at John W the Younger's will I discovered he had named both his wife Cecily and his son Thomas as executors, but Thomas refused the task. That again hints that Cecily may have been Thomas' stepmother. But could be wrong. Much more work needed, and running out of time again as I am off on my travels again.

5) Giles and Christopher both seem to have liked rioting. There is also an item in the TNA catalogue in which a guy is suing Christopher Wellesbourne and the vicar of High Wycombe for assault.

The surprising thing, given the family background, is Christopher's siding with Richard III, not the pro-Tudor stance of Humphrey and the later Sir John.

I would also like to know where Tyrell's Robert Wellesbourne comes in.

Re Thomas and Giles, I see the AALT website has only got to about file 607 of the C1s, so a long wait before file 1511 goes up online. Damn.

Hilary, could I possibly trouble you for a link to the Bucks court records? Would be much appreciated.

On Sunday, February 25, 2018, 6:30 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary
Thanks for the link.

I don't think C Wellesbourne's action in 1483 has anything to do with Scales link, for two reasons:-
1) I imagine the link between Lady Scales and Margery's family was very distant, but I'm sure you can tell me. The surname of Margery's family had by our period transmuted to Schalers or Chalers so they weren't exactly flagging up kinship.
2) In 1483 Margery was still married to John Harcourt.
3) even if Giles W did already have his eyes on Margery, he was not the Wellesbourne who went after Buckingham.

Hi Hilary. You're probably right about the Harcourt marriages- I'm afraid I'm trying to answer things from memory as I only have my phone with me, and I hadn't had time to sort the Wellesbourne stuff out properly before I left home. i'll Try and sort out the different John Harcourtsvwhen I get back next week.

Why do you say Margery married under duress? Did she try to get an annulment on those grounds?
I still don't think C Wellesbourne's Ricardianism had anything to do with the Scales-Rivers link.We know very little about Christopher as yet, including who he married. In any case, Rivers might not have been popular with his first wife's relatives, since he made off with the Scales inheritance, having His wife enfeoff her lands to His own use after her death.
Don't know why every His is coming out with initial cap, as though AW has divine status.