June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.

So the individuals are:

John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)

Oliver King

Thomas Rotherham

John Morton

(I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support).

So:

John Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.

Thomas Rotheram Chancellor, Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.

Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.

John Morton I think we all know him!

Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.

In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns.

Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?

So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.

Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton?

Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what?

It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.

Any ideas? H

I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.

So the individuals are:

John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)

Oliver King

Thomas Rotherham

John Morton

(I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support).

So:

John Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.

Thomas Rotheram Chancellor, Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.

Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.

John Morton I think we all know him!

Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.

In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns.

Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?

So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.

Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton?

Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what?

It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.

Any ideas? H

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants.. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,

Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?

First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.

Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.

Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.

Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 1:34 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?

First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.

Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.

Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.

Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 1:34 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?

First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.

Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.

Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.

Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that
Marie:I thought you were probably thinking along those lines, but I'm afraid I have to say that, IMCO, the Old Boys' Network would be an anachronism in the context of the Eton of the 1440s. Eton was founded more than anything to provide a top-class education to bright boys from families who did not have the means to pay for it ("poor boys"), and at a time when boys typically went up to university in their mid rather than late teens. It took a considerable time (and, I imagine, monetary inflation eating away at the value of the scholarship) for Eton to become the bastion of upper-class privilege that it is today, more concerned with imparting group identity and a polish of a recognisable type than encouraging a really deep love of learning, and it is that privilege and group identity that the Old Boys' network is basically there to perpetuate. If you look at the Eton boys of the 1400s, they came from middle class, in many cases completely obscure, families, and were only there for three years or so before going on to King's College, Cambridge. Those who had really been in the same class as each other might have formed lifelong friendships in those brief years, or they might not; but Thomas Rotherham and Oliver King didn't even attend during the same years, so without that established Old Boys' network the possibility of tying them together via Eton falls apart.What I would concede is that a lasting affection for, and identification with, King's College, which both Rotherham and King attended for a considerable number of years, is very likely to have given Rotherham and King that fellow feeling, though again the Old Boys' network per se seems to me to be a bit of an anachronism. No, Morton doesn't fit with that, but he was working in the same circles as Rotherham and King, and he did have a link with the Forsters through the marriage of his cousin (?) Robert Morton of London to John Forster's sister Agnes. It is clear from Robert Morton's will that he and John Forster were good friends. And Forster links both to Hastings and the Queen, I believe off the top of my head. It doesn't have- or even want - to be a single family affair, which is part of the point I was trying to make. It is about bringing people together who all wanted the same thing and could reinforce each other's desires.

Hilary said:
As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings.

Marie answers:They may have been doing so, but I don't see the value to this particular crowd of doing that. Catesby profited from Hastings' downfall, yes, but this lot had nothing to gain from it - Buckingham had become the real power behind the protectorate and would surely have been a preferential target. And of course Hastings' downfall brought down Morton, Forster, King and Rotherham in its wake so if that's what they were up to they didn't think it through. Don't forget the Queen's apparent involvement. Hastings was losing out through Buckingham's rise and Richard's apparent tendency to listen to Buckingham, and perhaps Cardinal Bourchier and John Russell, rather than him, after all that he had risked. Hastings could well have been very resentful. If the inducements were large enough, he might have succumbed and 'crossed the floor' - his stepdaughter was Dorset's wife, after all. Or he might, as has been suggested, have come to fear that Richard might depose the young king. Or he might simply have disapproved of Richard's bid to extend the protectorship until Edward was old enough to rule for himself, thus perpetuating Buckingham's influence. We don't have the inside info on these people's lives and feelings so we don't really know.

Hilary:Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top.
Marie:Well, I also have on my computer literally hundreds of transcripts of wills that I've personally made; I'm not saying that in order to boast - it just happens to be the case. The wills project I'm currently engaged in will be the third edition of published 15th-century wills that I've worked on. You maybe haven't seen this sort of address much in wills because you haven't seen many Chancellors petitioned by testators. If you look at Chancery petitions, or any petition from people of lower rank to those of higher, this is exactly the sort of form of address you will see. Anyhow, it isn't a eulogy - these are only forms of address (i.e. "the full reverent father in God my singular good lord John Bishop of Ely" and "my singular good master Master Robert Morton Master of the Rolls"). The only reason I'm really bothered is that overstating evidence can lead astray


Hilary wrote:That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven.
Marie:Surely that is exactly what he thought? If RM was so keen to get their prayers it could only have been that he believed they would be more efficacious in getting him through Purgatory than those of ordinary mortals. After all, Bishop John had even been in Rome and knew the Pope!

Hilary wrote:He could have been their nephew - son of brother William.
Marie replies:Well yes, although he seems to have been rather old to have been a nephew of the Cardinal. I agree the whole Morton tree is complicated and could use some more forensic research. But Bishop Robert is generally said to have been the Cardinal's nephew, so there is also a bit of competition going on there as either could have been William''s son Robert. As far as I've been able to work out, the Cardinal had three brothers: Richard, who inherited the family lands in Dorset, William and Thomas, who was a priest at Ely. What I can say is that Bishop Robert, in his will:-1) left a bequest to Robert, son of his late kinsman or cousin (consanguineous) Robert Morton of London2) named his brother Thomas as his heir, and named Thomas's sons as Robert, John and John. According to the earliest family trees (which are unfortunately not quite early enough to be wholly reliable),Thomas and Bishop Robert were the sons of the Cardinal's brother William. And Cardinal Morton named in his will:1) His brother Richard's sons John and William2) As residual legatee of his lands in the Home Counties only (and I stress only those lands), if brother Richard's line should fail, he named Robert son of Robert Morton. I've always found this a little puzzling, but I now think this is Robert Jr. of London again. So I don't think that Robert of London was a nephew, but I do think he could have been a first cousin. The Cardinal and his siblings are said to have been sons of a Richard Morton, and it seems quite possible that this Richard had had a brother. But it needs more investigation.
Now really must draw a line and go awayMarie
------------------

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Marie, I'll reply in more detail when I've digested all your reply. But when you say about them having a coffee morning or whatever I exactly agree - they are a most unusual group. That was my point.
Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that
As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings. Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top. That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven. He could have been their nephew - son of brother William. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 1:34 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?

First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.

Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.

Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.

Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------

---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi,
Hilary, great to return to a fascinating post with so much food for thought!

