High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard had given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skilling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts. Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & Willoughbys

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

Should be doesn't surprise me.

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts. Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts.. Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts.... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H

The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V? I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion.

Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity. Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart.
I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV. If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.

Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 12:11:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts..... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

Alison Weir maintains that she definitely knows that the Princes were murdered on September 3rd 1483 because James Tyrell was in London that day collecting clothes for Edward of Middleham being made Prince of Wales, however, there is a record of the Princes being alive and at the Tower on September 8th 1483.

Alison Weir says black is white because she knows it is!

Alison Weir maintains that she definitely knows that the Princes were murdered on September 3rd 1483 because James Tyrell was in London that day collecting clothes for Edward of Middleham being made Prince of Wales, however, there is a record of the Princes being alive and at the Tower on September 8th 1483.

I wouldn't rule out the idea of Buckingham having a 'crush' on Richard. I haven't come across that theory before, but who knows. Which blog was this one? People were expected to get married in those days, and if they were gay they just had to go along with that. The only problem with the Gaveston aspiration for me is that Richard was unlikely to have been seen as the sort of person who would be vulnerable to that kind of manipulation. Nor has there been any suggestion that Richard was gay, although Edward II and Gaveston's relationship may not have been sexual.
I have always thought it was mostly a power gripe, with Buckingham unhappy because he wasn't as influential as he thought he would be. Buckingham could also have been jealous because Richard was so much more accomplished than him and that made him feel inadequate. After all, Buckingham had never really held any serious positions of responsibility, which seems unusual for someone in such a high position. Perhaps he had never shown any real aptitude or talent for anything, so he was justifiably overlooked, but he had a deluded notion that he had been held back by Edward IV for his Lancastrian family links, and hoped for a new start under Richard. When he didn't get it, he got angry. He may have been arrogant enough to expect to be promoted beyond his abilities, but I agree with you that there is a chaotic quality about him that suggests that he may also have been a bit mad too. It was probably that this that made MB cautious of him.
Nico




On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 18:55:51 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Alison Weir says black is white because she knows it is!

Alison Weir maintains that she definitely knows that the Princes were murdered on September 3rd 1483 because James Tyrell was in London that day collecting clothes for Edward of Middleham being made Prince of Wales, however, there is a record of the Princes being alive and at the Tower on September 8th 1483.

So Nico, looking at your thoughts that Buckingham could have been disgruntled because he wasn't as influential as he thought he might have been, could it have been that it was Buckingham that was jealous of Hastings not the other way around. Yes, Buckingham was given lots of lands etc but if he wasn't capable of high office but Hastings was, then Richard might have turned to Hastings after all it was Hastings that supposedly told him about Edward's death when the Woodvilles had neglected to do so. The Woodvilles were obviously trying to keep Richard away from London until after E5 had been crowned but Hastings ruined their plan. Not sure how this fits in with Rivers keeping Edward at Ludlow until the end of April but it could have been that there were other people in London, apart from Hastings, that might have taken over E5 and not allowed the Coronation to take place before Richard arrived, the members of the Council for instance. Hastings might then have been set up by EW and MB which led to Richard thinking that Hastings was plotting against him. Then afterwards Tudor propaganda gave out the story of Hastings treason and traditionalist historians carried the myth on.

This sounds very reasonable Mary. It wouldn't surprise me at all! And if Rivers was in East Anglia and not in Ludlow then Edward's party might already have set out before he could stop them.
I have always believed Hastings to have been set up. Why in one instance should he warn Richard and support the Council against the Woodvilles and in the next flip over to them? He knew Richard had reason to be grateful to him and needed him - he was the most experienced commander left. No way could Bucks match that. Hastings had been used to Edward occasionally pouring out money and titles on favourites but it never phased him. And Bucks was a cousin and one of the only blood relatives left.
I agree. I think this is yet another story we've been sold about 'Richard's blood-stained path to the throne'. H
On Friday, 9 November 2018, 16:35:27 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

So Nico, looking at your thoughts that Buckingham could have been disgruntled because he wasn't as influential as he thought he might have been, could it have been that it was Buckingham that was jealous of Hastings not the other way around. Yes, Buckingham was given lots of lands etc but if he wasn't capable of high office but Hastings was, then Richard might have turned to Hastings after all it was Hastings that supposedly told him about Edward's death when the Woodvilles had neglected to do so. The Woodvilles were obviously trying to keep Richard away from London until after E5 had been crowned but Hastings ruined their plan. Not sure how this fits in with Rivers keeping Edward at Ludlow until the end of April but it could have been that there were other people in London, apart from Hastings, that might have taken over E5 and not allowed the Coronation to take place before Richard arrived, the members of the Council for instance. Hastings might then have been set up by EW and MB which led to Richard thinking that Hastings was plotting against him. Then afterwards Tudor propaganda gave out the story of Hastings treason and traditionalist historians carried the myth on.

Envoyé de mon iPad

> Le 9 nov. 2018 à 16:23, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
>
> As far as I know, Buckingham had only spent one substantial time with Richard and that was when they both played a starring role in the wedding of ROS.

