John Bonauntre of London

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.

He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482 where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.

He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482 where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H

Where on Earth is Crukerne? My parents lived in Somerset and I never heard of it.

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 nov. 2018 à 12:01, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

 

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.

He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482  where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H 

Crewkerne.
A J

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:39 AM Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Where on Earth is Crukerne? My parents lived in Somerset and I never heard of it.

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.

He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482 where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Hi Nico I think we'll get there in the end!
Your William and John Bonauntre were the sons of Thomas Beaumont, tapicer who died in April 1394 and left a will. Do you have a subscription to Ancestry? If not I'll try and download it from there. I think John Beaumont the Chandler (died 1417) was probably his brother. There is also a William, who was sheriff of London who was probably their father in the mid fourteenth century. I think they had another brother Thomas, who was a chandler and father to Thomas the Salter. They had land in Essex and Kent.
I agree about the Spaynes - it was the point I was trying to make to Marie (not helped by BH online going down at that point). Also in these circles you'll find the Cosyn family (i.e. that of Archdeacon William) and the King family. As you know Oliver King was William's uncle. The Cosyns and the Kings originated as taylors, with Cosyn's father becoming Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV. So it's not a 'clerical appointment' co-incidence - they have been linked for years.
I'm very interested in the Clarence connection - more and more trails lead to him I find.
Oh and I forgot to mention. One Robert Bornaunt was made Escheator of Devon and Cornwall by Richard. More work to do on him. H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 22:46:01 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Hi Hilary,
Unfortunately, I don't have an ancestry subscription, so I would be grateful if you could download it. Judging from the dates, I would say that Thomas Beaumont and Margaret Brampton were most likely the great grandchildren of these particular Bonauntres. Since Thomas' parishes were in Somerset, it looks likely that they were the children of John Bonauntre of Crewkerne, and if their families originate in Kent and Essex, chances are that the Crewkerne connection came as a result of John Bonauntre's service to Clarence, and the entry in the Fine Rolls was a reconfirmation of the position he had previously held.
Thomas Beaumont's executor was Oliver King, so I am getting an impression of a network of families who were once well connected with the House of York. Beaumont and King may have had their confidence, which put them in position to uncover information about people with Yorkist leanings that was passed on to Henry - particularly the strange business of Ralph Wilford, which I suspect was a more serious plot that HT ever acknowledged. It is clear from his will that Thomas Beaumont was close to Brampton through his sister and the children, who along with his mother were the only family beneficiaries. If anyone knew what involvement Brampton had with the Princes or who PW actually was, it was likely him. Once Brampton's interests lay with the King of Portugal and ultimately HT, so did Thomas Beaumont's.
Nico





On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 08:58:38 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico I think we'll get there in the end!
Your William and John Bonauntre were the sons of Thomas Beaumont, tapicer who died in April 1394 and left a will. Do you have a subscription to Ancestry? If not I'll try and download it from there. I think John Beaumont the Chandler (died 1417) was probably his brother. There is also a William, who was sheriff of London who was probably their father in the mid fourteenth century. I think they had another brother Thomas, who was a chandler and father to Thomas the Salter. They had land in Essex and Kent.
I agree about the Spaynes - it was the point I was trying to make to Marie (not helped by BH online going down at that point). Also in these circles you'll find the Cosyn family (i.e. that of Archdeacon William) and the King family. As you know Oliver King was William's uncle. The Cosyns and the Kings originated as taylors, with Cosyn's father becoming Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV. So it's not a 'clerical appointment' co-incidence - they have been linked for years.
I'm very interested in the Clarence connection - more and more trails lead to him I find.
Oh and I forgot to mention. One Robert Bornaunt was made Escheator of Devon and Cornwall by Richard. More work to do on him. H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 22:46:01 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Hi Nico,
You don't need one. Here we go from BHOL:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/court-husting-wills/vol2/pp310-316#highlight-first

Notice St Dionysius again so must be 'our' John of 1417. We have his parents' names and we are actually going back quite a long way.
There is a Richard Beaumont of Specott, Devon (born circa 1320) who just could be the father of our William, since his father is William (mother Joan Courtenay). These are the 'de Belle Montes' of Shirwell Devon from who are descended the Beaumonts of Gittisham - nothing to do with the Lord Beaumonts. But I reckon Thomas Beaumont's near heritage stems from fourteenth century London, as does that of the Sapynes, Cosyns and Kings.
I'll do a bit more digging. H
On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 22:33:40 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Unfortunately, I don't have an ancestry subscription, so I would be grateful if you could download it. Judging from the dates, I would say that Thomas Beaumont and Margaret Brampton were most likely the great grandchildren of these particular Bonauntres. Since Thomas' parishes were in Somerset, it looks likely that they were the children of John Bonauntre of Crewkerne, and if their families originate in Kent and Essex, chances are that the Crewkerne connection came as a result of John Bonauntre's service to Clarence, and the entry in the Fine Rolls was a reconfirmation of the position he had previously held.
Thomas Beaumont's executor was Oliver King, so I am getting an impression of a network of families who were once well connected with the House of York. Beaumont and King may have had their confidence, which put them in position to uncover information about people with Yorkist leanings that was passed on to Henry - particularly the strange business of Ralph Wilford, which I suspect was a more serious plot that HT ever acknowledged. It is clear from his will that Thomas Beaumont was close to Brampton through his sister and the children, who along with his mother were the only family beneficiaries. If anyone knew what involvement Brampton had with the Princes or who PW actually was, it was likely him. Once Brampton's interests lay with the King of Portugal and ultimately HT, so did Thomas Beaumont's.
Nico





On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 08:58:38 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico I think we'll get there in the end!
Your William and John Bonauntre were the sons of Thomas Beaumont, tapicer who died in April 1394 and left a will. Do you have a subscription to Ancestry? If not I'll try and download it from there. I think John Beaumont the Chandler (died 1417) was probably his brother. There is also a William, who was sheriff of London who was probably their father in the mid fourteenth century. I think they had another brother Thomas, who was a chandler and father to Thomas the Salter. They had land in Essex and Kent.
I agree about the Spaynes - it was the point I was trying to make to Marie (not helped by BH online going down at that point). Also in these circles you'll find the Cosyn family (i.e. that of Archdeacon William) and the King family. As you know Oliver King was William's uncle. The Cosyns and the Kings originated as taylors, with Cosyn's father becoming Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV. So it's not a 'clerical appointment' co-incidence - they have been linked for years.
I'm very interested in the Clarence connection - more and more trails lead to him I find.
Oh and I forgot to mention. One Robert Bornaunt was made Escheator of Devon and Cornwall by Richard. More work to do on him. H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 22:46:01 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

Hi again. Just looked at my database. The Writtles came from Bobbingworth Kent. Robert was the father-in-law of Katherine (Boston) Haute, wife of Richard Haute (died 1492). His grandson was John Writtle, Lord Mayor of London (died Oct 1485) H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

Sorry Bobbingworth Essex!

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:51:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi again. Just looked at my database. The Writtles came from Bobbingworth Kent. Robert was the father-in-law of Katherine (Boston) Haute, wife of Richard Haute (died 1492). His grandson was John Writtle, Lord Mayor of London (died Oct 1485) H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

Hi,

I have also noticed quite a few Brampton references in relation to the Bonauntre group. Perhaps this was where the Sir Edward got the idea for his new name.
Bobbingworth was near Chigwell where John Bonauntre owned lands. According to BHOL, Bobbingworth Manor had some well known owners during the Wars of the Roses:
Ralph de Merk granted the overlordship of these tenements to Humphrey, Earl of Hereford and Essex (d. 1322) who in 1312-13 granted it in fee tail to his youngest son William de Bohun, later Earl of Northampton. (fn. 6) In 1328 the manor of Bobbingworth was held of William by the service of ½ knight's fee. (fn. 7) He died in 1360 and was succeeded by his son Humph
rey, later Earl of Hereford and of Essex. (fn. 8) After Humphrey's death in 1373 the overlordship passed through his daughter Eleanor to Anne wife of Edmund Earl of March. (fn. 9) After the deaths of Edmund (1425) and Anne (1432) the overlordship passed to Anne's brother Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1460). (fn. 10) In 1475 the manor was held of Humphrey's widow Anne. (fn. 11) In 1485 and 1493 it was held of Jasper, Duke of Bedford (d. 1495) and his wife Katherine whose first husband had been Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1483).
I wonder if the Writtles and Bonauntres were ever in the service of any of these people. I will keep looking for Clarence links..

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 11:23:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Bobbingworth Essex!

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:51:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi again. Just looked at my database. The Writtles came from Bobbingworth Kent. Robert was the father-in-law of Katherine (Boston) Haute, wife of Richard Haute (died 1492). His grandson was John Writtle, Lord Mayor of London (died Oct 1485) H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups..com> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger.

Hi Hilary and all,

Great to see the forum back!
I still think that William Vaux could have had two wives - Isabel Vaux and then another Isabel. Also, since the Woodvilles were Brampton's neighbours in Northamptonshire, he must have had some dealings with them. During Edward IV's reign, he would have needed to be nice to them. I will see if I can find anything on John Clifford's wider family and see if there is an Isabel of the right age group.
The question of the tomb is an interesting one, and does present a problem with that Ms. Clifford being the Isabel Pecche who married William Vaux and Edward Brampton. The marriage to William Pecche must have been annulled or nether of them would be free to remarry, which meant that it had no legal validity. Therefore, it would have been unlikely for her to be included on the tomb. It appears more likely that Ms. Clifford died, then he married Anne Proffitt. Nevertheless, since he was paying for the tomb, he could probably include anyone he wished, including a wife from an annulled marriage. This would have been more likely if there were children from the marriage. I thought all his children were from his second wife, but it is possible that there were unrecorded children especially daughters.
One of my Christmas presents was JA-H's Mythology of the Princes in the Tower. I haven't finished it yet, but it is excellent and I would definitely recommend it. I just finished the chapter on Richard of Eastwell, and I'm convinced that the Yorkist network in Kent and the City of London has been underestimated, including the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, so I'm still digging.
Nico
On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 11:56:37 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger.

Hi I got the wrong Clifford re Perkin Warbeck - it was Robert Clifford from the Yorkshire Cliffords. If unknown Clifford's father is John, then that family originated from Tixall, Staffs before Kent. Since both families supplied quite a few rebels my guess is they were related if you dig back enough.
I can tell you a bit about John Clifford as his son William was executed as a 1483 rebel. He was married to Florence St Leger, sister of Thomas and that marriage would have extended his networks into the Guildfords (John Guildford was Edward's Comptroller of the Household) and of course his sister-in-law once removed would have been Edward's sister Anne (who died in 1476) and the Hautes.
We know he had 3 children - Thomas (died 1521), William (mentioned above) and Anne who married Robert Kempe. The Kempes (family of the former Archbishop) also feature quite a bit in this. John also had a niece Margaret who was married to John Gainsford and her daughter married a Culpepper, as did his nephew Alexander, later Sheriff of Kent. All very contagious. I'll do some more digging too. Strangely enough, Thomas St Leger had a sister Isabel who was married to Thomas Milbourne. I wonder when he died? Incidentally, were the St Leger's related to Jacquetta, EW's mother? I see Thomas St Leger's grandmother was Jeanne de Luxembourg (d 1406) daughter of Gilles de Luxembourg?
I agree with both your other points. I think that JAH book was probably the best he ever wrote. Why do no other historians these days do any digging but just regurgitate what others have said?
Since I investigated the rebels I've always believed there to be a tie between the City of London and Kent. These ties probably extended to the Church as well - we have two families of Archbishops - Chicheley and Kempe hailing from the area. And...... I believe they extended to the West Country as well. Both the St Legers, the Moyles and some others who I can't recall at the moment, originated from the West Country. Back to Stillington and his associates there!
Finally, one historian who did dig was the late David Baldwin. I know not everyone likes him but his book on Richard of Eastwell is worth reading if you haven't, even though he doesn't investigate Moyle's background. And he was the first historian to identify Richard's probable burial place some twenty years' ago.
BTW William Peche had two chidren by Unknown Clifford - Elizabeth who married a lawyer John Hart and George Brooke of Cowling and Sir John Peche who married Elizabeth Scrope. Both born late 1460s, early 1470s. He had no children so the line died out.
H


On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 22:20:38 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary and all,

Great to see the forum back!
I still think that William Vaux could have had two wives - Isabel Vaux and then another Isabel. Also, since the Woodvilles were Brampton's neighbours in Northamptonshire, he must have had some dealings with them. During Edward IV's reign, he would have needed to be nice to them. I will see if I can find anything on John Clifford's wider family and see if there is an Isabel of the right age group.
The question of the tomb is an interesting one, and does present a problem with that Ms. Clifford being the Isabel Pecche who married William Vaux and Edward Brampton. The marriage to William Pecche must have been annulled or nether of them would be free to remarry, which meant that it had no legal validity. Therefore, it would have been unlikely for her to be included on the tomb. It appears more likely that Ms. Clifford died, then he married Anne Proffitt. Nevertheless, since he was paying for the tomb, he could probably include anyone he wished, including a wife from an annulled marriage. This would have been more likely if there were children from the marriage. I thought all his children were from his second wife, but it is possible that there were unrecorded children especially daughters.
One of my Christmas presents was JA-H's Mythology of the Princes in the Tower. I haven't finished it yet, but it is excellent and I would definitely recommend it. I just finished the chapter on Richard of Eastwell, and I'm convinced that the Yorkist network in Kent and the City of London has been underestimated, including the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, so I'm still digging.
Nico
On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 11:56:37 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger.

I was wondering about the Guildford connection too after reading Hilary's post. Hilary said that he was Comptroller of Edward's household so my thought was that he would be an ideal person to look after young Edward. Is it possible that Edward never left the country and maybe the bits of information we have a about going to Burgundy to Aunt Margaret were meant to put people off the scent?