My instinct is that Forster, King, Rotherham and Morton all saw better opportunities under Edward V. Under a boy King, it was more likely that appointments would maintain a status quo from his father's reign. Richard had his own established loyalties in the North and some reshuffling would be inevitable.

Rotherham's loyalties were clear when he gave EW the great seal. Until now, I hadn't been aware of the significance Luton Guild, but it covers an area that is very close to Grafton, Stony Stratford and Woodville territory. If the members are local gentry and merchants, many would have Woodville links. Berkhampstead Castle is in the general area, and many of Cecily's servants would have been drawn from that group, as were the Barley family (associated by marriage with Sir Robert Clifford) and others later caught up in the Warbeck rebellion. Are there any online records for the Guild? I can only find references to the artwork and a book with records from 1526? As far as Rotherham was concerned, given his connection to Luton, he would not just have been familiar with EW and the Woodvilles, but was also in a position to draw support from families in the Guild with Woodville leanings.
Forster's motivation was likely similar to Rotherham. He needed to keep his position, and as EW's treasurer his loyalty would without doubt be to her.
Oliver King is less obvious, but he having been EIV's French secretary, he had every reason to prefer the status quo and it was reasonably foreseeable that Richard might replace him. The interests of the London merchants may have been particularly relevant to him and Forster.

Morton is the most complex and it follows that he could have seen limitless opportunities in Edward V's minority, but I he also comes across as a sociopath (the high functioning, non criminal variety) - someone who isn't just ambitious, but enjoys shaking things up and manipulating other people to achieve his own ends. Hastings link to the group isn't obvious, but if anyone could manoeuvre Hastings into a plot that would benefit an old enemy, it was probably Morton - not just exploiting Hasting's fear of loss of position, but also suggesting that there was a plot against him from someone such as Buckingham.
The reference to the seance is very interesting. Some things in it were very off in that account, but others like Richard's injuries were uncanny. When I read the book years ago, I wasn't so convinced of a corrupt church being at the centre of of the mystery of the fate of the Princes, but looking at King's and Morton's progress under Henry VII, I can see where the idea fits. They certainly found a vehicle for their ambitions with him. Also, the medium said that a woman was involved. The only woman I can think of was MB. Is their anyway she fits in with these four? She had lands in Bedfordshire; did she have links to the Luton Guild? Could it have been a situation where initially the conspiracy was in favour of EV, but after the Tower plot failed, Morton turned his attentions to MB, Buckingham and eventually HT. If so, I wonder at which point they switched their loyalty and for what reason. If EV was killed in the Tower raid or died around the time J-AH suggested, they may have needed another direction. One thing that didn't fit was the inaccurate physical description of Morton, but does anyone know what King looked like?

I'm still looking at the Beaumonts/Spaynes etc

Nico






On Tuesday, 3 September 2019, 10:59:15 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants.. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.

I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50

As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.

Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).

I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".

I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.

I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).

As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.

Best,

Marie

Hi just a quick intervention on Emma Spayne to save you chasing false leads. Do you remember that I found she was a Londoner and a widow by looking in the Common Pleas index on the AALT website? She was suing with her son Thomas Beamond as a widow in 1500.

Marie

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:35 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi just a quick intervention on Emma Spayne to save you chasing false leads. Do you remember that I found she was a Londoner and a widow by looking in the Common Pleas index on the AALT website? She was suing with her son Thomas Beamond as a widow in 1500.

Marie

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:39 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

Yes he did! And according to Johnson (sorry) wantedvto spend a fortune on the place

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:39 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious with some of this, but not knowing where you got lost I thought I'd better start at the start.

The way to find the index to the Common Pleas Rolls on the AALT website is to click "Enter Site", then click on the name of the king whose reign you're interested in, in the left-hand column.

You will then get a page with columns for lots of different classes of document for different dates in the reign. Amongst these is a column headed "Common Pleas Plea Rolls", in which column all the file names start "CP 40".

To get into the modern index for the Common Pleas files, click on [Mod IDX] anywhere you see it in that column. That takes you to the contents list for the index, which has thus far been done for roughly one law term in eight.

Once into the Index list, scroll down to the year 1500, where you will find the index to CP 40/951 (which is the file for Hilary term 1500).

Now you have found your post, click on one of the "sorted by. . ." options underneath the heading (not on the heading above them - that will take you straight back to the main page). Any of the "sorted by" lists will find you Emma Spayne if you use the Find option on your toolbar.

The other way to do it is to click on "Sorted by Plaintiff" and then scroll down to S.

You will find "Spayne, Emma, widow; Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing a London brewer, with a reference of d842. That means it's on image number 842 amongst the dorses of the file in question.

But two items above that there are "Sp--- Emma, widow, Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing the same person. Clearly Emma Spayne again. That reference is f50, i.e. image no 50 amongst the fronts.

Now, to find the actual cases, you go back to the main page, scroll down to year 1500 and click on CP 40/951.

You will then be given a choice of fronts and dorses. Click on fronts, then on image 0050 and you should be on to the page in which Emma appears with her name is partly obscured.

Come out of fronts and into dorses, scroll straight down to the bottom of the page, click the forward arrow and keep going till you reach the page with image 842.

Once you've got the idea, you can have great fun searching for more references in other years, or for references to just about anybody you can think of.

Now, can I make a small charge for this - maybe the reference for Nedeham being granted custody of the King brothers?

Marie

Hi Hilary,

https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136
The Beaumont/Beaumonds and Spaynes are certainly painstaking research. I found a few Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/Berkshire families in the visitations and rolls, but nothing that specifically pins down exactly who Thomas and Margaret's father was, but I keep coming back to it. I think they are of the same family as the London Thomas and John. Estimating the age group of John Spayne and Thomas Beaumond in the commitment entry of 1396 they could be great or great great grandparents of Thomas and Margaret. Possibly there was intermarriage between the families of over several generations. Clearly both families had some local status.