This is not actually true. I turned up some interesting facts about Buckingham when researching him, not an easy thing to do. But one has to remember Richard was put into the care of Buckingham's grandfather with his sister when their mother was taken into custody during York's rebellion. The two dukes also went to France with Edwards expedition, and when Richard left in disgust when Edward made a deal with Louis XI, Buckingham went with him. So they knew each other pretty well, family gatherings apart that is. So I have no doubt knew what his cousin was like, but chose unwisely to trust him.
As for the Edward II and Galveston relationship, I've no doubt it was sexual as well as political. Unlike Richard and Buckingham, and in a way I feel it just gives the opposition another stick to beat Richard with by even suggesting it.
Paul

Hi Doug,
I agree with you that the weather was a big factor in the rebellion falling apart. HT couldn't even land and Buckingham was stranded. Where Buckingham came into the rebellion is the question, but the Woodvilles may have sought his support at an early stage through Katherine Woodville. He probably wasn't interested in the beginning, as he set his sights on Richard, but when that was unsatisfactory, he switched. Alternatively, he could have been a fence sitter like Stanley, and never ruled out the Woodvilles if Richard proved unsatisfactory. I could also see Morton working on him, but later getting cold feet when he knew the rebellion would fail.
I am in two minds as to whether Buckingham would support Edward V, as he had a better legal claim for himself. Even if he supported the idea of his restoration, there was a self importance about him that suggests that he would struggle with playing second fiddle to a royal bastard. Alternatively, Edward died and he jumped in to fill the gap, but he wasn't met with any enthusiasm.
I get the impression that Edward may well have died at some point before Perkin Warbeck came on the scene. However, it wasn't impossible that Edward had no desire to pursue his own claims, so PW had to say he was dead or his own claim wouldn't be valid. If the obsequies for Edward of Middleham were low key, then anything for a royal bastard would be lower still. Actually, when we were trying to date EofM's passing last year, we struggled to find any evidence for his death besides Rous and Croyland writing at least a year later, although I think Marie came up with a contemporary record. J-AH mentions the papal mass for King Edward,and there is an old Ricardian article on it, where the author concludes that it could also have been for Edward IV. It is: CSL Davies, A Requiem for King Edward, The Ricardian, September 1991
I wouldn't rule out the idea that EV was sickly. That signature looks like he can't write properly. Was it physical weakness or was he mentally defective? Either one would have caused consternation for the Woodvilles and an anxiety in their quest to get him crowned, as if it were known that he would have difficultly governing he was at risk of being pushed aside in favour of a capable adult. They may have known he wouldn't be king for long, but once he was crowned they could consolidate their power base, and prepare young Richard to succeed him.
Croyland says the Princes were still in the Tower in September, but was he sure? I have always thought it possible that they were moved as soon as possible after the rescue attempt. FWIW, in his manifesto before the Scottish invasion, PW says that they were both taken abroad, and then Edward died.
Nico

Just googled Sir John Donne and came up with an interesting article on Wiki, well if you can trust Wiki. Apparently his family were ardent Yorkists, he was quite close to Edward and may have gone into exile with him. He also had a close connection to Margaret of Burgundy and her step daughter Marie. It also mentions his connection to Morton.

You know if in 1483 you were to advertise for a king HT wouldn't even make the interview stage. He had no training, no reputation, no love of the wider things such as the Arts, no charisma and most of all - absolutely no entitlement. So the trappings of kingship had to be re-invented, like the Imperial Crown and the use of the term 'Majesty'. And of course the Welsh prince legends. There are so many out there claiming links to King Arthur and the Knights of Glamorgan that it makes Welsh genealogy really hard - I don't think the Heralds had the staying power to dig back, they'd be there for years. HT might have lacked a lot of qualities but he was certainly not stupid. Look at his effigy and you see a townsman, not a king. HT knew as well as anyone who he really was. And that of course created problems for his descendants.
There are a couple of questions which are rarely asked but which I'd like the answer to.
Firstly, despite his 'oath' did HT really ever expect to be king? Personally I doubt it. I reckon the aim, obviously not disclosed to his followers, was to get Richard in a position where he could force a few concessions out of him - starting with reversal of attainder and then, possibly, a place in government. Instead he found himself on a battlefield, having been unable to restrain his mercenaries from killing an anointed King, facing a future where he'd always remember that moment and where he'd never even be able to even walk through a door without thinking a similar thing would one day happen to him.
Secondly, what did MB really think of her son? She loved him as a mother of course, but did she like him when she at last met him after Bosworth? His formative years had been spent away from her. She had been embraced by the Yorkist court and had seen the talents of the Brothers York - their qualities as warriors, their patronage of education and the arts, their charisma, their ability to command loyalty (even Clarence). In the twenty plus years she was forced to observe the rule of her son there must have been moments when she knew full well that the man he displaced had been far more suitable for kingship than this paranoid, friendless, obsessive loner? H


On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:33:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