Hilary, I had a chance to take a look at the Cliffords. An article by the Kent Archeological Society says that William Pecche's first wife's name was Jane and that coat of arms on her tomb matched the Clifford family. If that is correct it would rule out her being Isabel Brampton, but she would have been related to William Clifford the 1483 rebel. The Cliffords hadn't been in Kent for many generations so there can't have been that many of them. I haven't found exactly where she fits in yet, but it is another Kent rebellion link.

Gilles de Luxembourg and Jacquetta were from different branches of the Luxembourg royal family, and were not closely related. Gilles was from an illegitimate line.
Mary, I used to think that the Leslau's idea about Edward V being transformed into Sir Edward Guildford was far fetched, but Matthew Lewis gave men a more open mind in his book 'The Survival of the Princes in the Tower.' I had thought it unlikely that a teenage son could suddenly appear in a family with no questions asked, but if he 'replaced' a son who died, maybe it was possible at the time. However, J-AH does makes some interesting points suggesting that Edward V died around August 1483, and had been ill for some time.

Nico

On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 17:31:48 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I was wondering about the Guildford connection too after reading Hilary's post. Hilary said that he was Comptroller of Edward's household so my thought was that he would be an ideal person to look after young Edward. Is it possible that Edward never left the country and maybe the bits of information we have a about going to Burgundy to Aunt Margaret were meant to put people off the scent?

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Digressing a little, before Christmas I put out a post on Alice Burgh, who I found in the Fine Rolls in 1481 and 1484 in the 'pay' of Edward of Warwick, so that is why I assume Alison Weir has her as his nurse. The famous payment to 'my beloved gentlewoman for 'special considerations' is made in 1474 so did Alice become his nurse when he moved under the guardianship of his Aunt? Very strange to have the Duchess employing someone who had been her husband's mistress! But there is one other thing. Warwick and a 'bastard son' King Richard are executed at the same time. Did John of Gloucester and Edward Warwick grow up together, or if it wasn't JOG was it another child of Richard?

I also find it rather odd that Anne Neville would appoint Richard's mistress as Edward of Warwick's nurse, so I think it most likely that Alice Burgh may have been an old family retainer who looked after a number of children in the family over many years, and that was why she was given such a generous pension (a bit like that Jacob Rhys Mogg's nanny).
However, that is an interesting note about the execution of John of Gloucester and Edward of Warwick. It is possible that they grew up together and likely that they knew each other, but I have always found Buck's reference here regarding the alleged execution of John of Gloucester confusing, as there is no reference to JoG being involved in any plots. As a known person associated with the House of York, I would think that if Henry executed him, it would make sense to make it public knowledge, firstly as a warning to would be conspirators, and secondly, so nobody else could impersonate him. My guess is that in this case, Buck may have got some oral tradition that had been handed down his family mixed up with Ralph Wilford. I'm still trying to find out more about him, but he was too young to be JoG. I wonder if he had been claiming to be an illegitimate son of Richard or perhaps Clarence, hence the bizarre references to the Warwick inheritance.
Richard only recognized John and Katherine as his illegitimate children, but can we really rule out the fact that there may have been others from that alone? We are aware of them because he gave them specific roles. If there were others, they may not have old enough for a position of such responsibility or Richard may have been less familiar with them. They need not have been born during his marriage to Anne, just probably between about 1470 and 1474 - still too old be Ralph Wilford though.
Nico
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:30:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.

Hi Doug,

In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.
Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.
Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.
There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.
I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

Nico


On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 17:14:56 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard...Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
That is a very interesting possibility and should definitely be considered since nobody knows for certain what Buckingham's intentions were. If there were problems with Edward V, he would have been in a position to know from Katherine Woodville why Anthony Woodville didn't bother to visit Ludlow or get involved with Edward V's education. This would have been known among the Woodvilles, but may have been suppressed at Court for stability reasons. If EV had an intellectual disability, the plan would probably have been to keep him at Ludlow among a closed circle, while grooming Richard to succeed Edward IV, either as King, or if EV was still alive as Protector. However, when EIV died suddenly when both boys were young, Buckingham may have seen an opportunity.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 11:33:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Nico,
Do you have the exact terms of Richard's call for assistance to Howard on 22 July, 1483? Was it an actual request for assistance or, possibly, something more along the lines of Richard wanting Howard to hurry with all speed to wherever Richard was? I ask because Howard was created Duke of Norfolk on 28 June, 1483, when he was also appointed Earl Marshal and Lord Admiral. Considering the loyalty Howard had shown to the House of York, I would think Richard just might want to make those presentations in person. As for that 22 June/22 July date, wasn't 22 June supposed to have been the day of Edward V's coronation? Perhaps the annotator simply presumed that if Edward wasn't crowned on that date he must have been dead?
I wonder if the scheduling of the dates of requiem masses for Louis XI and Edward IV weren't merely the result of what, when one forgets something, my sister terms a senior moment? IOW, it was expected that a requiem mass for Edward IV would be the first held in the newly-renovated Sistine Chapel, but whoever did the scheduling instead made arrangements for a requiem mass for Louis XI and, only once the arrangements were underway, realized that a requiem mass for Edward IV hadn't yet occurred and then scheduled one for after the one for Louis?
The problem with any signature of Edward V is that we really don't know how his days at Ludlow were actually spent. Did his tutor/s concentrate on ensuring that Edward would be fitted for his duties, or did they look n their position being more of sinecure than anything else. As best we can tell, Rivers, Edward's official Governor, didn't spend much time there and, while Vaughan may have been ace at keeping track of inanimate valuables, was he really up to enforcing the rules laid down for Edward's day-to-day activities? In fact, considering Vaughan's previous appointments, I wonder if his duties at Ludlow weren't more on the lines of security than anything else. After all, it was Rivers who'd been charged with over-seeing young Edward's education/training, not Vaughan.
Apparently St. Erasmus was also known as St. Elmo, the patron saint of sailors. The Wikipedia article on him ends with the following sentence:
Besides his patronage of mariners, Erasmus is invoked against colic in children, abdominal pain, intestinal ailments and diseases, cramps and the pain of women in labor, as well as cattle pests.
I think we can forget that very last as a reason for Elizabeth Woodville building a chapel to him in Westminster Abbey, but the penultimate one just might be.
I found another link:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Castles_of_England/Tudor_Castles
that has brick-making returning to England in the 14th century, which would be the 1300s, I believe. It also had the use of brick being concentrated in southeastern England so that would explain Richard of Eastwell being where he was.
My views on what happened to young Edward are that he survived at least until sometime after August 1485. He may very well have succumbed during that outbreak of the sweating sickness and, because he was in hiding, it wasn't possible for his death to be recorded as it should have been; viz., as the son of Edward IV. I also find it extremely difficult to come up with any reason for his death not being officially noted had it occurred at any time during his uncle's reign. Since no one ever attempted to claim the throne as Edward V, that tells me that either he died sometime before the Warbeck affair or else simply remained in hiding, preferring anonymity to risking his life for a position he'd decided, for whatever reason, he didn't particularly want. Unfortunately, neither case allows for an easy solution...
Doug
Nico wrote:
In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.

Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.

Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.

There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins.. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St.. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.

I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

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

Hi, when I was looking at various biographies of Sir Thomas Vaughan I came across the Welsh one. Here's the link below:
https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483

There are a couple of things in there that might ring a bell. Firstly, in 1468 he acted with Philip Malpas and William Hatycliff to take some treasure abroad. It's not quite clear from this whether he was acting on behalf of MOA or Edward or playing a double game. Malpas was of course the son-in-law of John Beaumond (chandler) and an Alderman of London and died the next year. As Edward secured their release after capture he seems to have gone over to Edward. So he seems to be someone who went with the flow.
Secondly in 1460 he had been appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Henry VI. Now you may recall that Robert Cosyn, father to Thomas Beaumont's colleague and executor, William Cosyn succeeded him as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV and was there until his death in 1486 (I think).
So Vaughan seems to have mixed in the circles of Baumont, Cosyn and, by default, Oliver King. Perhaps Richard knew more about him than we will ever know? H
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 13:14:07 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard...Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
That is a very interesting possibility and should definitely be considered since nobody knows for certain what Buckingham's intentions were. If there were problems with Edward V, he would have been in a position to know from Katherine Woodville why Anthony Woodville didn't bother to visit Ludlow or get involved with Edward V's education. This would have been known among the Woodvilles, but may have been suppressed at Court for stability reasons. If EV had an intellectual disability, the plan would probably have been to keep him at Ludlow among a closed circle, while grooming Richard to succeed Edward IV, either as King, or if EV was still alive as Protector. However, when EIV died suddenly when both boys were young, Buckingham may have seen an opportunity.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 11:33:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Doug, Mary, Nico, firstly we don't know when Sir Thomas was born, just that he was the child of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth. The first we hear of him is in 1442/3 when he received denizenship and a first appointment. So he could well have been born around 1420, not 1410, so 55 would be quite a reasonable age to be in charge of the young Edward's household.
Secondly, in one of his other works JAH goes into quite a lot of detail about the health of Edward's children. There does seem to have been some sort of 'faulty gene', since even those who survived into adulthood died fairly young viz: EOY 37 Mary 12Cecily 39Margaret 7 months Anne 36George 2 Katherine 48Bridget 37
Don't be misled by those historians who claim that 40 was old; it wasn't. Life expectancy was not a lot different to that in 1960, it's only in the last fifty years that medicine has made a real impact. As always it depended on environment, circumstances(war) and for women childbirth. If ever I'm able to upload my Bosworth list you'll see that there were men fighting at Bosworth who were twenty years' older than Edward IV.
So Edward IV died young, as did all his children except perhaps Katherine who managed it to middle age. EW's children by her first husband seemed quite healthy. We of course don't know whether this gene affected George or Richard because there were also definitely problems with Isabel Dispenser's child's fertility (Anne Beauchamp). So they could have got a 'double whammy', we'll never know.
So I think it is highly likely, given all the other evidence (or rather lack of it) that Edward V was not a particularly healthy child. For a start you'd have thought Uncle Anthony, that great jouster, would have had him practising in the lists by the age of 12. Yes I think Anthony was someone with a great PR Manager!
Thirdly the 'bricklayer' occupation could be a complete red herring. Let's say Sir Thomas Moyle, son of Richard's judge and commissioner in 1483, felt he needed some way to announce to the world that a Plantagenet had passed. He'd have to be very careful, wouldn't he? He had done well under Henry VIII and he knew what happened to those who dared to mention the HOY. A 'passing bricklayer' turning up by chance and spending his last days there would be a great cover. And also when this emerged he'd been dead for some time. So who could accuse Sir Thomas of anything?
Nico, in the Welsh biography of Sir Thomas Vaughan I've noticed something very interesting. I'll post it under John Bonautre. H

On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 21:28:21 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,

In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.
Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.
Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.
There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.
I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

Nico


On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 17:14:56 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.

Hi Hilary,
I'm really annoyed at Yahoo for deleting most of the John Bonauntre thread. I can still access the old messages on my kindle, but I don't have them to hand. If I remember rightly, John Beaumond the Chandler had a daughter named Juliana who married Philip Malpas and was about the right age group to be Thomas and Margaret Beaumont's great grandfather. Thomas Beaumont the Arch Deacon was a lot younger than Malpas, King and Hatclyf, but some of these families maintained their connections over a number of generations, and he knew (and was perhaps mentored by) Oliver King) Vaughan's wife was Eleanor Fitzalan, who was the widow of Sir Thomas Browne, who was executed in 1460. Browne was from Kent, with lands that later passed to Vaughan not far from the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, Spaynes and Wilfords in the Yorkist hotspot area. Overall, a group of families with strong Yorkist loyalties, but who later did well under Henry VII.

I will try to retrieve the old notes and see what else I can put together.


On Thursday, 24 January 2019, 11:54:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, when I was looking at various biographies of Sir Thomas Vaughan I came across the Welsh one. Here's the link below:
https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483

There are a couple of things in there that might ring a bell. Firstly, in 1468 he acted with Philip Malpas and William Hatycliff to take some treasure abroad. It's not quite clear from this whether he was acting on behalf of MOA or Edward or playing a double game. Malpas was of course the son-in-law of John Beaumond (chandler) and an Alderman of London and died the next year. As Edward secured their release after capture he seems to have gone over to Edward. So he seems to be someone who went with the flow.
Secondly in 1460 he had been appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Henry VI. Now you may recall that Robert Cosyn, father to Thomas Beaumont's colleague and executor, William Cosyn succeeded him as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV and was there until his death in 1486 (I think).
So Vaughan seems to have mixed in the circles of Baumont, Cosyn and, by default, Oliver King. Perhaps Richard knew more about him than we will ever know? H
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 13:14:07 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard...Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
That is a very interesting possibility and should definitely be considered since nobody knows for certain what Buckingham's intentions were. If there were problems with Edward V, he would have been in a position to know from Katherine Woodville why Anthony Woodville didn't bother to visit Ludlow or get involved with Edward V's education. This would have been known among the Woodvilles, but may have been suppressed at Court for stability reasons. If EV had an intellectual disability, the plan would probably have been to keep him at Ludlow among a closed circle, while grooming Richard to succeed Edward IV, either as King, or if EV was still alive as Protector. However, when EIV died suddenly when both boys were young, Buckingham may have seen an opportunity.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 11:33:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?