That is an interesting observation about the lack of prayers for Thomas Beaumond's father. If Emme Spayne was described as widow in the common pleas, Mr.Beaumond must be long dead, presuming that Mr. Spayne was a subsequent husband of Emme's.As far as I know, medieval women took the name of their husbands, but was it always the case? I'm no expert on medieval wills, but from the ones I have read, prayers for deceased close relatives do appear standard in wills from that time. Even if Mr. Beaumond died when his children were young, it would still be a courtesy to ask for prayers for him. Would ignoring your parents in a will be a grave insult to them, suggesting some sort of animosity? Could the Thomas and Margaret have been illegitimate? Perhaps Emme was born a Beaumond and the children had her name then she married Mr. Spayne - just a thought. Oliver King is mentioned in the will. Could have have been his father, not just a mentor? If his was the son of a priest that may have been a reason to keep things quiet.
Nico


Hilary wrote: Hi Nico good to have you back.
Where I've got with the Beaumonds is this.We now know that there were Beaumonds in Oxfordshire from before 1186 and that their principal lands were in Devon. They were the ancestors of the main Devon branch and as far as I can see unrelated to the Lords Beaumont, who came later. These Beaumonds in Oxfordshire/Bedfordshire held land from the Grelles - later Gresleys. Now they were still there in the fourteenth century because they are on the local land/tax returns.We next have the Fine Rolls entry of 1396 referring to Thomas Beaumond of Bedfordshire and John Spaigne which I sent earlier:https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero11greauoft/page/198Spaigne appears in the same Rolls as 'of Bedfordshire' and 'of Hertfordshire' and seems to have been a favourite of Richard II. A John Beaumond appears in the tax rolls for Oxfordshire in the 1390s. Now we know that Salter Thomas came from Watlington - his parents were buried there and he is almost certainly related to Chandler John because they all move in the same circles - Forster, Malpas, Wyche, Cooke and Salter Thomas, like John, is very rich. I've managed to trace his kinsman Richard, almost certainly a descandent of Chandler John and he is a Pinner in London. There is a Richard senior and junior. Theres also a William Beaumond who sat on an IPM jury in London in the 1490s.
Re the Spaigne/Spaynes, I had a thought. Emme Spayne is not referred to as a widow in Thomas's will. Was there any chance her husband might have died later and left a will? There is a Richard Spayne who died in Luton in 1520 and he had a wife (unfortunately unnamed) who pre-deceased him. He was clearly connected with the Guild because his daughter married one of it's officials, William Dermer and there are several Spaynes in the Luton Guild (I had the book and didn't realise it) until it ceased in the 1540s. Unforuntately, records don't start till 1526, but there are books of transcribed Bedfordshire wills dating from 1495. One will is the will of William Bemond but it's proving hard to get as the Bedfordshire Record lot are volunteers and need things like cheques with a 6 week delay. There are payments to the Beamonds in the Guild but only a couple, which are for the 'Bemond Mummers'.
I also looked for other Spaynes in the region. One was William Spayne of Norwood London who died before 1499 and had a wife Ellizabeth from Brookmead Bedfordshire. They might have been Richard Spayne's parents. There's also a John Spayne of Buntingford Herts, probably William's brother, who died in 1465 and left a will. He had no children. The earliest Spayne I can find in Hertfordshire so far is Michael of Royston who died after 1364.
If you go back to the Richard II FR, Spayne is named with John Walden. The Waldens also came from London and Herts and are related to the Barleys. And of course the Rotherhams remained as overlords in Luton for nearly another century.
Finally, I think Thomas Beaumond's will is a bit strange - I'd be glad of Marie's opinion. You see nearly all wills of the period, and particularly those of clergymen, call for masses for dead parents and siblings. That's how we got at the parentage of Salter Thomas. Thomas's mother is of course still alive as is, presumably, sister Brampton (though he doesn't give her first name). But he doesn't ask for prayers for his father, or any other dead siblings does he? Or indeed any other relatives at all or any places that he came from, other than via his 'job'. Have I missed something?

On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 18:03:10 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes he did! And according to Johnson (sorry) wantedvto spend a fortune on the place

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:39 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

0 Nov., 23 Henry VI. [A.D. 1444], came Richard Nedham, John Sturgeon, Thomas Bernard, Thomas Batayle, "Agustine" Stratton, John Harowe, and John Chirche into the Court of the lord the King, in the Chamber of the Guildhall, before Henry Frowyk, the Mayor, and the Aldermen, and entered into bond with John Chichele, the Chamberlain, in the sum of 500 marks.

¶The same day the guardianship of Hugh, Alexander, Elianora, Oliver, and Elizabeth, children of John Kyng, late tailor, together with their patrimony, committed by Henry Frowyk, the Mayor, the Aldermen, and Chamberlain to the above Richard Nedham (who married the mother of the said orphans), on his finding the above security.

Sorry I said yesterday that Oliver was not of age by 1450. In fact he was by 1451 because he and Alexander are mentioned in a deed then. I'd still put their DOBs in the 1430s though. Alexander of course became an Archdeacon. John King the younger is mentioned in some of the debt lawsuits below with Nedeham and his wife so he could have been over 21 when patronage of the others was granted to Nedeham. Alexander of course became an Archdeacon and was alive in 1486.
John King was also known as John Beket viz:
'C 4/49/5Description: John Beket as John Kyng of London, tailor, concerning certain goods of Christiane, daughter of the late John Weber of Salop: agreement made in chancery
Date of document: 16 Hen VI
Date: 1437 Sep 1 - 1438 Aug 31Held by: The National Archives, Kew'
I have done a lot of work on King and the Beaumonds and have several other references. I don't think John King was a poor tailor. Nedeham and his widow were chasing quite substantial monies owed in the courts for quite a time after his death. He could even have been tailor to the Court. His daughter did after all marry the Keeper of the Great Wardrobe.
Hope this helps. Thanks again. H


On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 22:35:50 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious with some of this, but not knowing where you got lost I thought I'd better start at the start.

The way to find the index to the Common Pleas Rolls on the AALT website is to click "Enter Site", then click on the name of the king whose reign you're interested in, in the left-hand column.

You will then get a page with columns for lots of different classes of document for different dates in the reign. Amongst these is a column headed "Common Pleas Plea Rolls", in which column all the file names start "CP 40".

To get into the modern index for the Common Pleas files, click on [Mod IDX] anywhere you see it in that column. That takes you to the contents list for the index, which has thus far been done for roughly one law term in eight.

Once into the Index list, scroll down to the year 1500, where you will find the index to CP 40/951 (which is the file for Hilary term 1500).

Now you have found your post, click on one of the "sorted by. . ." options underneath the heading (not on the heading above them - that will take you straight back to the main page). Any of the "sorted by" lists will find you Emma Spayne if you use the Find option on your toolbar.

The other way to do it is to click on "Sorted by Plaintiff" and then scroll down to S.

You will find "Spayne, Emma, widow; Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing a London brewer, with a reference of d842. That means it's on image number 842 amongst the dorses of the file in question.