I agree entirely Doug. I live about half an hour from Bosworth Field and it's pretty much in the centre of England (well Meriden has that accolade but it's not far out). Milford Haven is about as far away as you can get, I know I've been there. I suppose the only thing which equates is the south of Cornwall, but in those days the Welsh journey would have been much more rigorous and extremely risky if Richard had sent a force into Wales to meet him. Very wisely he didn't. And it's so easy to become trapped by the Severn, as was MOA before Tewkesbury when she was trying to go the other way.
So I agree, there must have been others along and surrounding the route on standby. A lot of them must have been the 1483 rebels as is evidenced by their being given HS positions in November 1485. Almost certainly Tocotes - did he turn up for Richard then change side when given the signal by the Stanleys - and Humphrey Stanley. Was Robert Carre in Hampshire on standby if HT needed to make a dash for Southampton? And of course this points to the re-activation of the Woodville network - passed to MB by EW and much more carefully used?
Like everything else the history of this period had to be re-invented. Richard had to be made to look bad, unpopular, a child murderer. How else can you justify killing a competent King who had been chosen by Parliament. What really disappoints me is that the excellent historians like Horrox, Carpenter and dare I say it even Hicks, have actually fallen for this. But then 'bad' people are always more interesting than good ones and that is what the media of its day has ever thought. H
On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:47:28 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Even Hicks? Why do you think this when most of his writings have been anti Richard, and often guilty of using the worst of the Tudor slanders. I'll never forgive him for his Anne Neville book alleging rape and such nonsense. Hicks should have been thrown into a deep hole with Alison Weir after that monstrosity of a publication!

I agree entirely Doug. I live about half an hour from Bosworth Field and it's pretty much in the centre of England (well Meriden has that accolade but it's not far out). Milford Haven is about as far away as you can get, I know I've been there. I suppose the only thing which equates is the south of Cornwall, but in those days the Welsh journey would have been much more rigorous and extremely risky if Richard had sent a force into Wales to meet him. Very wisely he didn't. And it's so easy to become trapped by the Severn, as was MOA before Tewkesbury when she was trying to go the other way.
So I agree, there must have been others along and surrounding the route on standby. A lot of them must have been the 1483 rebels as is evidenced by their being given HS positions in November 1485. Almost certainly Tocotes - did he turn up for Richard then change side when given the signal by the Stanleys - and Humphrey Stanley. Was Robert Carre in Hampshire on standby if HT needed to make a dash for Southampton? And of course this points to the re-activation of the Woodville network - passed to MB by EW and much more carefully used?
Like everything else the history of this period had to be re-invented. Richard had to be made to look bad, unpopular, a child murderer. How else can you justify killing a competent King who had been chosen by Parliament. What really disappoints me is that the excellent historians like Horrox, Carpenter and dare I say it even Hicks, have actually fallen for this. But then 'bad' people are always more interesting than good ones and that is what the media of its day has ever thought. H
On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:47:28 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

I like you thinking here Hilary! Especially the question did MB actually like her son? He might have been king, and given her much she could never have hoped for, but he must have seemed a real disappointment in comparison as you say to the charismatic and talented York boys!

You know if in 1483 you were to advertise for a king HT wouldn't even make the interview stage. He had no training, no reputation, no love of the wider things such as the Arts, no charisma and most of all - absolutely no entitlement. So the trappings of kingship had to be re-invented, like the Imperial Crown and the use of the term 'Majesty'. And of course the Welsh prince legends. There are so many out there claiming links to King Arthur and the Knights of Glamorgan that it makes Welsh genealogy really hard - I don't think the Heralds had the staying power to dig back, they'd be there for years. HT might have lacked a lot of qualities but he was certainly not stupid. Look at his effigy and you see a townsman, not a king. HT knew as well as anyone who he really was. And that of course created problems for his descendants.
There are a couple of questions which are rarely asked but which I'd like the answer to.
Firstly, despite his 'oath' did HT really ever expect to be king? Personally I doubt it. I reckon the aim, obviously not disclosed to his followers, was to get Richard in a position where he could force a few concessions out of him - starting with reversal of attainder and then, possibly, a place in government. Instead he found himself on a battlefield, having been unable to restrain his mercenaries from killing an anointed King, facing a future where he'd always remember that moment and where he'd never even be able to even walk through a door without thinking a similar thing would one day happen to him.
Secondly, what did MB really think of her son? She loved him as a mother of course, but did she like him when she at last met him after Bosworth? His formative years had been spent away from her. She had been embraced by the Yorkist court and had seen the talents of the Brothers York - their qualities as warriors, their patronage of education and the arts, their charisma, their ability to command loyalty (even Clarence). In the twenty plus years she was forced to observe the rule of her son there must have been moments when she knew full well that the man he displaced had been far more suitable for kingship than this paranoid, friendless, obsessive loner? H


On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:33:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Nico I meant Edward IV!
I think there is a logic to all of this except Buckingham, who seems to have thrown everything and everyone up in the air. There was a light-hearted discussion on one of the other blogs I found about whether he had a 'crush' on Richard; whether he thought he could become another Gaveston but got slapped down and the rejection was just too much. The more extreme his actions become and the more reckless he becomes I think this is not as daft as it may seem. There's nothing worse I imagine in getting an assumption like that terribly wrong. And of course Richard, who had now lost two brothers, may well have been looking for friendship from the family and unintentionally misled him to thinking he was closer than he really was.
Other than that I can only think he must have been seriously mad. It's interesting how his aunt MB was quick to distance herself from him. He could have done a lot of serious damage to every cause. Participants were lucky that Richard was so generous when it came to punishing most of them. Too generous as it turned out! H
BTW did you ever do a chart on HT? That would indeed be fascinating and I guess rather sad.

