Stillington discussion

Am I just being naive in saying that no matter if Stillington were present at the secret marriage to Eleanor Butler or not, the evidence he presented to the estates in 1483 was compelling enough for them to believe the ceremony had taken place and decide that the offspring of the marriage between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville should be set aside.Or am I just being totally partisan with Richard? :-)
Bale Paul Trevrbale.paul-trevor@...

Both!A J On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 3:19 PM Bale PAUL bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
 
Am I just being naive in saying that no matter if Stillington were present at the secret marriage to Eleanor Butler or not, the evidence he presented to the estates in 1483 was compelling enough for them to believe the ceremony had taken place and decide that the offspring of the marriage between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville should be set aside.Or am I just being totally partisan with Richard? :-)
Bale Paul Trevrbale.paul-trevor@...

Paul,
While how some of those in the
Council, the Three Estates and later in Parliament voted might have
been more a reflection of what they considered to be their self-interest, the
evidence produced must certainly have been convincing enough to sway the
majority.
Doug
Paul
wrote:
Am I just being naive in saying that no matter
if Stillington were present at the secret marriage to Eleanor Butler or not, the
evidence he presented to the estates in 1483 was compelling enough for them to
believe the ceremony had taken place and decide that the offspring of the
marriage between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville should be set aside.
Or am I just being totally partisan with
Richard? :-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul wrote:Am I just being naive in saying that no matter if Stillington were present at the secret marriage to Eleanor Butler or not, the evidence he presented to the estates in 1483 was compelling enough for them to believe the ceremony had taken place and decide that the offspring of the marriage between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville should be set aside.Or am I just being totally partisan with Richard? :-)Doug replied:While how some of those in the Council, the Three Estates and later in Parliament voted might have been more a reflection of what they considered to be their self-interest, the evidence produced must certainly have been convincing enough to sway the majority.Marie adds:Yes, there could have been a lot of self-interest involved, and there were of course plenty of people ready to rebel afterwards. But maybe they were not in the main people who had been in London and heard the evidence? But what is interesting, I think, is how reluctant many of those in parliament were to repeal TR without further evidence from Stillington. Taking the two things together certainly gives me the impression that the precontract claim was taken fairly seriously. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. Without absolute proof people will tend to stick to their preferred positions.

Repeal TR? Who do you think you are coming in here having murdered our rightful king, telling us what to do? Henry who?Envoyé de mon iPadLe 2 juin 2019 à 17:26, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> a écrit :
Paul wrote:Am I just being naive in saying that no matter if Stillington were present at the secret marriage to Eleanor Butler or not, the evidence he presented to the estates in 1483 was compelling enough for them to believe the ceremony had taken place and decide that the offspring of the marriage between Edward and Elizabeth Woodville should be set aside.Or am I just being totally partisan with Richard? :-)Doug replied:While how some of those in the Council, the Three Estates and later in Parliament voted might have been more a reflection of what they considered to be their self-interest, the evidence produced must certainly have been convincing enough to sway the majority.Marie adds:Yes, there could have been a lot of self-interest involved, and there were of course plenty of people ready to rebel afterwards. But maybe they were not in the main people who had been in London and heard the evidence? But what is interesting, I think, is how reluctant many of those in parliament were to repeal TR without further evidence from Stillington. Taking the two things together certainly gives me the impression that the precontract claim was taken fairly seriously. But it's all in the eye of the beholder. Without absolute proof people will tend to stick to their preferred positions.