But two items above that there are "Sp--- Emma, widow, Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing the same person. Clearly Emma Spayne again. That reference is f50, i.e. image no 50 amongst the fronts.

Now, to find the actual cases, you go back to the main page, scroll down to year 1500 and click on CP 40/951.

You will then be given a choice of fronts and dorses. Click on fronts, then on image 0050 and you should be on to the page in which Emma appears with her name is partly obscured.

Come out of fronts and into dorses, scroll straight down to the bottom of the page, click the forward arrow and keep going till you reach the page with image 842.

Once you've got the idea, you can have great fun searching for more references in other years, or for references to just about anybody you can think of.

Now, can I make a small charge for this - maybe the reference for Nedeham being granted custody of the King brothers?

Marie

null

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.

I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50

As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.

Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).

I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".

I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.

I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).

As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.

Best,

Marie

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.

I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50

As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.

Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).

I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".

I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.

I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).

As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.

Best,

Marie

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null

null

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.

I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50

As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.

Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).

I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".

I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.

I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).

As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.

Best,

Marie

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.

I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50

As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.

Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).

I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".

I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.

I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).

As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.

Best,

Marie

Hi Hilary,
BTW I saw somewhere that Robert (Master of the Rolls) Morton had some dealings with the Domus in the 1480s?

Robert Morton was Master of the Rolls, and in charge of the Domus from 9/1/1479-22/9/1483 and later from 22/8/1485-26/2/1487 with William Eliot. Brampton was there again in the late 1480s, I believe from 1487-1488, so he may have just missed him. David William was MoR during Brampton's second stay.
What if we've all paid too little attention to Forster's arrest the day before? Now as EW's former 'finance man' I think it's reasonable to assume he must have been under surveillance since perhaps before even Richard arrived in London. If she wanted to do much, she'd need money and look at the earlier Woodville actions re the Treasury. So Forster's arrest could have been nothing to do with a plot to kill Richard, probably a lesser charge of contact with EW or to keep him out of the way?

Forster does seem the odd one out with these four., but the whatever Edward Woodville did with the Treasury is as good a guess as any. Different books seem to have different ideas as to what was actually taken, with some writers claiming there was nothing to take. However, there must have been some interference with Treasury finds or financial irregularity that formed the substance of the allegation.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:06:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.

I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50

As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.

Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).

I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".

I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.

I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).

As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.

Best,

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Can't stop, but I think these lists are of the provosts, not the scholars. Makes a big difference.

I agree about "poor" but such a large proportion of the scholars at that period would have been there on properly funded scholarships that Eton cannot have been socially elite in the way that it is now. Granted the boys had to earn the scholarship so had to have been able to get a primary education first.

The day before the meeting in the Tower (12 June) Forster is arrested in Hertfordshire. The next day some members of the Council meet - those named are Richard, Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Rotherham and King (have I missed anyone?).

Quickly again. I think you are basing this on the St. Albans Abbey Register, which seems to have been written up quite a bit later (at least, this entry does). What it actually says (from memory) is that Hastings was executed at the meeting held at the Tower on 12 June (I think it may say Friday, which was really 13th, but I'm not sure), and that Forster was arrested the following day. Or something which works out to that effect. Forster's petition to HVII's parliament confirms that he was arrested at Mawdelyns on Saturday 14 June, the day after the Tower meeting.

So there was no advance notice when it came to Forster. Richard clearly knew what was happening but to have arrested any one individual the day before the planned coup would have been to alert the rest.

I agree about London. London was a city kings had to woo, and which might even lock them out in times of war. Other cities, such as York and Coventry, lived in fear of the royal wrath if they supported an unsuccessful rebellion.

Hi Hilary,

To get to the index you need to click on Mod IDX, not the year - as set out in my 'structions. It doesn't matter which year you click it on, it will take you to the same contents list of indexes. Only then do you look for 1500 CP 40/951.

You've missed a step.

Of course if Hastings wasn't executed until a week later all this could still apply. I still don't understand the leniency of the other sentences and I wouldn't trust Forster an inch. As I recall it it's all down to the interpretation of Stalworth's letter - i.e. the fact that he was sick and that it was written by different hands no doubt at different times? H

On Friday, 6 September 2019, 13:29:19 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

The day before the meeting in the Tower (12 June) Forster is arrested in Hertfordshire. The next day some members of the Council meet - those named are Richard, Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Rotherham and King (have I missed anyone?).

Quickly again. I think you are basing this on the St. Albans Abbey Register, which seems to have been written up quite a bit later (at least, this entry does). What it actually says (from memory) is that Hastings was executed at the meeting held at the Tower on 12 June (I think it may say Friday, which was really 13th, but I'm not sure), and that Forster was arrested the following day. Or something which works out to that effect. Forster's petition to HVII's parliament confirms that he was arrested at Mawdelyns on Saturday 14 June, the day after the Tower meeting.

So there was no advance notice when it came to Forster. Richard clearly knew what was happening but to have arrested any one individual the day before the planned coup would have been to alert the rest.

I agree about London. London was a city kings had to woo, and which might even lock them out in times of war. Other cities, such as York and Coventry, lived in fear of the royal wrath if they supported an unsuccessful rebellion.

Hi Hilary,

Can't stop, but I think these lists are of the provosts, not the scholars. Makes a big difference.

I agree about "poor" but such a large proportion of the scholars at that period would have been there on properly funded scholarships that Eton cannot have been socially elite in the way that it is now. Granted the boys had to earn the scholarship so had to have been able to get a primary education first.

Hi Hilary,

To get to the index you need to click on Mod IDX, not the year - as set out in my 'structions. It doesn't matter which year you click it on, it will take you to the same contents list of indexes. Only then do you look for 1500 CP 40/951.

You've missed a step.

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.

Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.

Best to all,

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Thanks for all this. 1444 makes more sense for the grant of custody to Nedeham than 1452.

So Oliver definitely was younger than Alexander, and there was a still older brother Hugh.

I'll look into the King family properly at some future date, when I have the time, but it's good to have this as a basis to work from. I find it puzzling that this John Jr could have been another brother unless he was much older, since he's not listed amongst King's children in the 1442 grant of custody, nor is he involved in the gift of Thomas Papley's goods in 1452, which I also came across (that just has Alexander and Oliver). No doubt I'll find out once I turn my attention to it.