On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 10:59:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@yahoo.co.uk [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H

The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V?  I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year.. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion.

Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity.  Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart.
I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV.  If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.

Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 12:11:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@yahoo.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H 
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@yahoo.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex    (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so. 
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there. 
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@kconline.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts...... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford,  Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels -  Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

A chart on HT, EOY, Queen Anne, Buckingham, and, of course Richard would be very well received here.
On Nov 8, 2018 9:35 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Sorry Nico I meant Edward IV!
I think there is a logic to all of this except Buckingham, who seems to have thrown everything and everyone up in the air. There was a light-hearted discussion on one of the other blogs I found about whether he had a 'crush' on Richard; whether he thought he could become another Gaveston but got slapped down and the rejection was just too much. The more extreme his actions become and the more reckless he becomes I think this is not as daft as it may seem. There's nothing worse I imagine in getting an assumption like that terribly wrong. And of course Richard, who had now lost two brothers, may well have been looking for friendship from the family and unintentionally misled him to thinking he was closer than he really was.
Other than that I can only think he must have been seriously mad. It's interesting how his aunt MB was quick to distance herself from him. He could have done a lot of serious damage to every cause. Participants were lucky that Richard was so generous when it came to punishing most of them. Too generous as it turned out! H
BTW did you ever do a chart on HT? That would indeed be fascinating and I guess rather sad.

On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 10:59:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H

The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V? I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year.. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion.

Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity. Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart.
I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV. If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.

Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 12:11:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts...... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

Hi Doug,
I see what you mean here, but could the 'we' in this case be a reference to those Perkin and his supporters? They escaped capture after the disaster at Deal and moved on Scotland.
Nico

Grant (" for the singular and faithful service which they have hitherto done us not only in favouring our right and title by virtue of which we have now (the Lord helping us) come to the Crown of this realm, but also in repressing the treason and malice of our traitors and rebels who have stirred up perfidious commotions within this kingdom and for the good and faithful service to us and our heirs for our defence and that of our kingdom against traitors, enemies and rebels in times future as often as need be to be done ") of: -

Hope and Hopedale, Castle, Manor and Lordship of, in the Marches of Wales.

West Lideford,

To hold to the said Thomas and George and the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas by Knight service and a rent of £4.

The Royal plural (we/ our) has surely only ever been used by the monarch? Richard of Shrewsbury wasn't that, particularly if his elder brother was still alive. However, if Edward V had died somehow, the 1486 Titulus Regius relegitimised him as Edward IV's heir.
Interestingly, Elizabeth II once said We, by which I mean my husband and I ....

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18 November 2018 17:08
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)




Nico wrote:
I see what you mean here, but could the 'we' in this case be a reference to those Perkin and his supporters? They escaped capture after the disaster at Deal and moved on Scotland.

Well, there's also that use of our which, or so I'd imagine, wouldn't apply to him and his supporters.
Doug
Who used to think the use of the Royal We was much newer....

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

Funnily enough Doug I came across some old Ricardian Bulletins this week and one of them from Winter 2008 had an article in it by David Johnson entitled The Real Reason why Hastings Lost His Head. Apparently David had written a two part article in the Bulletin in the Winter 2007 and Spring 2008 setting out why he thought Hastings had lost his head and Wendy Moorhen responded to these articles in the Summer 2008 Bulletin. David contended that Hastings beheading was a consequence of a failed assassination attempt against Richard and Buckingham and that the motive was the restoration of Hastings lost position at the heart of royal government. He also argued that Hastings plotted to cover his tracks by falsely incriminating the Woodvilles. Wendy replied that she conceded that Hastings was plotting to kill the Dukes but that she believed his motive was loyalty to Edward V rather than self interest and she also thought that Hastings would have accepted complete responsibility rather than incriminating the Woodvilles. It is quite an interesting read and while my computer skills are not good enough to copy it here you can find it by googling The Real Reason why Hastings Lost his Head: A reply to Wendy Moorhen. I am also going to take a look at David and Wendy's article in the previous Bulletins.

Doug, I am inclined to agree with you that Buckingham's problem was about his ego; possibly narcissistic with the fragile sense of self that turns narcissistic types from charming into monsters when they don't get their way. If he expected to be at the center of power in a government headed by Richard, who was infinitely more accomplished, that would suggest an inflated sense of entitlement - something very common with people who were born to privilege, but lacked proper guidance. It isn't really clear who raised Buckingham. His father died when he was very young, and his mother remarried Sir Richard Dayrell, who was a bit below her station, which makes me think that Henry Stafford and MB played a major part in his upbringing. If he was passed around the family in his youth, that may have contributed to low self esteem and lack of purpose or direction. Buckingham could certainly have been in awe of Richard, and initially have thought that he was going to give him his moment in the sun, but when that was thwarted he could have felt a profound sense of rejection. Boys often have major problems when their mothers remarry. I wish we knew more about Buckingham's early life.