Life expectancy then was more of a lottery than it is now, but it is true that were a significant number of people who lived past 80, and many more who reached 60 and beyond. However, with no antibiotics more people died at young ages of infections that could be easily cured today so longevity would have been linked to a stronger immune system - something that Edward IV's children may have lacked. If you follow some of the family groups, there may have been a genetic predisposition to weaker immunity, possibly due to the inbreeding that was so prevalent with royalty and nobility. This was probably passed on to the Tudor line, with 3 of HT and EofY's 7 children dying in early childhood and another as a teenager. Of all the Tudors, Elizabeth I lived to 69, but all the others died at much younger ages.
Of the family groups, the weakest link was Anne Beauchamp's line. She lived to 66, but her mother and grandmother were late 30s/early 40s and her daughters 25 and 28. Margaret Pole was 67, but would have lasted longer if Henry VIII hadn't executed her. It is difficult to tell with the men in Richard of York's line as they didn't die of natural causes, but the women didn't fare very well.

Cecily of York was more robust than most of the group as she lived to 80, but none of her own children matched that longevity, although it is difficult to say with Richard, Clarence and Edmund as they died violently. Edward was 40 when he died, Anne 36, Margaret, 57 and Elizabeth 59. The main problem with Cecily and Richard of York's children was infant mortality, 6 of their 13 children died in infancy.. Richard and Cecily were cousins and that may have compromised their offspring, but it may be relevant that the 4 children conceived in Rouen all survived childhood. The other children were born in various locations, but only 3/9 survived. This could be a coincidence, but perhaps Cecily had servants who gave better care at this time.

Being unrelated does seem to have helped. Most of Richard and Jacquetta Woodville's children survived to be adults. EIV and EW were not closely related and had 10 children.. Of the 8 whose fates were known, 2 died in childhood and one as a teenager. Richard of Shrewsbury appears to have been likely to survive. These statistics were slightly better than average for royalty, but what they indicate for for Edward V is difficult to say. However, I do agree that he does not appear to be doing what would have been expected of a 12 year old boy from the medieval nobility. If he didn't have a strong constitution, he may have died of a fairly common infection, but he may have had a more complex condition. If there were congenital problems in Edward's line that caused the loss of Cecily's children, then they still could have been passed on to him.

Nico

On Thursday, 24 January 2019, 11:23:12 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Mary, Nico, firstly we don't know when Sir Thomas was born, just that he was the child of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth. The first we hear of him is in 1442/3 when he received denizenship and a first appointment. So he could well have been born around 1420, not 1410, so 55 would be quite a reasonable age to be in charge of the young Edward's household.
Secondly, in one of his other works JAH goes into quite a lot of detail about the health of Edward's children. There does seem to have been some sort of 'faulty gene', since even those who survived into adulthood died fairly young viz: EOY 37 Mary 12Cecily 39Margaret 7 months Anne 36George 2 Katherine 48Bridget 37
Don't be misled by those historians who claim that 40 was old; it wasn't. Life expectancy was not a lot different to that in 1960, it's only in the last fifty years that medicine has made a real impact. As always it depended on environment, circumstances(war) and for women childbirth. If ever I'm able to upload my Bosworth list you'll see that there were men fighting at Bosworth who were twenty years' older than Edward IV.
So Edward IV died young, as did all his children except perhaps Katherine who managed it to middle age. EW's children by her first husband seemed quite healthy. We of course don't know whether this gene affected George or Richard because there were also definitely problems with Isabel Dispenser's child's fertility (Anne Beauchamp). So they could have got a 'double whammy', we'll never know.
So I think it is highly likely, given all the other evidence (or rather lack of it) that Edward V was not a particularly healthy child. For a start you'd have thought Uncle Anthony, that great jouster, would have had him practising in the lists by the age of 12. Yes I think Anthony was someone with a great PR Manager!
Thirdly the 'bricklayer' occupation could be a complete red herring. Let's say Sir Thomas Moyle, son of Richard's judge and commissioner in 1483, felt he needed some way to announce to the world that a Plantagenet had passed. He'd have to be very careful, wouldn't he? He had done well under Henry VIII and he knew what happened to those who dared to mention the HOY. A 'passing bricklayer' turning up by chance and spending his last days there would be a great cover. And also when this emerged he'd been dead for some time. So who could accuse Sir Thomas of anything?
Nico, in the Welsh biography of Sir Thomas Vaughan I've noticed something very interesting. I'll post it under John Bonautre. H

On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 21:28:21 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,

In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.
Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.
Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.
There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.
I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

Nico


On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 17:14:56 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.

Could there be a connection to Stillington if John Newton is involved?

Hi,
This is a rather long article on Thomas Vaughan, but it covers what is known about him, including his links with the Brownes and other Kent families, the Woodvilles and Stony Stratford. It isn't certain who his parents, Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monnmouth actually were, but they they don't fit in with the Tretower or Bredwardine Vaughans, but I wouldn't rule out an illegitimate or distant link. I suspect they must have been of some significance, as Thomas was given prominent appointments quite early on.
https://meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/thomas-vaughan-an-intro
Nico
On Saturday, 26 January 2019, 20:22:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.

Hi,
In the Heraldic Visitations of Wales (p 44 and 106), Sir Thomas Vaughan is described in a footnote as the youngest illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower by an illegitimate daughter of the Prior of the Monastery of Abergavenny, named Prior Coch. If so, are there any records (contemporary or near) that say that he was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth, and did they actually exist? The visitation says that Anne, who married Sir Henry Wogan was his sole heir, but also mentions a son Henry/Harry .who used the surname Parry. I agree with writers who are sceptical that he was Thomas Vaughan's son, especially since Parry, means 'son of Harry' - ap Hari . Also, he would have been alive in 1483, and should have been Thomas heir, not Anne. Therefore, Henry Parry's father was probably someone named Henry Vaughan. That error aside, if Sir Thomas Vaughan was the illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, that would have given him the connections that open doors to the circles he moved in and the appointments that he was given. However, if Sir Thomas was born around 1410, he would be too old to be the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, so it is more likely that his father was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, making him an illegitimate half-brother of Sir Roger of Tretower. It is difficult to estimate exactly how old the Vaughans were, but Sir Roger and his brothers appear to have been born around the turn of the century. Judging from his timeline, Sir Thomas was probably born by the early 1420s. If Sir Roger of Tretower (d1471)was born in the late 1390s, then Sir Thomas may have been his son, but I think it is more likely Sir Roger of Bredwardine (d1415).https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/42https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/106

The relationship to the Vaughan family may have been a factor in his appointment as chamberlain to Edward V. While it is true that he spent most of his adult life outside of Wales, mostly in and around London, he must have maintained some links with the his family, which was a powerful one in the Marches and strongly aligned to the House of York. This may explain why Sir Thomas changed his allegiance even though he was doing well under Henry VI. It is also likely that had some contact with Richard of York and young Edward during his time at Ludlow, which would have coincided with Sir Thomas' tenure as Steward of Eways and Abergavenny in the 1440s. As Hilary says, there wasn't anything that marked him out as particularly capable or talented, but he may have been one of those people who went a long way with loyalty, dependability and charm with the right people.
The Hastings link definitely needs more investigation since it is clear that he dealings with him going back a long way, and his execution so close to that of Hastings is too much of a coincidence for me.
Nico
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.

Hi Nico just running off but yes ...


E 210/2694Description: Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
Date: 1477.

It's in the NA. H
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 11:55:22 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
In the Heraldic Visitations of Wales (p 44 and 106), Sir Thomas Vaughan is described in a footnote as the youngest illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower by an illegitimate daughter of the Prior of the Monastery of Abergavenny, named Prior Coch. If so, are there any records (contemporary or near) that say that he was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth, and did they actually exist? The visitation says that Anne, who married Sir Henry Wogan was his sole heir, but also mentions a son Henry/Harry .who used the surname Parry. I agree with writers who are sceptical that he was Thomas Vaughan's son, especially since Parry, means 'son of Harry' - ap Hari . Also, he would have been alive in 1483, and should have been Thomas heir, not Anne. Therefore, Henry Parry's father was probably someone named Henry Vaughan. That error aside, if Sir Thomas Vaughan was the illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, that would have given him the connections that open doors to the circles he moved in and the appointments that he was given. However, if Sir Thomas was born around 1410, he would be too old to be the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, so it is more likely that his father was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, making him an illegitimate half-brother of Sir Roger of Tretower. It is difficult to estimate exactly how old the Vaughans were, but Sir Roger and his brothers appear to have been born around the turn of the century. Judging from his timeline, Sir Thomas was probably born by the early 1420s. If Sir Roger of Tretower (d1471)was born in the late 1390s, then Sir Thomas may have been his son, but I think it is more likely Sir Roger of Bredwardine (d1415).https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/42https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/106

The relationship to the Vaughan family may have been a factor in his appointment as chamberlain to Edward V. While it is true that he spent most of his adult life outside of Wales, mostly in and around London, he must have maintained some links with the his family, which was a powerful one in the Marches and strongly aligned to the House of York. This may explain why Sir Thomas changed his allegiance even though he was doing well under Henry VI. It is also likely that had some contact with Richard of York and young Edward during his time at Ludlow, which would have coincided with Sir Thomas' tenure as Steward of Eways and Abergavenny in the 1440s. As Hilary says, there wasn't anything that marked him out as particularly capable or talented, but he may have been one of those people who went a long way with loyalty, dependability and charm with the right people.
The Hastings link definitely needs more investigation since it is clear that he dealings with him going back a long way, and his execution so close to that of Hastings is too much of a coincidence for me.
Nico
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.

Nico wrote:
Hi Doug,
I don't think you are being too inquisitorial. The more the facts can be analysed the better!'

Doug here:
My greatest fear is basing a theory a theory on one item, and then becoming wedded to it, when there really isn't much of anything to support it, so I have to be careful!

Nico continued:
The Tower: The idea of the activity around the Tower being low level makes sense. If there was major unrest, you would need more reinforcements than simply John Howard, and it would have been difficult to avoid wider reporting. However, if there had been some fires and people acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the Tower, then sending Howard to supervise the situation may have seemed enough. The question is, was it enough? Did someone eventually gain entry, and if so who and what happened? Even no rescue attempt actually succeeded, it would be safer to move both the boys at this point, possibly to separate locations. Croyland says they were in the Tower as late as early September (when Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales), but he may be wrong.

Doug here:
I can't find a date for the attempt to enter the Tower, do we have one? We know from other sources that there was an attempt to enter the Tower and that 2/3 people were later charged for it, does the date come from their trials? Because I get the sense, perhaps mistakenly, that the plot was foiled before it was put into effect. IOW, Howard was sent to London, not to investigate the aftermath of diversionary fires and a failed attempt to rescue Edward and Richard, but rather to investigate and determine who originated the plot. When it comes to the reliability of the Croyland Chronicle, I believe it's fairly good when it comes to actual events and only really slips when trying to report inside information that often appears contradictory to what is actually known of people's recorded attitudes/opinions. As I myself think the boys were at the Tower until after Easter of, probably, 1484, their being there in September of 1483 wouldn't be unexpected.

Nico continued:
The Anlaby Cartulary: You may be correct about this. The roll also records gives an incorrect date for Edward IV's death. Whatever the truth, the Anlaby Cartulary is incorrect, as June 22 is too early. Another (Middleton Collection) account states that the Edward V drowned on June 27 (submersum fuit), again with no mention of what happened to his brother. I think this account is following your logic and has chosen the date after Richard took the throne too randomly. However, is it possible that he drowned after falling into the Thames during a rescue attempt? I'm not sure how the accident would have happened, but could he have fallen while escaping a 'rescuer?' The 'rescuers' may not have had the Princes' best interests at heart, and Edward may have know that. Molinet's account does suggest that around July 22 (5 weeks after being imprisoned), the Princes were murdered and buried in the Tower grounds.

Doug here:
I've been operating on the presumption that, had young Edward died, there'd have been a public requiem mass. As there wasn't one...

Nico continued:
The Requiem: I wish I knew more about the traditions about papal requiems for medieval royalty. This is where Marie could have been helpful. If not the Sistine Chapel, where would Edward IV's requiem have been held? Was it essential to have it held asap after he died, or would it have been appropriate to wait for the Sistine chapel? Still, the date doesn't fit with the tradition of holding it on or close to an anniversary, but is in keeping for Edward V if he died on July 22. I will see if I can find out more on customs surrounding this practice.

Doug here:
Could the fact that Edward was publicly living in sin with what amounted to a concubine at the time of his death help explain the delay? During or prior to the rite of Extreme Unction, Edward would have had to confess his sins, wouldn't he? Would the Pope have the authority to ask the officiating priest if Edward had repented fully, with the understanding that fully included his bigamous marriage? Needless to say, it would take time to get an answer.

Nico continued:
Edward at Ludlow: You raise some interesting questions here. It is true that Henry VII discouraged jousting for young Henry VIII for safety reasons, but he was taught to joust at some point, because it did plenty of it once he became King. I don't know what age boys were taught to joust, but I get the general impression that since riding was essential and learned by a very early age, they would have been introduced to it fairly young. You make a good point about the archery too. The account did say that both boys were practicing, so he must have been well enough to get out and shoot. However, the author doesn't mention if he was good at it, or if it was more about Richard practicing his skills. I suppose it is possible that Edward may have been generally unwell, but could manage a few shots, or possibly he had a learning disability (anything from something mild like dyslexia to something more serious and intellectually compromising) that affected his writing and ability to learn, which caused Anthony Woodville to give up on his education, but wasn't that physically disabled.
I can easily see why Edward V was depressed while in the Tower. Confinement of any kind is depressing, and he had experienced a horrendous upheaval for a young boy. That may also be the reason for Dr. Argentine's visits. Perhaps he had to give him something to calm him down. Under all that pressure, he may well have had a nervous breakdown.

Doug here:
If young Edward did suffer from Attention Deficit Syndrome, even only mildly, his education wouldn't likely progress as rapidly as expected, would it? Even with the backing of the boy's father, one could push the heir to the throne only so hard  or so I'd imagine. The other possibility, of course, is dyslexia. This link was very interesting:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dyslexia/symptoms-causes/syc-20353552

Nico concluded:
As far as I understand, EIV and EW made a few visits to Ludlow - one when Richard of Shrewsbury was born, but not that many. EV does seem to have made visits to London, but how many isn't clear. I believe it is on one such visit that Molinet met both the boys, commenting that Richard was playful, but Edward seemed taciturn and moody. Maybe that was just his personality, or could it have been related to some sort of disability or illness?