I think we're agreed we're not talking about poor in the usual sense. Medieval nobility had rather a loose definition of the word. But we're not talking about the place the monarchs, nobility and county set went out of their way to send their sons either. Those families educated their sons at home. Eton was a brand-new institution when Rotherham and King attended, and cannot have yet bedded down into the social fabric.

I'm quite sure reverence for King Henry was a big part of what bound the former students of Eton and King's together, and that would be the one thing that would link them to Morton emotionally.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Thanks for all this. 1444 makes more sense for the grant of custody to Nedeham than 1452.

So Oliver definitely was younger than Alexander, and there was a still older brother Hugh.

I'll look into the King family properly at some future date, when I have the time, but it's good to have this as a basis to work from. I find it puzzling that this John Jr could have been another brother unless he was much older, since he's not listed amongst King's children in the 1442 grant of custody, nor is he involved in the gift of Thomas Papley's goods in 1452, which I also came across (that just has Alexander and Oliver). No doubt I'll find out once I turn my attention to it.

I think we're agreed we're not talking about poor in the usual sense. Medieval nobility had rather a loose definition of the word. But we're not talking about the place the monarchs, nobility and county set went out of their way to send their sons either. Those families educated their sons at home. Eton was a brand-new institution when Rotherham and King attended, and cannot have yet bedded down into the social fabric.

I'm quite sure reverence for King Henry was a big part of what bound the former students of Eton and King's together, and that would be the one thing that would link them to Morton emotionally.

Marie

Thanks Hilary for the AALT link. How did you find the Indices pages? I must be missing something really obvious, but I'm starting to doubt my sanity! Nico

On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:25:55 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
BTW I saw somewhere that Robert (Master of the Rolls) Morton had some dealings with the Domus in the 1480s?

Robert Morton was Master of the Rolls, and in charge of the Domus from 9/1/1479-22/9/1483 and later from 22/8/1485-26/2/1487 with William Eliot. Brampton was there again in the late 1480s, I believe from 1487-1488, so he may have just missed him. David William was MoR during Brampton's second stay.
What if we've all paid too little attention to Forster's arrest the day before? Now as EW's former 'finance man' I think it's reasonable to assume he must have been under surveillance since perhaps before even Richard arrived in London. If she wanted to do much, she'd need money and look at the earlier Woodville actions re the Treasury. So Forster's arrest could have been nothing to do with a plot to kill Richard, probably a lesser charge of contact with EW or to keep him out of the way?

Forster does seem the odd one out with these four., but the whatever Edward Woodville did with the Treasury is as good a guess as any. Different books seem to have different ideas as to what was actually taken, with some writers claiming there was nothing to take. However, there must have been some interference with Treasury finds or financial irregularity that formed the substance of the allegation.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:06:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.

I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50

As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.

Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).

I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".

I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.

I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).

As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.

Best,

Marie

Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, the intake at Eton was very small, some years only four or five, others about thirteen so I think there's little doubt they would have known one another. They did indeed feed into King's College and Roger Rotherham was Provost there in the 1470s until his death in 1477. Interestingly, I can't find Roger on the Eton list but he just might have been older than Thomas?

Marie, quickly again:

Hi. I'm afraid there may be some misunderstanding here. The list of alumni in the book you linked to, Hilary, does not be complete, and the low numbers were probably much lower than envisaged for the first few years anyway, which would reflect difficulty in recruiting to the new institution (I expect the pace was little better than a building site) The evidence of alumni for the early years is apparently very patchy, and according to Sterry there ARE no extant lists of scholars for most of these early years. Of the very early years, we only have them for 1444 and 1446, and I can't find the published version of these online.

The earliest college statutes, which were soon amended, were issued on 11 October 1440. This envisaged "provost, ten priests, four clerks, six choristers, twenty-five scholars, twenty-five beadsmen, and a school master" (Sterry, Eton College Register, p. xiv). At this time King's College, Cambridge was not yet up and running, and so the link between the two, whereby King's was to draw its intake entirely from boys who had studied at Eton for at least two years, was not yet envisaged.

King's College was founded in 1441, and in December 1443 the Eton statutes were revised by letters patent, tying the College to King's, Cambridge. The evidence of scholars is the following, and as you will see to a large degree it is based on the entrance records of King's (Sterry, p. xv):-

1) William Stokke and Richard Cokkes were nominated as scholars in the original Eton foundation charter 1440 (this also nominated four choristers, including a Henry Cokkes, two of whom later turn up on the list of scholars);

2) 1441 one John Pagett was provisionally placed on the register at Winchester College contingent on his not obtaining a nomination at Eton.

2) 17 September 1443 extant record John Langport and Robert Drummer being admitted to King's from Eton, having transferred to Eton from Winchester College (possibly in order to qualify for King's);

3) December 1443 a record of 11 scholars who had completed their 15th year taking the oath of fidelity to King's College. Cokkes does not appear on this list.

4) July 1444, Richard Cove, John Chedworth and Thomas Rotherham were admitted to King's. Not one of these may have been a genuine Eton boy, but only notionally enrolled as one in order to qualify for King's, as Cove had also transferred from Winchester, Chedworth was mature enough to become Provost of King's in 1446, and Rotherham was already 20 years old.

5) In 1445 we get the first specific statement that the number of scholars that Eton as to cater for had been raised to 70.

Historians of Eton are apparently divided over whether the Wykehamists (Winchester scholars) ever genuinely studied at Eton or not. Tradition insists that William Waynflete was appointed headmaster of Eton in 1441 and took these scholars with him, but Leach has shown that Waynflete was still at Winchester in October 1441, and only came to Eton as Provost on 21 December 1442.

Sterry concludes that some teaching did start at Eton at the beginning of 1441, and that is is why we see the first regular election to King's in 1443 (i.e. after the requisite two years' study at Eton).

The number of scholars that King's could accommodate was very low, only 11, so it would seem reasonable to suppose there were many Eton boys who never made it to King's and so whose names were do not have.

Apparently Henry's statutes envisaged some sons of the nobility and gentry attending Eton in addition to the scholars who, although described in the statutes as 'pauper et indigens' were to come from freeborn families possessing an income of no more than 5 marks a year.

The question of fees is a bit vague in Sterry. It is generally said the scholars had free education, but Sterry says at 16 scholars took an oath that they had not more income than that in return for paying fees of 10d a week. Given that 16 is the sort of age boys tended to go up to university back then, I wonder if these fees don't really relate to King's.