It is difficult to assess who was gay in the middle ages because the who topic was so secretive and socially unacceptable, but there must have been a certain percentage of the population who were. The nobility had to marry and procreate for social reasons, but there were those who seem to have been at least actively bisexual at some point such as EIV and Charles the Bold. There isn't any evidence that Buckingham himself was gay. He is said to have complained about his marriage, but that if is true (and it may not have been), it was because he thought the Woodvilles were beneath him socially (needing to rely on his background and title would be reflective of his insecurity). Buckingham and Katherine had at least four children. Edward Stafford, born 3 February 1478 is generally accepted as the oldest child, and the others were born at some point between then and 1484. The birth order is unclear and Wikipedia suggests a Humphrey and Margaret, but I can't find other evidence for them. If the oldest was born when Buckingham was 23 and Katherine 19/20, that seems quite normal, as you do notice longer gaps between the marriage and the first child when both partners were married young. Buckingham seems to have done his duty socially, but having children is not necessarily indicative of whether a marriage is successful or not. Overall, for the 'crush' theory, a possibility, but probably more psychologically based.
Nico

Grant (" for the singular and faithful service which they have hitherto done us not only in favouring our right and title by virtue of which we have now (the Lord helping us) come to the Crown of this realm, but also in repressing the treason and malice of our traitors and rebels who have stirred up perfidious commotions within this kingdom and for the good and faithful service to us and our heirs for our defence and that of our kingdom against traitors, enemies and rebels in times future as often as need be to be done ") of: -

Hope and Hopedale, Castle, Manor and Lordship of, in the Marches of Wales.

West Lideford,

To hold to the said Thomas and George and the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas by Knight service and a rent of £4.

Grant (" for the singular and faithful service which they have hitherto done us not only in favouring our right and title by virtue of which we have now (the Lord helping us) come to the Crown of this realm, but also in repressing the treason and malice of our traitors and rebels who have stirred up perfidious commotions within this kingdom and for the good and faithful service to us and our heirs for our defence and that of our kingdom against traitors, enemies and rebels in times future as often as need be to be done ") of: -

Hope and Hopedale, Castle, Manor and Lordship of, in the Marches of Wales.

West Lideford,

To hold to the said Thomas and George and the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas by Knight service and a rent of £4.

So possibly Hilary the Woodville's original plan was not to inform Richard of Edward's death for as long as they possibly could so that they could get Edward crowned but Hastings spoiled that for them. Then they planned to ambush Richard on the way to Stony Stratford but that failed and Rivers &co were arrested. They then had to decide on Plan B - get Hastings. So with the help of MB and Morton they somehow plotted to incriminate Hastings in a plan to assassinate Richard knowing that as Lord Constable he would arrest Hastings and probably execute him. Maybe they didn't count on him executing Rivers & co. In his article in the Bulletin David Johnson says he believes that Hastings intended to kill Richard and Buckingham and attempted to blame the Woodvilles. David believes that Hastings was fully capable of such behaviour while Wendy Moorhen believes that he would have taken full responsibility himself. David believes that the Woodvilles believed that Hastings was responsible for encouraging much of the king's dissolute lifestyle and that when Edward died Hastings was fearful of Woodville reprisals especially as the young king's escort to London was to be so large. He threatened to withdraw to Calais unless the escort was reduced. If he had withdrawn to Calais he would have been in command of a potent invasion force as the between 1482 and 1483 the Calais garrison had been substantially reinforced. David Johnson contends that the idea that Hastings was first allied with Richard and then the Woodvilles is fatally flawed and he believes that Hastings constituted a powerful third force totally independent of the Woodvilles or Richard he was merely protecting his own interests.

Not sure if my previous message got through, will try again.

Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary.

Doug, I would agree that Stanley was doing his usual fence sitting at Bosworth. He obviously had Richard a bit rattled before the battle because Richard took his son into his custody. A few days before the battle Thomas and William Stanley met with HT at Atherstone and possibly told him that he had their support. However, was that support dependant on who was winning the battle? It was actually William's men who intervened on HT's behalf not Thomas'. So if that intervention had somehow failed and Richard had won anyway maybe Thomas would still have tried to convince Richard of his loyalty and put the blame on his brother. Though I am not sure that Richard would have believed him.

On Sunday, 25 November 2018, 20:59:53 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

That's a week after Hastings' death. Do I recall the Pre Contract became public knowledge on 25 June and Richard's reign dates from 26?
Nico, I wonder who the 'Beaumont' was? H
On Monday, 26 November 2018, 20:43:39 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug just to say that Annette Carson wrote an article about the summons to Parliament in 1483. It is quite a while since I read it but if I remember rightly it dealt with the fact that not all of the Parliament were there because they were coming from different parts of the country and obviously some were a lot further away than others. I think the question that she was answering was would it have been legal for them to ask Richard to take the throne because not everyone was there and I think that she came to the conclusion that it was because there were enough of them there. The reason for the lack of attendance was because the pre-contract problem came on them suddenly. I am not sure if I have remembered all this correctly but will look online to see if I can find the article.