Doug here:
Well, as the heir to the throne, young Edward would, more or less, be on display on those occasions when he'd go to London, wouldn't he? If he suffered from any sort of learning disability, even if only in a mild form, he just might find it embarrassing to be put on display when he knew he wasn't able to perform at the level expected. Could the differences in attitude related by Molinet have been explained by the pressure on Edward of simply being the heir to the throne, something his brother didn't have to worry about?
Doug

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

Thanks Hilary, that looks like the best evidence for Sir Thomas Vaughan's parentage. I didn't find a Monmouth branch of Vaughans in The Vaughan Family of Wales, which made me think that the Visitation story about Roger Vaughan of Tretower had some validity. However, it may not be entirely without substance. Roger Vaughan of Tretower is too young to be Sir Thomas father as he was still alive in 1485. However, Sir Thomas' family can't have been nobodies, so my guess is now that Robert Vaughan of Monmouth was an illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, and Sir Thomas was Sir Roger (of Tretower's) nephew.
I didn't find it in the NA, which search criteria did you use? I didn't find anything on them in BHOL either, so I may be missing something.
Nico
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 14:10:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico just running off but yes ...


E 210/2694Description: Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
Date: 1477.

It's in the NA. H
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 11:55:22 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
In the Heraldic Visitations of Wales (p 44 and 106), Sir Thomas Vaughan is described in a footnote as the youngest illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower by an illegitimate daughter of the Prior of the Monastery of Abergavenny, named Prior Coch. If so, are there any records (contemporary or near) that say that he was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth, and did they actually exist? The visitation says that Anne, who married Sir Henry Wogan was his sole heir, but also mentions a son Henry/Harry .who used the surname Parry. I agree with writers who are sceptical that he was Thomas Vaughan's son, especially since Parry, means 'son of Harry' - ap Hari . Also, he would have been alive in 1483, and should have been Thomas heir, not Anne. Therefore, Henry Parry's father was probably someone named Henry Vaughan. That error aside, if Sir Thomas Vaughan was the illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, that would have given him the connections that open doors to the circles he moved in and the appointments that he was given. However, if Sir Thomas was born around 1410, he would be too old to be the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, so it is more likely that his father was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, making him an illegitimate half-brother of Sir Roger of Tretower. It is difficult to estimate exactly how old the Vaughans were, but Sir Roger and his brothers appear to have been born around the turn of the century. Judging from his timeline, Sir Thomas was probably born by the early 1420s. If Sir Roger of Tretower (d1471)was born in the late 1390s, then Sir Thomas may have been his son, but I think it is more likely Sir Roger of Bredwardine (d1415).https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/42https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/106

The relationship to the Vaughan family may have been a factor in his appointment as chamberlain to Edward V. While it is true that he spent most of his adult life outside of Wales, mostly in and around London, he must have maintained some links with the his family, which was a powerful one in the Marches and strongly aligned to the House of York. This may explain why Sir Thomas changed his allegiance even though he was doing well under Henry VI. It is also likely that had some contact with Richard of York and young Edward during his time at Ludlow, which would have coincided with Sir Thomas' tenure as Steward of Eways and Abergavenny in the 1440s. As Hilary says, there wasn't anything that marked him out as particularly capable or talented, but he may have been one of those people who went a long way with loyalty, dependability and charm with the right people.
The Hastings link definitely needs more investigation since it is clear that he dealings with him going back a long way, and his execution so close to that of Hastings is too much of a coincidence for me.
Nico
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say, they were also the Talbots' lawyers. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:45:59 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi, John Newton was of course Eleanor Butler's brother in law once removed - i.e. his wife Isabel was sister to Joan the wife of Eleanor Talbot's brother John. The Newtons, or Craddock-Newtons, were Judges/lawyers who moved from Glamorgan to Yatton, Somerset in 1446. John Newton is one of the people who could have witnessed, or known about, the Sub-Contract. His family did pretty well under HT. Their neighbours, the Gorges, were Squires of the Body to EIV. Both families married Stillington's granddaughters. East Harptree, where they lived was Stillington's first prebedendary in about 1442.
I did think about the confusion between Roger and Robert, I have yet to find an eligible Robert. Like you I keep looking - and trying different spellings. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 13:25:51 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I was looking for more information on Roger Vaughan and Margaret Audley, and now realize that the 1477 Monmouth Priory defeasance can't be a reference to her, as she would still have been alive at that point. In the Calendar of the Fine Rolls there is a reference to a Writ of Clausit Diem Extremum dated January 28 1481 for 'Margaret, late the wife of Henry Ross knight, (late lady Powys); Southampton and Wilts.' She was married 4 times:1. Richard Grey, 3rd Earl of Tankerville and Lord Powys, (before 1458-1466)2. Roger Vaughan - until 14713. Sir Maurice Berkeley (until 1473; she is in his will dated 1473)
4. After 1473 until 1480/81I will keep looking for Robert and Margaret Vaughan. I'm going back to my earlier suspicion that Robert was an illegitimate son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, and Margaret was his wife, possibly connected to a significant family such as the ones just mentioned. I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:47:19 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say, they were also the Talbots' lawyers. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:45:59 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi, John Newton was of course Eleanor Butler's brother in law once removed - i.e. his wife Isabel was sister to Joan the wife of Eleanor Talbot's brother John. The Newtons, or Craddock-Newtons, were Judges/lawyers who moved from Glamorgan to Yatton, Somerset in 1446. John Newton is one of the people who could have witnessed, or known about, the Sub-Contract. His family did pretty well under HT. Their neighbours, the Gorges, were Squires of the Body to EIV. Both families married Stillington's granddaughters. East Harptree, where they lived was Stillington's first prebedendary in about 1442.
I did think about the confusion between Roger and Robert, I have yet to find an eligible Robert. Like you I keep looking - and trying different spellings. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 13:25:51 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Add to that the Vaughan connections to the Herberts, William Herbert, died 1469, was the son of William ap Thomas the founder of Raglan Castle who was an adherent of the Duke of York. In 1461 E4 rewarded William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronymic and after the decisive Yorkist victory( Mortimers Cross, Towton?)Herbert replaced Jasper Tudor as Earl of Pembroke which gave him control of Pembroke Castle. Herbert's mother was Gwladys ferch Daffydd Gam. Her first husband had been Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine and they had two sons who were then brought up alongside her ap Thomas/ Herbert sons. If Thomas Vaughan was an illegitimate son of this Roger Vaughan maybe he was in their company too. One of William Herbert's sisters married Sir Henry Stradling son of Edward Stradling of St Donats and Gwenllian Berkerolles, co heir of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. Also I think, though I am not certain, that Daffydd Gam's family married into the Turbeville family of Coity Castle. Added to that we have the possible connection of Matthew Craddock to John Newton and to top it all Tudor was brought up with the Herberts at Pembroke. As Eileen would say "what a nest of vipers".

Mary just found this. Yahoo had trashed you!!! Yes indeed! Absolutely it all comes back to Glamorgan, to Somerset, and possibly right back to Percy and Owen Glendower. Eileen's nest grows larger. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:09:32 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Add to that the Vaughan connections to the Herberts, William Herbert, died 1469, was the son of William ap Thomas the founder of Raglan Castle who was an adherent of the Duke of York. In 1461 E4 rewarded William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronymic and after the decisive Yorkist victory( Mortimers Cross, Towton?)Herbert replaced Jasper Tudor as Earl of Pembroke which gave him control of Pembroke Castle. Herbert's mother was Gwladys ferch Daffydd Gam. Her first husband had been Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine and they had two sons who were then brought up alongside her ap Thomas/ Herbert sons. If Thomas Vaughan was an illegitimate son of this Roger Vaughan maybe he was in their company too. One of William Herbert's sisters married Sir Henry Stradling son of Edward Stradling of St Donats and Gwenllian Berkerolles, co heir of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. Also I think, though I am not certain, that Daffydd Gam's family married into the Turbeville family of Coity Castle. Added to that we have the possible connection of Matthew Craddock to John Newton and to top it all Tudor was brought up with the Herberts at Pembroke. As Eileen would say "what a nest of vipers".

Hi Hilary,
You may be right about Warwick's mother and Thomas Browne. I haven't found anything that outlines exactly what he did to be executed. Does anyone know what the plot was about? An introduction from Warwick could have encouraged Edward to take Vaughan seriously and Eleanor Browne's network would also have been helpful. It never ceases to amaze me how incestuous everyone was back then, nest of vipers certainly.
He must have had something to keep in favour with Edward for so long, so either he was very competent at what Edward needed him to do or he had something on him, perhaps throwing in the right amount of flattery. I can see Edward liking someone who made him feel important. How many people may have known about the precontract is subject to question, but Vaughan does connect to some people who may have known. I always regarded Vaughan as spare part in a Woodville plot, but there may have been more to it.
Nico


On Friday, 1 February 2019, 22:31:29 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary just found this. Yahoo had trashed you!!! Yes indeed! Absolutely it all comes back to Glamorgan, to Somerset, and possibly right back to Percy and Owen Glendower. Eileen's nest grows larger. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:09:32 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Add to that the Vaughan connections to the Herberts, William Herbert, died 1469, was the son of William ap Thomas the founder of Raglan Castle who was an adherent of the Duke of York. In 1461 E4 rewarded William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronymic and after the decisive Yorkist victory( Mortimers Cross, Towton?)Herbert replaced Jasper Tudor as Earl of Pembroke which gave him control of Pembroke Castle. Herbert's mother was Gwladys ferch Daffydd Gam. Her first husband had been Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine and they had two sons who were then brought up alongside her ap Thomas/ Herbert sons. If Thomas Vaughan was an illegitimate son of this Roger Vaughan maybe he was in their company too. One of William Herbert's sisters married Sir Henry Stradling son of Edward Stradling of St Donats and Gwenllian Berkerolles, co heir of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. Also I think, though I am not certain, that Daffydd Gam's family married into the Turbeville family of Coity Castle. Added to that we have the possible connection of Matthew Craddock to John Newton and to top it all Tudor was brought up with the Herberts at Pembroke. As Eileen would say "what a nest of vipers".

Just read the Dictionary of Welsh Biography regarding Roger Vaughan who was executed by Jasper. It said that he had several illegitimate children and names some of them and gives details of Vaughan families they founded. However, it also said one of these illegitimate children named Thomas was long imprisoned in France and that Edward gave £40 towards his ranson. Now if I remember rightly wasn't that our Thomas? If so he could well be the illegitimate son of of Roger Vaughan who died in 1471. He also had a legitimate son named Thomas. I think that he was known as Black Vaughan.

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol

Perhaps we should also look at Adam Moleyns? H
On Monday, 4 February 2019, 11:15:08 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-TRE-1450https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483?query=gwallter&field=content
Hi,
As Carol points out, Vaughan can't have been the innocent victim that he is sometimes portrayed as, and must have had considerable involvement in the Woodville plot, most likely anticipating being handsomely rewarded for his assistance. Like Hastings he may have had good reason to fear loss of power and position under Richard. Since he and Hastings went back a long way, could he be the missing link with Hastings involvement in a plot that appeared to be for the Woodvilles' benefit? He may have been a go-between who was able to smooth over the longstanding mistrust between Hastings and the Woodvilles.
Back to his origins, his earliest recorded position was steward and receiver of Ewyas in the early 1440s. The Vaughans and the Herbert family were also associated with that area, so I still think he is something to do with the Vaughans of Bredwardine/Tretower/Hergest. The reference to the ransom paid by Edward does sound like the one paid for our Thomas, but he wasn't imprisoned for a long time and he was back long before 1477. I had a look for the reference in the Fine and Patent Rolls, but didn't see it. I wonder if this is a combination of error and fact. Same for the Monmouth Priory defeasement; ie. Robert should read Roger, and Margaret is Sir TV's mother, but was the daughter of Prior Coch not Margaret Audley. If not that, I still think they are closely related. The Stillington links are interesting too.

Nico
On Sunday, 3 February 2019, 19:02:07 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol

The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee...

https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-TRE-1450https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483?query=gwallter&field=content
Hi,
As Carol points out, Vaughan can't have been the innocent victim that he is sometimes portrayed as, and must have had considerable involvement in the Woodville plot, most likely anticipating being handsomely rewarded for his assistance. Like Hastings he may have had good reason to fear loss of power and position under Richard. Since he and Hastings went back a long way, could he be the missing link with Hastings involvement in a plot that appeared to be for the Woodvilles' benefit? He may have been a go-between who was able to smooth over the longstanding mistrust between Hastings and the Woodvilles.
Back to his origins, his earliest recorded position was steward and receiver of Ewyas in the early 1440s. The Vaughans and the Herbert family were also associated with that area, so I still think he is something to do with the Vaughans of Bredwardine/Tretower/Hergest. The reference to the ransom paid by Edward does sound like the one paid for our Thomas, but he wasn't imprisoned for a long time and he was back long before 1477. I had a look for the reference in the Fine and Patent Rolls, but didn't see it. I wonder if this is a combination of error and fact. Same for the Monmouth Priory defeasement; ie. Robert should read Roger, and Margaret is Sir TV's mother, but was the daughter of Prior Coch not Margaret Audley. If not that, I still think they are closely related. The Stillington links are interesting too.