As Hilary says, in practice scholars hoping to go on to university could not be from genuinely poor families, and the little evidence we have suggests that the early scholars came from the middle classes, some from families fairly prominent in their county, others not.

As regards Doug's question - I still think the really big thing for these men would have been their links with the founder, Henry VI, who had taken a huge interest in his college and its students, and by 1483 was widely regarded as a saint. No names leaped out at me when I looked at the list of provosts, and these people, if still alive in 1443, would have been very old. Bishop Waynflete, although Provost of Eton 1442-7, remained a Wykehamist at heart, and later founded Magdalen College at Oxford to provide Winchester scholars with the same through-route to university that the Eton boys enjoyed. Also, he didn't oppose Richard, and indeed took him to visit Magdalen, having his college put on a great feast and even a scholastic disputation for Richard's benefit when he passed through Oxford on his progress in 1483.

Old Henrician sympathies would be an interesting angle to look at these plotters. It would certainly link Morton with Rotherham and King. King would have been concerned about his career, but Rotherham celebrated his 60th birthday in 1423, and Morton, although he had a long career still ahead of him, was also no spring chicken so perhaps not as ambitious as one might expect. Perhaps Rotherham and Morton, at what they saw as the evening of their careers and protected from the rigour of the law by benefit of clergy, felt they had little to lose?

Well, that wasn't very quick, but you see how messy the evidence is?

Marie

Thanks for the Common Pleas case, Hilary!

Now you know how to work the AALT system, you can look up the full details if you want. I'll do that sometime, but I'm afraid I really do need to drop all this and get on with what I'm supposed to be doing.

Marie

Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Nico wrote to Doug

Marie wrote:

Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, the intake at Eton was very small, some years only four or five, others about thirteen so I think there's little doubt they would have known one another. They did indeed feed into King's College and Roger Rotherham was Provost there in the 1470s until his death in 1477. Interestingly, I can't find Roger on the Eton list but he just might have been older than Thomas?

Marie, quickly again:

Hi. I'm afraid there may be some misunderstanding here. The list of alumni in the book you linked to, Hilary, does not be complete, and the low numbers were probably much lower than envisaged for the first few years anyway, which would reflect difficulty in recruiting to the new institution (I expect the pace was little better than a building site) The evidence of alumni for the early years is apparently very patchy, and according to Sterry there ARE no extant lists of scholars for most of these early years. Of the very early years, we only have them for 1444 and 1446, and I can't find the published version of these online.

The earliest college statutes, which were soon amended, were issued on 11 October 1440. This envisaged "provost, ten priests, four clerks, six choristers, twenty-five scholars, twenty-five beadsmen, and a school master" (Sterry, Eton College Register, p. xiv). At this time King's College, Cambridge was not yet up and running, and so the link between the two, whereby King's was to draw its intake entirely from boys who had studied at Eton for at least two years, was not yet envisaged.

King's College was founded in 1441, and in December 1443 the Eton statutes were revised by letters patent, tying the College to King's, Cambridge. The evidence of scholars is the following, and as you will see to a large degree it is based on the entrance records of King's (Sterry, p. xv):-

1) William Stokke and Richard Cokkes were nominated as scholars in the original Eton foundation charter 1440 (this also nominated four choristers, including a Henry Cokkes, two of whom later turn up on the list of scholars);

2) 1441 one John Pagett was provisionally placed on the register at Winchester College contingent on his not obtaining a nomination at Eton.

2) 17 September 1443 extant record John Langport and Robert Drummer being admitted to King's from Eton, having transferred to Eton from Winchester College (possibly in order to qualify for King's);

3) December 1443 a record of 11 scholars who had completed their 15th year taking the oath of fidelity to King's College. Cokkes does not appear on this list.

4) July 1444, Richard Cove, John Chedworth and Thomas Rotherham were admitted to King's. Not one of these may have been a genuine Eton boy, but only notionally enrolled as one in order to qualify for King's, as Cove had also transferred from Winchester, Chedworth was mature enough to become Provost of King's in 1446, and Rotherham was already 20 years old.

5) In 1445 we get the first specific statement that the number of scholars that Eton as to cater for had been raised to 70.

Historians of Eton are apparently divided over whether the Wykehamists (Winchester scholars) ever genuinely studied at Eton or not. Tradition insists that William Waynflete was appointed headmaster of Eton in 1441 and took these scholars with him, but Leach has shown that Waynflete was still at Winchester in October 1441, and only came to Eton as Provost on 21 December 1442.

Sterry concludes that some teaching did start at Eton at the beginning of 1441, and that is is why we see the first regular election to King's in 1443 (i.e. after the requisite two years' study at Eton).

The number of scholars that King's could accommodate was very low, only 11, so it would seem reasonable to suppose there were many Eton boys who never made it to King's and so whose names were do not have.

Apparently Henry's statutes envisaged some sons of the nobility and gentry attending Eton in addition to the scholars who, although described in the statutes as 'pauper et indigens' were to come from freeborn families possessing an income of no more than 5 marks a year.

The question of fees is a bit vague in Sterry. It is generally said the scholars had free education, but Sterry says at 16 scholars took an oath that they had not more income than that in return for paying fees of 10d a week. Given that 16 is the sort of age boys tended to go up to university back then, I wonder if these fees don't really relate to King's.

As Hilary says, in practice scholars hoping to go on to university could not be from genuinely poor families, and the little evidence we have suggests that the early scholars came from the middle classes, some from families fairly prominent in their county, others not.

As regards Doug's question - I still think the really big thing for these men would have been their links with the founder, Henry VI, who had taken a huge interest in his college and its students, and by 1483 was widely regarded as a saint. No names leaped out at me when I looked at the list of provosts, and these people, if still alive in 1443, would have been very old. Bishop Waynflete, although Provost of Eton 1442-7, remained a Wykehamist at heart, and later founded Magdalen College at Oxford to provide Winchester scholars with the same through-route to university that the Eton boys enjoyed. Also, he didn't oppose Richard, and indeed took him to visit Magdalen, having his college put on a great feast and even a scholastic disputation for Richard's benefit when he passed through Oxford on his progress in 1483.

Old Henrician sympathies would be an interesting angle to look at these plotters. It would certainly link Morton with Rotherham and King. King would have been concerned about his career, but Rotherham celebrated his 60th birthday in 1423, and Morton, although he had a long career still ahead of him, was also no spring chicken so perhaps not as ambitious as one might expect. Perhaps Rotherham and Morton, at what they saw as the evening of their careers and protected from the rigour of the law by benefit of clergy, felt they had little to lose?