Doug, Mary, the summons to Parliament was a week after the meeting in the Tower on 22 June. Here it is:

Rymer's Foedera with Syllabus: January-June 1483 | British History Online

Rymer's Foedera with Syllabus: January-June 1483 | British History Online

That's a week after Hastings' death. Do I recall the Pre Contract became public knowledge on 25 June and Richard's reign dates from 26?
Nico, I wonder who the 'Beaumont' was? H
On Monday, 26 November 2018, 20:43:39 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug just to say that Annette Carson wrote an article about the summons to Parliament in 1483. It is quite a while since I read it but if I remember rightly it dealt with the fact that not all of the Parliament were there because they were coming from different parts of the country and obviously some were a lot further away than others. I think the question that she was answering was would it have been legal for them to ask Richard to take the throne because not everyone was there and I think that she came to the conclusion that it was because there were enough of them there. The reason for the lack of attendance was because the pre-contract problem came on them suddenly. I am not sure if I have remembered all this correctly but will look online to see if I can find the article.

Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary.

Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary.

Can I add one tiny thing to all this?
We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead
It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French!
So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?
So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 20:45:30 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

I think that the French were crucial in this. After the death of Louis XI they were in the same position as England had been with an underage heir. Something that I have thought too is that while HT had absolutely no claim to the throne of England he was descended from Catherine of Valois and I wonder if he had played the Henry V card if you support me to invade England then I won't try to claim the French throne. While he didn't have much of a chance of winning a battle in France it might have frightened them. On the other hand he might have put himself forward as the French Prince galloping to their rescue and invading England before Richard could invade France.

I think that the French were crucial in this. After the death of Louis XI they were in the same position as England had been with an underage heir. Something that I have thought too is that while HT had absolutely no claim to the throne of England he was descended from Catherine of Valois and I wonder if he had played the Henry V card if you support me to invade England then I won't try to claim the French throne. While he didn't have much of a chance of winning a battle in France it might have frightened them. On the other hand he might have put himself forward as the French Prince galloping to their rescue and invading England before Richard could invade France.

Just to throw something in re Hastings and the French. What if they had offered to re-instate his pension that he had gained after Treaty of Picquiny and Louis had then taken it away? Merely speculating.

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

Just found this Paul. Absolutely! And of course Anne of Beaujeu came to deeply regret that involvement with HT!
The bit i was thinking about is June 1483, when Louis was still alive. As you say, a deeply paranoid person, he'd remember that young man who'd stormed away (despite his gift of horses) and any chance of him getting anywhere near ruling England would need to be 'discouraged' in whatever way it could.. H
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018, 16:42:52 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

Hilary wrote :

Absolutely. It's called Louis XI le Pouvoir fracassé, and the actor playing Louis, Jacques Perrin, is chillingly like his portraits. I have it on DVD, but it has no subtitles. I watch most things with French subtitles now, unless the films are in English of course! Just checked on amazon.fr and even the DVD it has no subtitles. Most things now have subtitles for the deaf or hard of hearing. There are even some cinema showings with French subtitles which with some movies I need, especially when the accents are broad, like Occitane or Marseilles in particular!

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

Les Rois Maudits has been down twice on French television. In spite of the latter having Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu in it the original series is best. Superb in fact. Like the book though, very long!

Hilary wrote:

"Richard arrests Hastings, who in the ensuing fracas also accuses Stanley, who is reported to have been injured. Stanley does the usual 'Stanley flip' but a day or two later suggests Morton should be put in the care of Buckingham who will be 'guided' by Morton to his own destruction."

Carol responds:

It's only later sources that mention Stanley as involved in the scuffle. Neither Croyland nor Mancini mentions him (nor for that matter is he mentioned in the Stonor letter). I think it's Vergil who has him injured (can't have HT's loyal father-in-law supporting the "usurper Richard!).

Richard's actions in the letter you cited and in making Stanley Constable in Buckingham's place clearly show that A) Stanley (and his son, George) supported Richard's election as king and helped to oppose Buckingham et al., presumably extending that support to Titulus Regius in the January Parliament, and B) Richard had good reason to trust him.

Something happened later (in my view, probably the loss of Richard's heir, which would have destabilized his reign, especially when followed so closely by the loss of his wife) and tempt him to consider switching his support to HT. MB's voice in his ear was no doubt a factor, but self-interest seems to have been his primary motive. Support Richard while he looks strong--as he did until about April 1484--and continue to *seem* to support him while considering other options until Tudor's successful invasion of Wales. He may even have weighed his options during the battle--go with the one who seems to be winning, whether it's the king who has rewarded you or your claimless son-in-law if God (or luck) seems to be on his side.

Carol

I saw the whole of the first which I think was in black and white? The bit about the Templars was very chilling. I never go to Chinon without looking at 'that island' and shuddering. I just caught the last bit of the second. It was good and the costumes superb. Yes very long book (s). Better to see if you can. H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 11:19:46 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Les Rois Maudits has been down twice on French television. In spite of the latter having Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu in it the original series is best. Superb in fact. Like the book though, very long!

No Carol it was the heir to Beaumont of Folkingham Castle. I made the same mistake when I originally read it. I think if I remember correctly that Hastings was married to Warwick's sister who was also named Katherine. That may not be correct as I have just written it off the top of my head without checking on Hastings wife. The Dowager Duchess was married at least three times it seems.

Thank you Hilary for sorting my memory out.