Nico
On Sunday, 3 February 2019, 19:02:07 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol

Then add to that the fact that Stillington had a position in Mathry in Pembrokeshire and was connected to William Horton of Tregwynt, who married Joan de Cantiloupe and their daughter (or maybe granddaughter) Jennet Horton married Richard Craddock, who was probably related to John Newton/ Craddock. The nearest village along the coast from the Canteloupe/ Horton/ Craddock castle is incidentally Newton and is a quite old village with possible connections to crusaders and templers. Richard Craddock's son Matthew fought for Rhys ap Thomas at Bosworth and eventually married Katherine Gordon, Perkin Warbeck/ Richard of Shrewsbury's wife.

Hilary Fychan means small or young apparently and Vaughan is supposedly the the English form of Fychan. I also read on line that Vaughan originally meant younger. I was under the impression, from things I had read, that Owain Tudor was descended from Ednyfed Fychan, who was Llewellyn ap Iorworth's Steward. I also assumed from things I read that Fychan was his surname and then it became angliscised to Vaughan. Owain is descended from one of his gt grandsons whose name was Tudor though I think Tudor was his grandfather and that his father's name was Meredydd. So really he should have been known as Owain ap Tudor or more appropriately ap Meredydd. So going back to Ednyfed maybe he was known as Ednyfed the younger because his father or even grandfather was Ednyfed too and they needed to distinguish between them. So possibly Fychan wasn't his surname after all and it just means small or younger.

Hilary Fychan means small or young apparently and Vaughan is supposedly the the English form of Fychan. I also read on line that Vaughan originally meant younger. I was under the impression, from things I had read, that Owain Tudor was descended from Ednyfed Fychan, who was Llewellyn ap Iorworth's Steward. I also assumed from things I read that Fychan was his surname and then it became angliscised to Vaughan. Owain is descended from one of his gt grandsons whose name was Tudor though I think Tudor was his grandfather and that his father's name was Meredydd. So really he should have been known as Owain ap Tudor or more appropriately ap Meredydd. So going back to Ednyfed maybe he was known as Ednyfed the younger because his father or even grandfather was Ednyfed too and they needed to distinguish between them. So possibly Fychan wasn't his surname after all and it just means small or younger.

So if would seem that despite his service with Henry VI, Stillington had an affinity with the Nevilles. H

On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 10:51:35 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,
Yes TB is a typo, sorry.
Re the 600 livres, it definitely says that in the NA extract which I've cut and pasted below. I also looked for marks. But it could also be a typo. Newton was a rich man who built his own chantry but it needs further investigation.
Alice, Oldhall and Vaughan are a disparate group on the face of it. Oldhall comes from Suffolk, Vaughon from London and yet they meet up with Alice up north as I read it? And why just them, there must have been a lot of folk plotting then? As you say why are the main perpetrators omitted - though they are of course attainted later?
More work! H
On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 05:23:55 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and Eof Y and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas have been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.

Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and Eof Y and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas have been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.

There is one other thing which I was thinking overnight.
Mary mentioned very correctly the hostility between Thomas Vaughan of Tretower and Buckingham. TV Tretower was a great supporter of Richard. Wouldn't it have been a marvellous coup for Buckingham if he could manage to get TV Tretower's half-brother (or other close relative) out of the way?
From the death of Edward, things for Hastings must have gone from bad to worst. The sparse version of events of the journey to London are probably almost right - except Rivers was in East Anglia, not in Ludlow. So Rivers no doubt ordered our TV to head for London with the priviso that they'd all meet up at Stony Stratford. That would leave him and Grey free to 'deal' with Richard en route. Hastings, sensing Woodville ambitions in London and their request for troops, warns Richard. All going great so far. But then we have Buckingham, that Hastings could never have guessed about.
It would have been geographically logical for Buckingham to have joined TV en route - after all he liked a nice procession. So when he met with Richard at Northampton (which we know he first did) he could 'reveal' to Richard that he knew TV was part of the plot, whether he actually was (which I doubt) or not.
Then when they all get to London (or even before).Hastings finds out they've arrested his old friend TV as well. And the normally sensible and patient Richard has attached himself to the flimsy Buckingham, whom Edward could never abide. In the next month Richard begins to listen only to Buckingham and pour honours on him. Hastings finds himself more and more isolated, and I would think afraid. Perhaps TV has sent messages to him warning him to beware of Buckingham, after all Hastings is about the last man standing stopping him gaining total domination over Richard. So Hastings in desperation allies with what must have been a pro Woodville faction, (perhaps Morton had a fireside chat) believing that the true target was not Richard but Buckingham? After all, wasn't it Buckingham who again revealed the plot?
FWIW the bit I know about TV so far doesn't point to a plotter, or a Richard hater and I still want to know where the Precontract comes into this, which it did very quickly in the next day or two. H

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019, 02:34:31 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward.html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward..html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.

PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward...html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.

Hilary, thanks for looking that up. It could just be that the document made a mistake with Roberti rather than Rogeri. Is there a link where I could take a look? I believe Maximilian claimed a right to the throne through the Burgundian link you mentioned.

Nico


On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:08:15 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward....html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.

Hi Nico it's here!
https://meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/chapter-one-monmouthshire-wales.html


The definition of the original photo is poor so it doesn't blow up very well. I did find a deed this morning of about 1442 which links him with John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. In another one (I think it's a Henry VI Parliament Roll) he is referred to as Thomas Vaughan or 'whatever name he may use'. Certainly he appears twice as 'alias Llandaff'. I got quite excited when I found Sir David Mathew of Llandaff (who was also allied to the Nevilles and Edward's standard bearer) had a brother called Robert, but no son called Thomas I can find. Still hunting. H


On Tuesday, 12 February 2019, 10:55:36 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, thanks for looking that up. It could just be that the document made a mistake with Roberti rather than Rogeri. Is there a link where I could take a look? I believe Maximilian claimed a right to the throne through the Burgundian link you mentioned.

Nico


On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:08:15 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward.....html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.

Thanks Hilary, I must have overlooked that part when I read the article. It is difficult to read. I'm not great with Latin, but the writer here has translated armigeri as esquire. Google translate uses 'armour bearer.' Shouldn't it be armiger - a person entitled to use a coat of arms? If he was an armiger, then surely the college of arms must have a record of him. Is there any way of checking that online? However, I still lean toward Robert is a mistake, and it should be Roger or Robert is the son of the earlier Roger V of Bredwardine. Margaret is described as his consort? Does that necessarily mean his wife, or could it refer to a mistress? The Beauforts held Monmouth Castle and the Vaughans the land around it, so I'm still convinced he was from that family as he was associated with both. The author also found it strange that he would reach such heights with no recorded family, something that doesn't quite fit with the times. I'll keep an open mind and keep looking.
Nico

On Tuesday, 12 February 2019, 13:29:53 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico it's here!
https://meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/chapter-one-monmouthshire-wales.html


The definition of the original photo is poor so it doesn't blow up very well. I did find a deed this morning of about 1442 which links him with John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. In another one (I think it's a Henry VI Parliament Roll) he is referred to as Thomas Vaughan or 'whatever name he may use'. Certainly he appears twice as 'alias Llandaff'. I got quite excited when I found Sir David Mathew of Llandaff (who was also allied to the Nevilles and Edward's standard bearer) had a brother called Robert, but no son called Thomas I can find. Still hunting. H


On Tuesday, 12 February 2019, 10:55:36 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, thanks for looking that up. It could just be that the document made a mistake with Roberti rather than Rogeri. Is there a link where I could take a look? I believe Maximilian claimed a right to the throne through the Burgundian link you mentioned.

Nico


On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:08:15 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward......html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.

Hilary what an interesting article on TV. After reading it I googled the diocese of Llandaff. Now it is in Glamorgan as it centred around Llandaff Catheral, which is in Cardiff. However, in TV's lifetime it stretched from the River Towy, which is in Carmarthenshire, to the River Wye therefore taking in all of Monmouthshire. So maybe the reference to Thomas Vaughan of Llandaff is evidence that he was indeed born in Monmouthshire

Maybe the Matthews are related to Thomas Stradlings wife Jane Matthew, who then married Rhys ap Thomas. I think Coity is connected to Dafydd Gam who was the father of Gladys who was married first to Roger Vaughan, beheaded by Jasper Tudor, and then secondly to William Herbert. The Vaughan children and her Herbert children were brought up together. Just let me know if you need an help with Welsh place names and I will help if I can.

Mary

Maybe the Matthews are related to Thomas Stradlings wife Jane Matthew, who then married Rhys ap Thomas. I think Coity is connected to Dafydd Gam who was the father of Gladys who was married first to Roger Vaughan, beheaded by Jasper Tudor, and then secondly to William Herbert. The Vaughan children and her Herbert children were brought up together. Just let me know if you need an help with Welsh place names and I will help if I can.

Mary

Nico wrote:

"I think 'Groom of the Stable' would be someone who had authority over the other grooms, but he might look after some of the horses himself; same for the guards etc."

Carol responds:

I think the title for the person who had charge of the stables was Master of Horse, a position of some honor held by Sir James Tyrrell under Richard (he was also Master of Henchmen) and by Sir John Cheney under Edward. (I'm pretty sure that a loss of that lucrative post was his primary reason for fighting against Richard at Bosworth.)

In contrast, Groom of the Stable would, I think, have been a rather lowly and menial position (presumably responsible for brushing down and feeding the horses). Richard sent a message to Louis XI delivered by "a groom of my stable" as a deliberate insult.

Writing from memory so I'm not sure of my sources.

Carol

Hi,
Doug wrote:When I suggested EW offered her daughter twice to MB in exchange for the latter's support, it was because I couldn't think of anything else that EW might offer that would be taken seriously. If young Edward remained on the throne, via Stanley's intervention on his side, EW could then still renege, but it would be more difficult to do so if Edward's return to the throne depended on the marriage going through. Much, of course, would depend on how much support MB provided, and how determinant that support was in Edward regaining the throne.If Buckingham was involved in the August attempt, apparently the people who were captured and charged certainly don't seem to have been traced back to him, which is why I wonder if, at that point in time anyway, he wasn't yet on board? Morton, supported by MB, would be the most likely suspects in his subornation, though. The main reason I have doubts about Buckingham aiming for the crown supported by Morton and MB is because then the Woodvilles and their supporters are left high and dry with absolutely no reason to provide any support. Buckingham, as King Henry VII, would face the same problems from a legitimized Edward and Richard that Richard III would: they'd be the lawful king and that king's heir. Which means that Buckingham couldn't legitimize the boys' (and their sisters), thus negating the need for any marriage between EoY and HT. No need for a marriage between EoY and HT, then no need for MB to bring out her affinity and urge others to support the rebellion.

EW's main problem was that her children had lost their status; they weren't Princes or Princesses anymore they were a King's illegitimate children, no more prestigious than John of Gloucester, Katherine Plantagenet and Arthur Plantagenet. No wonder she was desperate to reclaim what they once had. I think MB's affinity was the real attraction rather than Henry Tudor himself.Would EW have reneged? Maybe, especially if Dorset was her main adviser. My impression of the Woodvilles is that they liked to centre power around themselves, and wouldn't like HT getting ideas above his station. I think MB could have predicted that and would prefer HT home and married to EW before she got involved personally.

Hilary's post made me think. What is the sources for the EW/MB conspiracy? Is it Vergil or Bernard Andre? If so, it may be part of a Tudor myth that has been taken for granted. If there is no independent evidence that EW and MB were actually plotting at the time, it does put a different spin on everything to do with Buckingham and the rebellion.
That is true about Buckingham having the same problem as Richard with regard to legitimizing young Edward, Richard and their sisters and how that would affect a potential marriage between HT and EofY. If Buckingham was involved in a conspiracy with MB, with the objective of him as King (I don't think he would have countenanced anything else), MB wouldn't have anything to gain from HT marrying EofY because firstly she would have remained illegitimate and secondly unlikely to be part of a powerful faction in Buckingham's rule. If there was a conspiracy between EW and MB, my feeling is that the marriage alliance was a fragile idea from the perspective of both parties.
However, since no rebellious activity could be traced to Buckingham until much later, then it is possible that he wasn't involved at that stage, and if the story about the EW-MB plotting in sanctuary isn't true either, maybe MB wasn't involved either and only ever did send support to HT. However, with Buckingham gone, it is possible that MB did see HT as a potential King by early 1484, and that is when the EofY alliance makes more sense. However, the prospect of restoring her legitimacy would by
extension restore that of her brothers, which raises again the fate of the Princes and who knew and did what with them.
Nico

On Monday, 18 February 2019, 04:40:44 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

I think you're mixing up the Stanley's. Thomas was sitting with his army somewhere, we still don't know where. William, already declared traitor by Richard was committed to Henry and charged as soon as he saw Tudor was in trouble. Had he waited a bit longer it would have been all over. And we don't know when Richard was unhorsed, maybe not until the Stanley men had reached the melee. But possibility of Richard being a victim of the French pikemen surrounding and protecting Tudor. A lesson from history Richard should have known as the pikes were a method used at Bannockburn by the Scots, and were not dissimilar to the obstacles planted by the English at Agincourt, both keeping the horsemen at bay and killing many.

Going back to Stanley. I doubt very much if he would have relished having E5 on the throne under the influence of the Woodvilles. I think that is why he supported Richard over the pre-contract. He would have probably realised that he would do better under Richard than the rapacious Woodvilles and Richard also gave him power over MB's lands in October 1483. That also makes me think that Stanley's relationship with his wife wasn't all that wonderful.