Well, that wasn't very quick, but you see how messy the evidence is?

Marie

Doug here:I think I've discover why the Guild was set up to pray for the souls of Edward IV, EW, Cecily and the DoY without any mention of the other members of the Royal Family. According to this link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_of_York#Birth_and_familyCecily was contracted to marry the heir to the Scottish throne in 1474. It is Wikipedia, but if the information is incorrect as to the date/s, we should be able to quickly sort that out.

Marie:Sorry everyone - my understanding of the Cecily in the Luton Guild stuff is that it was Cecily, Duchess of York, who was along with Elizabeth Woodville, one of the founder members.

Thanks for the Common Pleas case, Hilary!

Now you know how to work the AALT system, you can look up the full details if you want. I'll do that sometime, but I'm afraid I really do need to drop all this and get on with what I'm supposed to be doing.

Marie

Nico wrote to Doug

Marie:

There was no requirement for two witnesses so far as I know, but corroborating evidence would surely have to be found in order make a case stand up in court. In some treason cases for which we have have surviving indictments, the plots are stated to have been overheard by a named individual who was not charged with any offence - in the Bolingbroke trial, for instance, this was Sir John Solers, and in the Burdet/ Stacey/ Blake trial it was Alexander Russheton. These are assumed to have been the informants, and it is just one name in each case.

But in the Bolingbroke case a lot of magical instruments, astrological workings, etc, were seized and produced as hard evidence. In the Burdet case it's not so clear but as dates of meetings are given I imagine some sort of notebook must have been seized at the very least. There is an astrologer's notebook in TNA with astrological calculations which is believed to have been amongst the government documents because it had been seized for a treason case, but it is quite faded and it's all composed of degrees and the sort of astrological symbols and shorthand in use in the day so I can't read it.

In the case of the Hastings plot, wasn't the idea that the plotters had stored weapons close by ready for use later in the day, and that these were discovered (presumably by virtue of a tip-off from Catesby) and formed concrete evidence of a plot? Carrying weapons in the King's house was illegal per se.

Re the strawberries - in the 15th century 13th June fell at the same point in the annual solar cycle as 22nd June today.

Hi Hilary,

I do know about that letter from King Henry, but that surely doesn't count as spying. The county sheriffs and prominent men in localities got those sort of instructions. The point about spying is that it's a covert operation. King wasn't being asked to do any covert sneaky stuff, and the rebel landing would not be a secret anyway - it's just that the King wanted word of it as soon as possible.

P.S. The letter you speak of from PW - was that not the proclamation I referred to in the post you were replying to? It wasn't a short list of men, and it was a complaint about promotion of non-noble folk, not who Henry's close personal friends were.

The latitude makes a big difference, as I can testify, having moved north from the Home Counties and still visiting there frequently. Also the situation of the garden.

So that's the first thing. The second is that the varieties of strawberries we cultivate today are nothing like the ones Morton would have been growing, which would have been tiny, what we now call wild or alpine strawberries. (Cultivated varieties are derived from the super big strawberries Elizabethan explorers found in the Americas and raved about, though they weren't developed for use in European gardens until the 18th century.)

The point about wild strawberries is, being native plants, they don't need a lot of sun and fruit whenever the weather is warm enough.

It seems as if the Tudors are credited for much that was created by the last of the Plantagenet kings, especially King Richard. I suppose that can be attributed to the lack of survival (dare I say deliberate destruction in at least some cases) of records of King Richard's reign, leaving the only ready sources of information Tudor-spun chronicles and their derivative works.
A fine example, described by Anne F Sutton as an excellent, under-used survey of the Yorkist period: is C Richmond's paper English Naval Power in the Fifteenth Century [History, 52 (1967), pp 1-15.]

A J

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

And that goes for music too! All pre-Tudor music over here was destroyed/plagiarised by that magnificent musician Henry VIII. Unfortunately, they didn't destroy what had been preserved by the Burgundians, which sounds remarkably like some of Henry's compositions..
Paul, you should know by now that nothing, absolutely nothing, except perhaps the murder of Becket or Agincourt, happened before the Tudors!
But, what is worth watching if you get it over there is Neil Oliver's History of Scotland - the nearest you get to a Scottish Michael Wood. And it actually taught me something; like how Edward betrayed the Lords of the Isles. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 15:39:10 BST, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

It seems as if the Tudors are credited for much that was created by the last of the Plantagenet kings, especially King Richard. I suppose that can be attributed to the lack of survival (dare I say deliberate destruction in at least some cases) of records of King Richard's reign, leaving the only ready sources of information Tudor-spun chronicles and their derivative works.
A fine example, described by Anne F Sutton as an excellent, under-used survey of the Yorkist period: is C Richmond's paper English Naval Power in the Fifteenth Century [History, 52 (1967), pp 1-15.]

A J

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Just happened to catch the start of an episode of Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire. Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced. I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture. Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine! If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts. 1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer! Annoyed? You bet I am.




Richard liveth yet!

Marie wrote:

There was no requirement for two witnesses so far as I know, but corroborating evidence would surely have to be found in order make a case stand up in court. In some treason cases for which we have have surviving indictments, the plots are stated to have been overheard by a named individual who was not charged with any offence - in the Bolingbroke trial, for instance, this was Sir John Solers, and in the Burdet/ Stacey/ Blake trial it was Alexander Russheton. These are assumed to have been the informants, and it is just one name in each case.

But in the Bolingbroke case a lot of magical instruments, astrological workings, etc, were seized and produced as hard evidence. In the Burdet case it's not so clear but as dates of meetings are given I imagine some sort of notebook must have been seized at the very least. There is an astrologer's notebook in TNA with astrological calculations which is believed to have been amongst the government documents because it had been seized for a treason case, but it is quite faded and it's all composed of degrees and the sort of astrological symbols and shorthand in use in the day so I can't read it.

In the case of the Hastings plot, wasn't the idea that the plotters had stored weapons close by ready for use later in the day, and that these were discovered (presumably by virtue of a tip-off from Catesby) and formed concrete evidence of a plot? Carrying weapons in the King's house was illegal per se.

Hi Hilary,

I do know about that letter from King Henry, but that surely doesn't count as spying. The county sheriffs and prominent men in localities got those sort of instructions. The point about spying is that it's a covert operation. King wasn't being asked to do any covert sneaky stuff, and the rebel landing would not be a secret anyway - it's just that the King wanted word of it as soon as possible.