Nico wrote:

Doug wrote:

"FWIW, if the Pre-Contract had been manufactured, there was nothing to stop Tudor from showing it up for being exactly that by having Parliament examine the person who made the Bill  Stillington, but that was the one thing Henry was absolutely determined not to do. Tudor, who tried to get out of marrying EoY and didn't have her crowned for what, more than a year after they were finally married, didn't want to hurt his wife's feelings? As they say  Puhlease! I also don't think Stillington was a witness to Edward and Eleanor's marriage, so the question becomes: What proofs could be provided that would sway, first the Royal Council, then the Three Estates and finally a regularly-constituted Parliament?"

Carol responds:

I agree with you (in the part I snipped) that Catesby had something to do with it. Otherwise, his being one of the few men executed after Bosworth is inexplicable. But I also wonder whether Eleanor's sister, the dowager duchess of Norfolk, might have secretly testified, under oath, to her sister having married Edward IV. Perhaps the marriage of her daughter Anne Mowbray to the little Duke of York (whom she would have know to be illegitimate if she knew about the precontract) was his way of simultaneously buying her off and ensuring her silence regarding the illegitimacy of her son-in-law (and Edward's children in general). Just a thought that has often occurred to me. She was very much alive in 1483.

Does anyone know what happened to her during Tudor's reign? She seems to have kept a low profile. The Wikipedia article is no help at all, and in fact has her daughter inheriting the *Warwick* lands, an indication that it's very poorly researched.

I just realized that her nephew by marriage, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, showed up to support Richard, the then Protector, on or before June 21. Since Stallworth, who reports that Lord Lisle has "come to my Lorde Protectour and awates apon hyme" just after he discusses the release of RoY from sanctuary, it's possible that these events occurred at about the same time. Could Viscount Lisle have been a messenger carrying a letter from his aunt? He participated in Richard's coronation and was with him in York, so he certainly wasn't denying his other aunt's marriage to EIV. (Technically, they're his wife's aunts, but still, they're family.) He was also the brother of EW's (Lancastrian) first husband, Sir John Grey, so he had a connection to the Woodvilles but chose Richard's side. Has anyone investigated him before? He doesn't seem to have been at Bosworth though some Greys who may have been his relatives fought for Richard. His daughter first married a son of Thomas Howard (who had fought for Richard but came to terms of sorts with HT) and then, somewhat ironically, Edward IV's illegitimate son Arthur, who in turn became Viscount Lisle in honor of his wife.

Carol

Nico wrote:

Am I giving Edward to much credit by imagining by marrying EW he could bring large sections of the Lancastrians to heel? Huge mistake as it turned out. But there is also in the back of my mind the question why did such a strong character as Edward allow the Woodvilles to run riot over his court after his marriage, giving her and her family almost everything they asked of him, including eventually the head of his own brother? Secrets buried everywhere then?

Nico wrote:

Carol: There's also the matter of his being pressured to marry Bona of Savoy or some other foreign (French) bride. Had he done so and either of his earlier marriages been discovered, he would have been in serious trouble not only with that country and the Pope but also his own subjects. War, excommunication, deposition . . . . So he had the choice of revealing one of the marriages, with the consequence that one of those women would (eventually) be crowned as his queen. He chose EW, possibly because she had more relatives and those relatives were more likely to make a fuss. After all, Eleanor and her family had already remained quiet for several years (three?). He couldn't count on Elizabeth, Anthony, and perhaps especially Jacquetta to do the same if he contracted to (publicly) marry a foreign bride.
Paul: Am I giving Edward to much credit by imagining by marrying EW he could bring large sections of the Lancastrians to heel? Huge mistake as it turned out. But there is also in the back of my mind the question why did such a strong character as Edward allow the Woodvilles to run riot over his court after his marriage, giving her and her family almost everything they asked of him, including eventually the head of his own brother? Secrets buried everywhere then?
Carol, that is true. A foreign alliance and marriage being put in jeopardy by the revelation of a secret marriage would have been terrible - at best it would have been embarrassing, but it could have totally discredited Edward and lost him major support. At the time of the marriages, I don't believe that he had anything more than a desire to seduce and conquer an unwilling woman, although Lancastrian support may have crossed his mind when he revealed the marriage to EW, but more as a bonus than the main reason, which was that he knew the Jacquetta would not just never keep quiet, but she was someone who would be taken seriously because of her social position and the fact that there were other witnesses. She could have stirred up a lot of trouble with the Lancastrians if she made a fuss about her dishonoured daughter. My guess is that Edward expected everything to go the way it had with Eleanor - no witnesses, he has his fun and then he pays her off when he gets tired of her. However, with EW it all went wrong when Jacquetta turned up with witnesses.