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul thank you so much! Yes of course it was William. Too often they are grouped as the Stanley brothers. So, as you say, we don't seem to know where Thomas was? My earlier bit about risk aversion included the way he dodged being associated with his brother's eventual fate and it seems at Bosworth he seemed to invoke the same 'magic' again. If either side won he couldn't lose.
I have never believed that Northumberland would desert Richard. If you just attribute his motives to ambition, then he stood to gain far more from Richard than HT, as was proved by his eventual fate. HT had to reward those who acted on his behalf at Bosworth and, as I understand it, Percy gained nothing. Somehow he was deceived into not being in the right place at the right time or - just detained holding the road and the message didn't get through.
I agree again about the reasons for the charge. Richard had had loss piled upon loss in recent years and the death of his good friend Howard must have been the final straw. The urge to take revenge then and there must have been impossible to resist but with awful consequences. Sadly one of the most dreadful mistakes in our history. H

On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 09:11:13 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

I think you're mixing up the Stanley's. Thomas was sitting with his army somewhere, we still don't know where. William, already declared traitor by Richard was committed to Henry and charged as soon as he saw Tudor was in trouble. Had he waited a bit longer it would have been all over. And we don't know when Richard was unhorsed, maybe not until the Stanley men had reached the melee. But possibility of Richard being a victim of the French pikemen surrounding and protecting Tudor. A lesson from history Richard should have known as the pikes were a method used at Bannockburn by the Scots, and were not dissimilar to the obstacles planted by the English at Agincourt, both keeping the horsemen at bay and killing many.

Doug, with regard to Northumberland, Some years ago Michael K Jones came to a Richard III Society Worcestershire meeting to give a talk. He had been a few years before to talk about his book about Bosworth. In his book he provided a map of the possible positions of all of the participants in the battle. this included Richard, Tudor and the Stanleys but did not have a position for Northumberland. He only gave possible positions as there wasn't any evidence to support exactly where everyone was.

Thank you Hilary that makes it much more possible. I was only looking at it on the map and have no idea what the actual area looks like. I will wait with interest to hear more.

Mary, I'm not Doug but I do have a bit of local knowledge. This is so very useful.
Firstly, I think it very feasible that Richard would have remembered what Edward said. And I think his first mistake was that he credited HT with far more courage and military acumen than he actually had. So I can hear the conversation with Percy - his well-proven deputy in Scotland - 'we'll split this Henry, you will hold the road to London. Tudor may decide to let De Vere fight me whilst he makes a dash for London. Don't worry, he won't have many with him - De Vere will need all the troops he can get.'
And Northumberland would happily go off to 'guard the road' feeling quite sure that Richard, with the cream of English nobility, would make a meal of the Welsh rabble - just like Warwick at Edgcote.
But this is where Doug needs to get out his ordinance survey and I need to do a reconnaissance trip.
I live four miles from the A5 and its Lutterworth junction. If I go south from there I come to our well-discussed Kilsby, Weedon, Towcester, Stony Stanton route. If I go north the Fen Lane junction is, I would guess, about eight miles up the road. Now the A5 in the Lutterworth area is quite different from that in Northants. It's open and undulates quite treacherously; it's a well know accident spot with blind hilltops and junctions near the brows of hills. It's a bit like the Grafton Road but with even more ups and downs.
Now my idea of Northumberland 'guarding the road' had him stuck almost by the battle site, like a security guard. But if he was on the lookout for Tudor heading south he'd need a good vantage point like the top of a hill and from my recollection the tops of the hills are closer to Lutterworth than to Fen Lane, which by its very name is almost certainly low-lying. So to get a messenger to him from the battlefield and for him to mobilise his army, even if it was only to go four or so miles would take much too long in the timing scales of Bosworth. Richard was probably dead by the time the first messenger reached him. He had heavy equipment and armour to mobilise; it wasn't like the Prussians charging in at Waterloo.
And, when he almost certainly heard that Richard was dead did he stay on that road, hoping that HT and his tired army would head straight for London? But of course HT once again didn't act logically, he thwarted this plan by going back to Leicester.
I think if you look at it this way it certainly makes sense. But I need to go and have a look. Once again, it's a road that's very near but not one that I travel north on often. Can our military strategists buy this? H


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 19:36:04 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, with regard to Northumberland, Some years ago Michael K Jones came to a Richard III Society Worcestershire meeting to give a talk. He had been a few years before to talk about his book about Bosworth. In his book he provided a map of the possible positions of all of the participants in the battle. this included Richard, Tudor and the Stanleys but did not have a position for Northumberland. He only gave possible positions as there wasn't any evidence to support exactly where everyone was.

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive. You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul,
Thanks for the correction! I really have no excuse for the mix-up as I now recall we went through this some time back. Yet another senior moment, I guess!
It wouldn't be so bad, but all my amateur psychoanalyzing of Lord Thomas can't be applied to his brother and has to be tossed. Ah, well...
I admit I didn't know that Sir William had already been declared a traitor! For one thing, I was under the impression he was considered the Yorkist Stanley, balancing out any possible Lancastrian sympathies his brother may have held. However, the tactics, I think, still apply.
Was Richard unhorsed or did he dismount when he got to the fighting? I've seen both and wonder if there's a definitive answer? I don't know if it makes a difference, but I suppose it might.
I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on the reason/s behind Richard's entering the battle!
Doug
Paul wrote:
I think you're mixing up the Stanley's. Thomas was sitting with his army somewhere, we still don't know where. William, already declared traitor by Richard was committed to Henry and charged as soon as he saw Tudor was in trouble. Had he waited a bit longer it would have been all over. And we don't know when Richard was unhorsed, maybe not until the Stanley men had reached the melee. But possibility of Richard being a victim of the French pikemen surrounding and protecting Tudor. A lesson from history Richard should have known as the pikes were a method used at Bannockburn by the Scots, and were not dissimilar to the obstacles planted by the English at Agincourt, both keeping the horsemen at bay and killing many.
In fact we aren't even sure Thomas was at the battle, apart from the story of Richard ordering the execution of Lord Strange for his refusal to join the battle. But I always feel that was apocryphal made up after. Northumberland the facts now indicate was being attacked on his flank by the French mercenaries, but got no orders from Richard to attack.
I have after many years come to the conclusion that things got the better of Richard and his charge was impulsive and not thought out and a reaction to the death of Norfolk and the seeming vulnerability of Tudors position. He clearly did not see William Stanley until it was too late.

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

All, thank you for the fascinating ideas. I love the parallels, and so much more.

From: <>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 7:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: John Bonauntre of London

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on.. MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth). Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...

Nico

On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?

I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive.. You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.

Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.

So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,

Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.

Nico

On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug

You wrote:

The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.

I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.

PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H

On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,

Perhaps if we look at this as not being one on-going situation, but rather responses to different situations as they developed?

The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

The second situation would have been after Edward IV's marriage to EW had been recognized as being bigamous and their children as being illegitimate. To return young Edward to the throne would require force and that meant the ante had to be increased. I think this would have been when EW offered one of her daughters to HT in return for his support, as well as that of his mother and, through her, Stanley. While MB herself wouldn't, couldn't?, call out any troops, she could encourage the members of her affinity to turn out. More importantly, if MB could get Stanley's support...well, we know he bit when it came to having a stepson as king, why should EW think it impossible he wouldn't bite at the chance of having a daughter-in-law who was the king's sister? Not quite as close a relationship as the former, but still not one to be taken lightly.

The October Rebellion had to have had its' conception several months earlier; it would take time to sound out people, make certain they weren't spies fr Richard and then recruit even more people. Much of this activity likely took place via word-of-mouth, thus making it that much harder to find any traces beforehand, but it also would slow down the rebels in their recruiting. And they'd need to be careful that their comings-and-goings weren't too noticeable. Which tells me that, likely almost from the day the Council, then the Three Estates, petitioned Richard to take the crown, EW and/or other Woodvilles were plotting rebellion. The question for me is: Did MB know about the plans for rebellion from their beginning, or was she informed shortly before Buckingham was suborned? Personally, I tend to think not and that's because of what was, and wasn't included in her Attainder. If she herself had participated in the plotting, as opposed to providing money and verbal support for a plot already in motion, there was no reason for Richard not to have included it in the Attainder. An interesting side-note, however, is just who did provide all that information to Richard? It sounds awfully comprehensive to have been the result of a lucky arrest, but maybe that's me?

At any rate, during the October Rebellion, it appears that MB limited her participation to providing money and information to her son, while possibly relying on the advice of Morton as to any further moves. If the marriage offer was also intended to bring Stanley into the plot, it seems to have failed (Although it may have given him some food for thought later on. Say, the early summer of 1485?).

When it comes to MB's actions, rather inaction, during the summer of 1485, I rather wonder if it's because we're still looking at the events of the spring/summer of 1485 as having their origins in England; when, in fact, their origins were in France? MB hasn't been noted doing anything in 1485 because, surprise!, she didn't do anything! You've already noted that very few people rode out to join forces with HT at Bosworth. If there'd been an English origin to his invasion, if he was responding to sentiment in England, where were all the gentry and nobles panting for his deliverance? There weren't any, of course. Tudor's invasion was, from top to bottom, a French affair, designed to further French interests. Actually, I don't think if the French cared one way or the other whether or not Tudor won or lost; they were banking on the disruption to English society any rebellion would cause. The famous oath Tudor took tounite Lancaster and York by marrying EoY, occurred while he was in Brittany, in December 1483 and is, AFAIK, the first recorded instance of a proposed marriage between Henry and EoY. Even so, I tend to think the idea for the marriage originated in England and was transmitted to Brittany by one of MB's postmen. However, if I'm not mistaken, it wasn't for nearly another year that Henry actually laid claim to the crown, his marriage to EoY to follow once he'd been crowned  or have I gotten that wrong?

If the story as currently known passed through the hands of Vergil and More, that would explain what MB and Tudor are presented as the prime movers in all this!

Doug

Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug/Nico re the supposed MB/EW co-operation there are a few things that really puzzle me now I've had even more time to think about it.

Firstly, as personalities they were complete opposites. MB was extremely intelligent, she wouldn't do anything without consideration and probably advice from those like Bray who were close to her and whom she trusted. By her actions after April 1483, EW demonstrated that she (and her family) gave very little consideration to the possible outcome of their actions; if there was a strategy it got lost somewhere. They were as much a risk as Buckingham. Yes, I could see MB and Cis discussing things, even MB and Anne Beauchamp, but MB and EW came from completely different backgrounds. It would be like old money mixing with new money.

But the most important question we have to ask is just what MB could give EW in exchange for that marriage. Yes she was a networker but the people in her circle were those who, mainly like her, kept their heads down. If you look at the Bosworth list there are, as we've seen, two or three High Sheriffs who could have been 'got at' but that isn't enough to mount any sort of military assault to restore the boys. MB didn't have troops at her disposal and we know that the key military men - Stanley, Howard, Percy - had pledged their support to Richard. It would have made more sense for EW to approach Hastings in the early days because he had the Calais mercenaries and garrison at this disposal.

Those who joined HT were in the main October rebels and these rebels, like Courtenay, Hungerford, Daubeny (and of course De Vere) had been rebels for decades and had no future in England under a Yorkist regime so to be honest, apart from keeping HT informed of happenings here and providing his living expenses, there's not a lot more that MB could have done. She wasn't the other Margaret who could have twisted Maximilien's arm, had Richard requested help.

To me it still has too much the ring of a heroic narrative - two mothers meeting together to rescue the fate of the nation.

The source is surprisingly hard to find but seems to be Vergil and More! H

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

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on.. MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth). Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive.. You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Have you read the Michael Jones bio The Kings Mother? I haven't, but have heard good things about it and his style is very fluent.

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on... MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth). Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive... You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Paul,
I read the Michael K Jones book about Margaret Beaufort a few years ago. If I remember rightly, the first half was more interesting than the second which was mostly about her charitable foundations. Overall it was good on facts and worth reading, but not particularly insightful about her personality or relationship with Henry Tudor.
By the way, I wish we had those French history programmes that you mentioned over here.
Nico




On Monday, 25 February 2019, 16:16:46 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Have you read the Michael Jones bio The Kings Mother? I haven't, but have heard good things about it and his style is very fluent.

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on.... MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth). Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive.... You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Paul,
I read the Michael K Jones book about Margaret Beaufort a few years ago. If I remember rightly, the first half was more interesting than the second which was mostly about her charitable foundations. Overall it was good on facts and worth reading, but not particularly insightful about her personality or relationship with Henry Tudor.
By the way, I wish we had those French history programmes that you mentioned over here.
Nico




On Monday, 25 February 2019, 16:16:46 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Have you read the Michael Jones bio The Kings Mother? I haven't, but have heard good things about it and his style is very fluent.

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on.... MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth). Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive.... You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico/Paul, it's one of my go-to books, though because it's co-written by the Archivist of St John's College Cambridge it does have a lot about her charitable work. I think it throws some good light on her later relationship with HT and her 'court' at Collyweston. It isn't so useful on the earlier period, her husbands and Buckingham. It does show her as far from the dour person she appears in her portrait; she apparently loved fine clothes.
Talking of her divisiveness, it continues at Cambridge. St John's of course worships her, whilst Queens even has Richard's boar badge on its paper dinner napkins and dining chairs. The WOTR have never stopped at Cambridge - which is typical :) :)
I agree entirely about those French history programmes. I started to watch a PBS documentary on the Medici and even they had the most gorgeous Renaissance costumes, straight out of the paintings. I think the rot set in over here on costume in the 1980s when the RSC decided to go 'trendy' using a strange form of communist modern dress. H
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019, 10:14:56 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Paul,
I read the Michael K Jones book about Margaret Beaufort a few years ago. If I remember rightly, the first half was more interesting than the second which was mostly about her charitable foundations. Overall it was good on facts and worth reading, but not particularly insightful about her personality or relationship with Henry Tudor.
By the way, I wish we had those French history programmes that you mentioned over here.
Nico




On Monday, 25 February 2019, 16:16:46 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Have you read the Michael Jones bio The Kings Mother? I haven't, but have heard good things about it and his style is very fluent.

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on..... MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth). Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive..... You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today.. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

The historical accuracy extends to their dramas too. There was a film about the last year's of Louis XI, le pouvoir fracassé (thé shattered power) in which the actor playing Louis was frighteningly like his portraits, and of course the costumes were bang on, and worn as if they lived in them. Filmed in the actual locations too.