Edward's behaviour towards bother Eleanor and EW (and possibly others) suggests a psychological quirk where he couldn't tolerate refusal and would not stop until he got what he had subdued the object of his desire. Such a determined quality would be an advantage to someone who sought to gain a crown by conquest, but when applied to his personal life it is an unattractive trait. If women of a lower social class refused him, he may have resorted to force, but he knew he couldn't do that with women of Eleanor Talbot and Elizabeth Woodville's standing, so he had to resort to manipulation. Therefore, I agree with you, Paul that it does seem out of character that the Woodvilles were allowed to dominate Edward's court the way they did when everything else about Edward indicates someone who needed to be in charge. Did they have something else on Edward? Maybe they did, but if it was Eleanor that would have scared them too, as once EW's marriage was invalidated they could lose everything. Even so, it would have been enough to make Edward uncomfortable enough to ensure they were kept happy.
Nico




On Wednesday, 12 December 2018, 18:19:51 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Am I giving Edward to much credit by imagining by marrying EW he could bring large sections of the Lancastrians to heel? Huge mistake as it turned out. But there is also in the back of my mind the question why did such a strong character as Edward allow the Woodvilles to run riot over his court after his marriage, giving her and her family almost everything they asked of him, including eventually the head of his own brother? Secrets buried everywhere then?

Nico wrote:

What a coincidence. The night before you posted this I was reading Marie and Stephen's article in the Ricardian 2016 :The Paternity of Lady Lumley. When reading your post I thought Thomas Wake I know that name then I suddenly remembered.

Hilary wrote:

Nico, Doug, Carol et al can I throw one other thing into all this. I came upon it (as usual) whilst looking for something entirely different and it's something to which I've not paid much attention before. It's the accusation of witchcraft against Jacquetta:"

Carol responds:

Speaking of witchcraft and similar accusations, it seems that Richard believed that EW, Jacquetta, or someone associated with them was casting horoscopes predicting his death and that of Buckingham. His letter to York on June 10, 1483, asks for help against "the quene, her blode adherentes and affinitie, which have entended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly distroy us and our cousyn the duc of Bukkyngham and the old royall blode of this realme, and as it is now openly knowen by their subtile and dampnabill wais forcasted the same."

Apparently, he's saying that their forecasting his death and destruction is openly known. I find that a bit confusing since few people could have known what was going on in sanctuary. I wonder if he's referring to an earlier time and the "old royall blode" whose death was forecast was not Richard and Buckingham but Richard and George. TR also accuses EW and Jacquetta of witchcraft, implying that EIV was forced or coerced into marrying EW "by sorcerie and wichecrafte, committed by the said Elizabeth and her moder, Jaquett Duchess of Bedford, as the common opinion of the people and the publique voice and fame is through all this land." In other words, both women were rumored to be witches. Whether the opinion was as widespread as TR implies, I can't say. But your source shows that the accusation against Jacquetta, at least, isn't new.

Carol

Actually, the blame lies with Ordnance Survey and their very detailed maps. Doug Who's been mesmerized by maps for lo, these fifty years and more... Hilary wrote: I blame Doug and his atlas :) :) 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Maps and I do not get on - well not in a car! I once took us on a scenic ride through the French countryside at midnight.
Now I've double-checked and BHOL got Robert Dymoke wrong. It was not his wife but his mother who was a Welles. She was the sister of Richard Welles executed by Edward in 1470. Incidentally her second husband was the Richard Radcliffe involved in the Perkin Warbeck affair.
Mary, Andrew Dymoke was a second cousin of Robert. They were the grandsons of two brothers. Robert was from the senior branch. H
On Sunday, 16 December 2018, 16:06:57 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I've emerged from Xmas at last!
So apologies. Yes it was a mis-type for 100,000 - the next nearest place was Norwich at about 12,000. Many apologies again.

Doug here:
I just figured the number was the result of too many Christmas parties!

Hilary continued:
I do think we have a point about Richard (and Edward's) view on 'training'. Richard in particular had had a life of training, starting with Warwick.. George had been that little bit too old so he dodged it, but even he did do an awful lot of work for Edward. If Richard at one point saw Buckingham as a potential deputy then it was only natural that he would start to monitor his performance in the posts he was given. And pile on the work. I just can't see Buckingham having the temperament to sort out fishgarths, or Coventry yeomen arguing over Common Land rights. Not enough glamour in it. I think we sometimes fail to appreciate how much hard graft there was in being a medieval king, which is why the Tudors started employing armies of civil servants.

Doug here:
I might be doing Buckingham an injustice, but I also agree that he likely would have considered the nitty-griity of 15th century governance to have been beneath him. At any rate, he doesn't seem to have any record of doing so.

Hilary concluded:
The other thought about Richard's Bosworth contingency that I've had is around the flack he always gets about bias from using his Northerners. If you think about it, at a time when there was no standing army (wouldn't be for another two hundred years) was it not natural to call upon the very people who had had the recent experience of fighting with you in the Scottish wars? And successfully at that. Carol's list of those knighted illustrates that they were mostly from Richard's Northern contingent, but that was only natural as, to state the obvious, they lived much nearer to Scotland.
If you step back, it really is quite extraordinary that even the most logical things which Richard did were used in some way to denigrate him.

Doug here:
There also weren't any Civil Service Exams either, so one tended to appoint either people of whom one had direct acquaintance/knowledge or else appointed people known to those one knew. My sense is that, except for the upper nobility who might very well have properties in every county, most members of the lower nobility/gentry tended to concentrate their properties in one geographical area. Even the upper nobility, such as the Stanleys in Lancastershire, tried to build a base they could rely on..
As for your last sentence, there's a political operative here in the States named Karl Rove whose best-known tactic was to try and turn a political opponent's strength/s against him. Obviously, it's not a new tactic...
Doug

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