Nico/Paul, it's one of my go-to books, though because it's co-written by the Archivist of St John's College Cambridge it does have a lot about her charitable work. I think it throws some good light on her later relationship with HT and her 'court' at Collyweston. It isn't so useful on the earlier period, her husbands and Buckingham. It does show her as far from the dour person she appears in her portrait; she apparently loved fine clothes.
Talking of her divisiveness, it continues at Cambridge. St John's of course worships her, whilst Queens even has Richard's boar badge on its paper dinner napkins and dining chairs. The WOTR have never stopped at Cambridge - which is typical :) :)
I agree entirely about those French history programmes. I started to watch a PBS documentary on the Medici and even they had the most gorgeous Renaissance costumes, straight out of the paintings. I think the rot set in over here on costume in the 1980s when the RSC decided to go 'trendy' using a strange form of communist modern dress. H
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019, 10:14:56 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Paul,
I read the Michael K Jones book about Margaret Beaufort a few years ago. If I remember rightly, the first half was more interesting than the second which was mostly about her charitable foundations. Overall it was good on facts and worth reading, but not particularly insightful about her personality or relationship with Henry Tudor.
By the way, I wish we had those French history programmes that you mentioned over here.
Nico




On Monday, 25 February 2019, 16:16:46 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Have you read the Michael Jones bio The Kings Mother? I haven't, but have heard good things about it and his style is very fluent.

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on...... MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth). Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive...... You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today.. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul I've found it on YouTube and have just watched a bit. It's brilliant - and I can actually follow most of the French - because they speak fairly slowly :) I shall continue! H
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019, 11:39:59 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

The historical accuracy extends to their dramas too. There was a film about the last year's of Louis XI, le pouvoir fracassé (thé shattered power) in which the actor playing Louis was frighteningly like his portraits, and of course the costumes were bang on, and worn as if they lived in them. Filmed in the actual locations too.

Nico/Paul, it's one of my go-to books, though because it's co-written by the Archivist of St John's College Cambridge it does have a lot about her charitable work. I think it throws some good light on her later relationship with HT and her 'court' at Collyweston. It isn't so useful on the earlier period, her husbands and Buckingham. It does show her as far from the dour person she appears in her portrait; she apparently loved fine clothes.
Talking of her divisiveness, it continues at Cambridge. St John's of course worships her, whilst Queens even has Richard's boar badge on its paper dinner napkins and dining chairs. The WOTR have never stopped at Cambridge - which is typical :) :)
I agree entirely about those French history programmes. I started to watch a PBS documentary on the Medici and even they had the most gorgeous Renaissance costumes, straight out of the paintings. I think the rot set in over here on costume in the 1980s when the RSC decided to go 'trendy' using a strange form of communist modern dress.. H
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019, 10:14:56 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Paul,
I read the Michael K Jones book about Margaret Beaufort a few years ago. If I remember rightly, the first half was more interesting than the second which was mostly about her charitable foundations. Overall it was good on facts and worth reading, but not particularly insightful about her personality or relationship with Henry Tudor.
By the way, I wish we had those French history programmes that you mentioned over here.
Nico




On Monday, 25 February 2019, 16:16:46 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Have you read the Michael Jones bio The Kings Mother? I haven't, but have heard good things about it and his style is very fluent.

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on....... MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth).. Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage.. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive....... You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today.. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Doesn't Jaques Perrin look like Louis? Pity you can't see it on a blu Ray in High Definition to see it all in close sharp detail.

Paul I've found it on YouTube and have just watched a bit. It's brilliant - and I can actually follow most of the French - because they speak fairly slowly :) I shall continue! H
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019, 11:39:59 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

The historical accuracy extends to their dramas too. There was a film about the last year's of Louis XI, le pouvoir fracassé (thé shattered power) in which the actor playing Louis was frighteningly like his portraits, and of course the costumes were bang on, and worn as if they lived in them. Filmed in the actual locations too.

Nico/Paul, it's one of my go-to books, though because it's co-written by the Archivist of St John's College Cambridge it does have a lot about her charitable work. I think it throws some good light on her later relationship with HT and her 'court' at Collyweston. It isn't so useful on the earlier period, her husbands and Buckingham. It does show her as far from the dour person she appears in her portrait; she apparently loved fine clothes.
Talking of her divisiveness, it continues at Cambridge. St John's of course worships her, whilst Queens even has Richard's boar badge on its paper dinner napkins and dining chairs. The WOTR have never stopped at Cambridge - which is typical :) :)
I agree entirely about those French history programmes. I started to watch a PBS documentary on the Medici and even they had the most gorgeous Renaissance costumes, straight out of the paintings. I think the rot set in over here on costume in the 1980s when the RSC decided to go 'trendy' using a strange form of communist modern dress... H
On Tuesday, 26 February 2019, 10:14:56 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Paul,
I read the Michael K Jones book about Margaret Beaufort a few years ago. If I remember rightly, the first half was more interesting than the second which was mostly about her charitable foundations. Overall it was good on facts and worth reading, but not particularly insightful about her personality or relationship with Henry Tudor.
By the way, I wish we had those French history programmes that you mentioned over here.
Nico




On Monday, 25 February 2019, 16:16:46 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Have you read the Michael Jones bio The Kings Mother? I haven't, but have heard good things about it and his style is very fluent.

Hilary, I think your updated versions of MB and EW are spot on........ MB was born in the wrong century for someone with her ambition, drive and independence. These days, I could see her as a successful businesswoman or politician. EW, on the other hand, I see as someone who gets on in life by marrying a rich man and promoting her children in the media. If MB was a future Margaret Thatcher (Theresa May is far too lightweight to compare with her), then EW would be Kris Kardashian.

Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating woman. I don't think any book has really captured her essence, and the Tudor matriach ideal also gets in the way..TV shows that show her as a neurotic religious nut annoy me too. The only images we have of her depict her as an older woman dressed like a nun, but would only have been relevant in the last decade of her life, after she renounced Stanley (a choice than I think needs further examination, as do her flamboyant confessions to John Fisher). There isn't much analysis of her life before the 1480s, which may do more to show us what she was actually like, but I would guess that people who knew her found her somewhat sharp elbowed. The marriages to Stafford and Stanley come across as very business like, even by 15th century standards and she doesn't seem to be the romantic type (nothing wrong with that), so her motivation appears to be self promotion. The marriage to Edmund Tudor sounds like a dark chapter in her life, which sounds like an arranged marriage by a mother who had her eye on a good deal, but ended up marrying off her daughter to a paedophile (I think the St. Nicholas story is another Tudor myth).. Neither Owen, Edmund nor Jasper Tudor were renowned for their considerate behaviour towards women, and being stuck out in the middle of nowhere with Edmund and Jasper in Wales was unlikely to have been a pleasant experience for her. I have never really understood why she left HT with Jasper and went off to marry Stafford only months after Edmund died, nor does there seem any reason for her lack of contact with HT. Perhaps her negative feelings about Edmund were reflected onto him and she rejected him at an early stage.. Little HT growing up with the Herberts at Raglan reminds me of those kids whose parents treated boarding school as a dumping ground. Of course, he was to be very useful to her later on...
Nico


On Sunday, 24 February 2019, 12:14:48 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree with all of this Nico. Why would you throw your loving son to the lions - Richard has to have been one of the most accomplished soldiers in Europe, which is why no doubt the French didn't like him?
I think if MB had been around today she would have been in politics and, like our first woman PM, quite divisive........ You would either agree with her moral principals quite wholeheartedly (and in return she would pat you on the back) or have her as just this side of evil. Interesting that both our women PMs come from 'religious' households.. I have EW, on the other hand, as someone who would have courted the media, preferably with a very rich and powerful husband on her arm. She would have loved the red carpet.
Quite frankly I don't know whether EW would have had the brains to draw on MB's qualities and as I said before, right up until HT was promised an army in 1485, what could she have offered other than the marriage of her nobody son to an illegitimate princess? By 1485 EW was a year out of Sanctuary, her daughters were at Richard's court. If anything, after Anne's death, her hopes might have been vaguely pinned on Richard falling for EOY. It wasn't unknown in Europe for an uncle to marry his niece, though it seems shocking today.. And if MB had been dabbling in real treasonable activities then I think Richard would have come down much harder on Stanley - after all in those days a wife was her husband's property.
So I think MB indeed supported HT by means of intelligence and money (by intelligence I mean spying) but I doubt she dabbled further with EW. After all, there was the unreliable Dorset to contend with as well H

On Saturday, 23 February 2019, 13:35:24 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary wrote: Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?

The MB-HT relationship may be something else that is shrouded in Tudor myth. She certainly didn't know him well; by 1483 she hadn't seen him at all in 12 years. HT fled to Brittany with Jasper after Tewkesbury when he was 14, but even before he left, MB had very little contact with him even by cultural norms of her time and social class. He wasn't that far away but she is only recorded as having seen him on a handful of occasions. She didn't bother with HT during his childhood, but were she and Stafford coddling Buckingham? Did she ruthlessly discard HT in childhood, because he was of no relevance in the political/social vision of the time?

When examining her motivation in pressing for HT's return, it has to be taken into consideration that it wasn't simply about a mother desperately missing her only child. Also, most parents would be horrified at the thought of their son, who was inexperienced as a soldier taking on a military leader as accomplished as Richard III, but she encouraged him all the way. This suggests to me that she wasn't the most sentimental of people, and her relationship with HT (and probably anyone else) was about what HT could do for her. Even when he was King, she certainly wasn't afraid of him, as her behaviour after Cecily's forbidden marriage shows. Was she contesting an injustice or just trying to be provocative?

MB's is a fascinating character and I think the Tudor myth of her as the devoted King's mother clouds her role and personality. She definitely comes across as pushy and ambitious - qualities that would have been considered laudable in man, but would have been spoken of very negatively in a woman especially at that time. Even Fisher could find her a bit overwhelming. When looking at her role in 1483-85, those qualities that she showed in abundance and changed the course of history must have been well known long before. If EW and MB were plotting in the summer of 1483, did EW seek out the most ambitious person she could think of and offer the one thing that could take her past the glass ceiling of being Lady Stanley, however gilded that role may have been. Whether EW ever intended to follow through on her promise is another matter, but MB was probably to clever to be caught out, and the Woodvilles may have underestimated her.
Nico


On Friday, 22 February 2019, 10:52:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug
You wrote:The first situation would have been when the Council took up the Pre-Contract for discussion. At that point young Edward was still king and what EW needed was votes on the Council against accepting the Pre-Contract as being valid. During this period, an offer to MB about HT being allowed to return without any conditions would most likely have actually been meant to get Stanley's vote and any votes he might being along. At that point in time, offering HT an unconditional return wasn't all that much, really. If, as I think entirely possible, the idea was to get to Stanley via his wife, we don't know if the plan succeeded, since we don't know what Stanley's position on the Pre-Contract was.

Trouble is we do know what Stanley's position on the Pre-contract was because we have Richard's own letter thanking him for his support and he, along with Howard and Percy were quickly rewarded before the coronation. It's in the Fine Rolls. I don't see him having his arm twisted by MB, not on a matter as risky as this. Stanley just didn't take that sort of risk, in fact he was very risk averse, as he demonstrated at Bosworth.
I agree with you reasoning in the following paragraphs, though I honestly can't see Stanley supporting a penniless fugitive; that is until it was clear Richard was going to die. Remember neither Stanley nor MB actually knew HT - his main influencer had been Jasper, not his mother, as was demonstrated several times when he acted contrary to her wishes after he became king. As I said in another post I wonder if she actually liked him; she was very quick to reverse one of his decisions after he died and he hardly radiated affection?
I just think this is another of the great heroic fibs which culminated in the Tudor rose being splattered over everywhere. But it was, as you say, propped up by the French rumour machine and their intended misrepresentation of a chaotic England under Richard's reign After all, they also down the line had to justify their invasion - which indeed it was.
PS I do hope you're able to watch Lucy Worsley and her latest series on American history's biggest fibs That again is very good at debunking what has so long been taken for granted. And that was nowhere near as long ago. H
On Friday, 22 February 2019, 02:36:35 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Chess was, I understand, supposedly a way to help one understand military options before and during a battle, but mostly before. The preparations before a battle were represented on the chess-board by trying to position your own pieces so as to limit your losses while simultaneously placing yourself in a position to either take your opponent's Queen or checkmate their King (once the Queen is gone, it's usually only a matter of time before the King goes). My knowledge of military tactics, I have to admit, began with my reading Churchill's biography of the first Duke of Marlborough. Until the advent of continuous line fighting, as exemplified by WWI's front that stretched from Switzerland to the North Sea, the tactics themselves hadn't varied that much since the first instances of recorded battles; the only difference being how well trained the participants were. In our case, the late medieval period, most fighting was still being done by ad hoc groups of men, whose leaders, while trained in fighting, weren't often also trained in tactics  that was something they had to pick up their own. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, you'll see that Paul has now clarified this for us. It was my fault thinking Thomas was there with William, when we don't seem to know where he was. Thank you for sharing your impressive knowledge on military tactics - they're a bit like map reading for me, but when you relate it to chess it becomes clear of course. Which is why I suppose Chess was regarded as a manly pursuit. Wasn't George an ace at it? I just have recollections (not personally) of Nelson marking out his battle strategic by lining up pepper-pots on the dinner table. I was always more in love with the navy I suppose. Too much Hornblower! :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:

Paul wrote:

Hilary, Chess was, I understand, supposedly a way to help one understand military options before and during a battle, but mostly before. The preparations before a battle were represented on the chess-board by trying to position your own pieces so as to limit your losses while simultaneously placing yourself in a position to either take your opponent's Queen or checkmate their King (once the Queen is gone, it's usually only a matter of time before the King goes). My knowledge of military tactics, I have to admit, began with my reading Churchill's biography of the first Duke of Marlborough. Until the advent of continuous line fighting, as exemplified by WWI's front that stretched from Switzerland to the North Sea, the tactics themselves hadn't varied that much since the first instances of recorded battles; the only difference being how well trained the participants were. In our case, the late medieval period, most fighting was still being done by ad hoc groups of men, whose leaders, while trained in fighting, weren't often also trained in tactics  that was something they had to pick up their own. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, you'll see that Paul has now clarified this for us. It was my fault thinking Thomas was there with William, when we don't seem to know where he was. Thank you for sharing your impressive knowledge on military tactics - they're a bit like map reading for me, but when you relate it to chess it becomes clear of course. Which is why I suppose Chess was regarded as a manly pursuit. Wasn't George an ace at it? I just have recollections (not personally) of Nelson marking out his battle strategic by lining up pepper-pots on the dinner table. I was always more in love with the navy I suppose. Too much Hornblower! :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

John Ashdown-Hill had some interesting ideas about the mass.

Indeed Pamela. It's very interesting to read the correspondence of these countries with the Pope. They really did treat him like a sort of earthly father to whom they poured out their woes, often in a rather childish way. So James III's take on the Scottish campaign is of course quite different to Edward's, the latter claiming that Richard nobly refused to allow any harm to come to Edinburgh because it was such a beautiful place. And the Italians were sure that, after Tewkesbury in 1471, Edward was going to invade them; though they never give a reason why. And of course the Pope agreed with all of them!
That's why I think it's so very difficult for English history of this period to be looked at in isolation, though some historians sadly do. H

On Wednesday, 27 February 2019, 20:20:09 GMT, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

I always think of the last of the Plantagenets as playing a three dimensional chess game with multiple foes, the French and Spanish, not to mention fellow Englishmen and Scots.
On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:20 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Chess was, I understand, supposedly a way to help one understand military options before and during a battle, but mostly before. The preparations before a battle were represented on the chess-board by trying to position your own pieces so as to limit your losses while simultaneously placing yourself in a position to either take your opponent's Queen or checkmate their King (once the Queen is gone, it's usually only a matter of time before the King goes). My knowledge of military tactics, I have to admit, began with my reading Churchill's biography of the first Duke of Marlborough. Until the advent of continuous line fighting, as exemplified by WWI's front that stretched from Switzerland to the North Sea, the tactics themselves hadn't varied that much since the first instances of recorded battles; the only difference being how well trained the participants were. In our case, the late medieval period, most fighting was still being done by ad hoc groups of men, whose leaders, while trained in fighting, weren't often also trained in tactics  that was something they had to pick up their own. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, you'll see that Paul has now clarified this for us. It was my fault thinking Thomas was there with William, when we don't seem to know where he was. Thank you for sharing your impressive knowledge on military tactics - they're a bit like map reading for me, but when you relate it to chess it becomes clear of course. Which is why I suppose Chess was regarded as a manly pursuit. Wasn't George an ace at it? I just have recollections (not personally) of Nelson marking out his battle strategic by lining up pepper-pots on the dinner table. I was always more in love with the navy I suppose. Too much Hornblower! :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug, are you using the Ambion Hill and Battlefield centre scenario or the newer Fenn Lane scenario for the battle? In the new scenario, if Northumberland was in the suggested position then he would not have been that far from the battle. That causes more questions though if that was the case and he was nearer to Richard why didn't he go to his aid? We visited the area with Michael Jones years ago and there is a very large hill near to the Fenn Lanes could he have been behind the hill or was he just hedging his bets like Stanley?

Hope all is well with your little furry friend. I wish I could find that map but I am writing this from memory and it was quite a while ago. Maybe it wasn't exactly across Watling St. I have looked online but there doesn't seem to be anything.

I have checked the Jones book and it is not in there. He came to give us a talk about his book not long after it was published and then he came to give us another talk sometime afterwards. We also met him at Merevale Abbey and had tour around the area. During the talk he showed us the map of a suggested possible position for Northumberland. I will contact Pam Benstead of R3 Worcestershire and see if she has got any old records of the meetings we had, they were usually reported in our Branch Magazine.

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 5:14 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

All. I had no idea this was so contentious. Certainly looking at the loads of maps Foard supplies I would say, as someone who deals in statistical probability and definitely not battles his evidence is impressive. And the positions are based on three maps of Foss. I understand what you're saying about artifact distribution but they were found only in the marsh and that's where I thought everyone agreed Richards horse slipped in mud? And on the evidence advice of Anne Curry?

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 5:14 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 7:16 pm, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Hilary but I remember there was quite a lot of controversy at the time because Foard just assumed that his conclusion was right and everyone else was wrong.

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 7:30 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 7:16 pm, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Hilary but I remember there was quite a lot of controversy at the time because Foard just assumed that his conclusion was right and everyone else was wrong.

Id look at Mike Ingram's book and maps in preference to the confusing number of maps in the coffee table Foard and Curry volume. Watling Street was the Roman Road that crossed the Fenn Lanes that crosses the battlefield below Darlington, where Mike convincingly argues the battle took place. Norfolk was lined along the Lanes with Richard behind in the centre on the higher ground, and Northumberland behind him. His artillery, still often more dangerous to the gunners than the enemy, and only really effective on close range, was positioned further along Fenn Lanes. Oxford manSuvrées his troops around to face Norfolk, with the marsh to his right protecting as he thought Henry behind him. His artillery were on behind him to his left, along with the French pikemen who would prove so decisive. William Stanley was behind the marsh on the slopes beneath Stoke .Golding.

All. I had no idea this was so contentious. Certainly looking at the loads of maps Foard supplies I would say, as someone who deals in statistical probability and definitely not battles his evidence is impressive. And the positions are based on three maps of Foss. I understand what you're saying about artifact distribution but they were found only in the marsh and that's where I thought everyone agreed Richards horse slipped in mud? And on the evidence advice of Anne Curry?

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 5:14 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry about typos. My keyboard keeps trying to put things into French and then my cat decided she needed to send an email too! Dadlington that should of course have read. Oxford manoeuvred his troops.

Id look at Mike Ingram's book and maps in preference to the confusing number of maps in the coffee table Foard and Curry volume. Watling Street was the Roman Road that crossed the Fenn Lanes that crosses the battlefield below Darlington, where Mike convincingly argues the battle took place. Norfolk was lined along the Lanes with Richard behind in the centre on the higher ground, and Northumberland behind him. His artillery, still often more dangerous to the gunners than the enemy, and only really effective on close range, was positioned further along Fenn Lanes. Oxford manSuvrées his troops around to face Norfolk, with the marsh to his right protecting as he thought Henry behind him. His artillery were on behind him to his left, along with the French pikemen who would prove so decisive. William Stanley was behind the marsh on the slopes beneath Stoke .Golding.

All. I had no idea this was so contentious. Certainly looking at the loads of maps Foard supplies I would say, as someone who deals in statistical probability and definitely not battles his evidence is impressive. And the positions are based on three maps of Foss. I understand what you're saying about artifact distribution but they were found only in the marsh and that's where I thought everyone agreed Richards horse slipped in mud? And on the evidence advice of Anne Curry?

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 5:14 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul sorry have just found this - Yahoo had trashed you again!
I will certainly have a look at Mike Ingram's book. It sounds as though they both used the Foss maps on the placement/layout of troops but Ingram is much more to the south west? In fact I'm sure it was probably Ingram who did the programme on television some years' ago. I have to say I don't really understand what Northumberland was doing at Sutton Cheney.
The other bit which sounds like real Tudor propaganda is that Norfolk was probably captured at Dadlington with his son by WS and then handed over to Oxford who beheaded him. That sounds like a replay of the Wakefield story of ROY and Edmund. What I don't understand is how Anne Curry, who is a longtime Ricardian, has signed up the interpretation of this. As I say in my other email, the political interpretation bits are clearly hers; there is a change in style. H
PS Hope you don't have a touchscreen. Cats can go to places on your PC you never dreamed of :) :)
On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 20:17:38 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry about typos. My keyboard keeps trying to put things into French and then my cat decided she needed to send an email too! Dadlington that should of course have read. Oxford manoeuvred his troops.

Id look at Mike Ingram's book and maps in preference to the confusing number of maps in the coffee table Foard and Curry volume. Watling Street was the Roman Road that crossed the Fenn Lanes that crosses the battlefield below Darlington, where Mike convincingly argues the battle took place. Norfolk was lined along the Lanes with Richard behind in the centre on the higher ground, and Northumberland behind him. His artillery, still often more dangerous to the gunners than the enemy, and only really effective on close range, was positioned further along Fenn Lanes. Oxford manSuvrées his troops around to face Norfolk, with the marsh to his right protecting as he thought Henry behind him. His artillery were on behind him to his left, along with the French pikemen who would prove so decisive. William Stanley was behind the marsh on the slopes beneath Stoke .Golding.

All. I had no idea this was so contentious. Certainly looking at the loads of maps Foard supplies I would say, as someone who deals in statistical probability and definitely not battles his evidence is impressive. And the positions are based on three maps of Foss. I understand what you're saying about artifact distribution but they were found only in the marsh and that's where I thought everyone agreed Richards horse slipped in mud? And on the evidence advice of Anne Curry?

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 5:14 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Paul sorry have just found this - Yahoo had trashed you again!
I will certainly have a look at Mike Ingram's book. It sounds as though they both used the Foss maps on the placement/layout of troops but Ingram is much more to the south west? In fact I'm sure it was probably Ingram who did the programme on television some years' ago. I have to say I don't really understand what Northumberland was doing at Sutton Cheney.
The other bit which sounds like real Tudor propaganda is that Norfolk was probably captured at Dadlington with his son by WS and then handed over to Oxford who beheaded him. That sounds like a replay of the Wakefield story of ROY and Edmund. What I don't understand is how Anne Curry, who is a longtime Ricardian, has signed up the interpretation of this. As I say in my other email, the political interpretation bits are clearly hers; there is a change in style. H
PS Hope you don't have a touchscreen. Cats can go to places on your PC you never dreamed of :) :)
On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 20:17:38 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry about typos. My keyboard keeps trying to put things into French and then my cat decided she needed to send an email too! Dadlington that should of course have read. Oxford manoeuvred his troops.

Id look at Mike Ingram's book and maps in preference to the confusing number of maps in the coffee table Foard and Curry volume. Watling Street was the Roman Road that crossed the Fenn Lanes that crosses the battlefield below Darlington, where Mike convincingly argues the battle took place. Norfolk was lined along the Lanes with Richard behind in the centre on the higher ground, and Northumberland behind him. His artillery, still often more dangerous to the gunners than the enemy, and only really effective on close range, was positioned further along Fenn Lanes. Oxford manSuvrées his troops around to face Norfolk, with the marsh to his right protecting as he thought Henry behind him. His artillery were on behind him to his left, along with the French pikemen who would prove so decisive. William Stanley was behind the marsh on the slopes beneath Stoke .Golding.

All. I had no idea this was so contentious. Certainly looking at the loads of maps Foard supplies I would say, as someone who deals in statistical probability and definitely not battles his evidence is impressive. And the positions are based on three maps of Foss. I understand what you're saying about artifact distribution but they were found only in the marsh and that's where I thought everyone agreed Richards horse slipped in mud? And on the evidence advice of Anne Curry?

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 5:14 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

No Summer likes the keyboard which makes funny noises when she sits on it.

Paul sorry have just found this - Yahoo had trashed you again!
I will certainly have a look at Mike Ingram's book. It sounds as though they both used the Foss maps on the placement/layout of troops but Ingram is much more to the south west? In fact I'm sure it was probably Ingram who did the programme on television some years' ago. I have to say I don't really understand what Northumberland was doing at Sutton Cheney.
The other bit which sounds like real Tudor propaganda is that Norfolk was probably captured at Dadlington with his son by WS and then handed over to Oxford who beheaded him. That sounds like a replay of the Wakefield story of ROY and Edmund. What I don't understand is how Anne Curry, who is a longtime Ricardian, has signed up the interpretation of this. As I say in my other email, the political interpretation bits are clearly hers; there is a change in style. H
PS Hope you don't have a touchscreen. Cats can go to places on your PC you never dreamed of :) :)
On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 20:17:38 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry about typos. My keyboard keeps trying to put things into French and then my cat decided she needed to send an email too! Dadlington that should of course have read. Oxford manoeuvred his troops.

Id look at Mike Ingram's book and maps in preference to the confusing number of maps in the coffee table Foard and Curry volume. Watling Street was the Roman Road that crossed the Fenn Lanes that crosses the battlefield below Darlington, where Mike convincingly argues the battle took place. Norfolk was lined along the Lanes with Richard behind in the centre on the higher ground, and Northumberland behind him. His artillery, still often more dangerous to the gunners than the enemy, and only really effective on close range, was positioned further along Fenn Lanes. Oxford manSuvrées his troops around to face Norfolk, with the marsh to his right protecting as he thought Henry behind him. His artillery were on behind him to his left, along with the French pikemen who would prove so decisive. William Stanley was behind the marsh on the slopes beneath Stoke .Golding.

All. I had no idea this was so contentious. Certainly looking at the loads of maps Foard supplies I would say, as someone who deals in statistical probability and definitely not battles his evidence is impressive. And the positions are based on three maps of Foss. I understand what you're saying about artifact distribution but they were found only in the marsh and that's where I thought everyone agreed Richards horse slipped in mud? And on the evidence advice of Anne Curry?

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 5:14 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Just re-reading Paul's post again about Mike Ingram's book ( I really must buy it) and his scenario is very similar to Michael Jones'.

Just re-reading Paul's post again about Mike Ingram's book ( I really must buy it) and his scenario is very similar to Michael Jones'.