P.S. The letter you speak of from PW - was that not the proclamation I referred to in the post you were replying to? It wasn't a short list of men, and it was a complaint about promotion of non-noble folk, not who Henry's close personal friends were.

The latitude makes a big difference, as I can testify, having moved north from the Home Counties and still visiting there frequently. Also the situation of the garden.

So that's the first thing. The second is that the varieties of strawberries we cultivate today are nothing like the ones Morton would have been growing, which would have been tiny, what we now call wild or alpine strawberries. (Cultivated varieties are derived from the super big strawberries Elizabethan explorers found in the Americas and raved about, though they weren't developed for use in European gardens until the 18th century.)

The point about wild strawberries is, being native plants, they don't need a lot of sun and fruit whenever the weather is warm enough.

Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost...

Hi Doug,
The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
Nico

On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:41:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Pamela, To be fair, I don't know how the fetishization of the Tudors is due to the members of the dynasty themselves or to subsequent historians and politicians? I think one reason Henry VII emphasized his Tudor-ness was more to differentiate himself and his heirs from the York/Lancaster feuding than fears for his dynasty's reputation. There's also the fact that as the Tudors get underway as monarchs, more and more documentary history becomes available and thus making it easier for historians to do research (and publish). AFAIK, at least the Tudors didn't try to claim bringing the printing press to England as one of their accomplishments. Well, they couldn't, could they; what with the date of the book's printing right there on the frontispiece? Doug Pamela wrote: From a very unlearned point of view, it seems that the Tudors must have been very concerned about their shaky dynasty, since they took such great paints to lie, cheat, steal, and sully any and all things Plantagenet. And it must have been handed down through the ages, as there are still so many people who attribute the good things to the beginning of Tudor time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Marie answers:

There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story.

Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.

I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him.

Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the names given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae - "being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham". Catesby had professional links with Buckingham.

I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up; it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together.

Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais and his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important to the plotters.

P. S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure that Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Buckingham had been properly condemned and executed. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers too as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.

Yes I saw the Scotland programmes. Neil did a terrific programme last year about Bannockburn which was the sort of show Michael Wood would have done had anybody managed to get him interested in Bosworth back in the 1980s!

Hilary wrote:

I know he wasn't then but he was one of HT's great friends from his accession. Now to be that you had to qualify, like Daubeny or Uncle Jasper. He only had half a dozen all his life. And look how he supported King over the refurbishment of the Bishop's Palace. Clearly PW and his supporters knew of him.

Marie:

Yes, absolutely there was a lot of trust there. But, just to replace the goalposts, we have no evidence he was a spy. In fact, someone so well recognised and such good friends with Henry would have been useless as a spy because nobody would ever say anything incriminating in his presence.

Rather like Adam Hart-Davis and his What the Tudors did for us, including printing!

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 09 September 2019 04:31
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Church

 
 
 
 
Paul,
Do you recall if the church was just a nice, plain Gothic? Or perhaps it was possibly an example of Perpendicular?
Apparently, this student of architecture skipped a few classes...
Doug
 
Paul wrote:
Just happened to catch the start of an episode of  Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire.
Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced.
I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture.
Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine!
If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts.
1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer!
Annoyed? You bet I am.
 
 

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

Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.
In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.
There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.
Again a thought.. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?
And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche. H


On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 22:50:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost...

Hi Doug,
The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
Nico

On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:41:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Yes, Emma's children were Thomas and Margaret Beaumont/Beaumond, so she was married at least twice; once to a Mr. Beaumond and later to a Mr. Spayne. We are trying to find which Beaumond was her husband.

Doug

Hi Marie,
Sorry that I couldn't reply sooner. Thanks for putting the customs surrounding prayers and wills into perspective and for the link to Oliver King's will.

Hilary beat me to it and mentioned the letters about King and Perkin Warbeck. Spying may be the wrong word if the surveillance wasn't secretive, but since King was a mentor of Thomas Beaumont and Beaumont's sister was married to Brampton, that is a direct link back to Henry as private information as to who PW actually was. As Hilary also mentions, King was one of a very close circle around Henry, whose aloofness was hard to get past. Most people who managed it were those who had established family link some long term trust such as Jasper, MB and the Herberts. King didn't fit into the category, but if he had valuable information on PW that enabled Henry to keep control and maintain his throne, then Henry was enormously in his debt, especially if King and Beaumont had been instrumental in encouraging Brampton to co-operate with discrediting PW in the Setubal testimonies, and providing information about the Werbeques for the 'confession.' Beaumont's will does suggest a continued closeness between Thomas and Margaret, which makes it likely that they corresponded even after she moved to Flanders and Portugal with Brampton.

I do agree with you that Cecil Roth may have been to harsh on Brampton. I don't get a particularly negative impression of him. He was a survivor who looked after his own interests in difficult and unstable time, so it was in his interest to serve the King of Portugal and by extension the needs of Ferdinand, Isabella and Henry.

Nico

Marie wrote: It actually isn't at all unusual for people not to mention deceased parents in their wills. The reason is that mentions of family members weren't about courtesy. For instance, very often a person's son and heir is overlooked in a will because his share is automatic, and so only his younger siblings get a mention.
The only purpose in mentioning a deceased parent would be to fund prayers for their soul, to get them through Purgatory, but if such prayers were already taken care of then there would be no need. People tended in their wills, or final instructions to feoffees, to set aside income for prayers for their own souls after death. They might include deceased parents and spouses in those prayers if they were not already being adequately prayed for, but not otherwise. So the likeliest explanation is the prosaic one, that Thomas Beamond's father had funded ample prayers for his own soul. Or, of course, it may be that Thomas hadn't liked him, or maybe didn't remember him because he'd died when he was very young. All I can say is wills that don't mention deceased patents are probably more numerous than those that do. If only everybody had named their parents in their wills, 15th century genealogy would be a lot easier than it is. Thomas didn't bother asking for prayers for the soul of his mother or sister after their deaths either; he only mentioned them because he was making them bequests.
I wouldn't read anything fishy into the inclusion of prayers for the soul of Thomas' late bishop and mentor, Oliver King. The annual obit that Thomas wanted set up was to be said in the cathedral, after all. Sentiment aside, he probably took the view that if prayers for the soul of Bishop King were included in the obit, for which the cathedral was to be paid 100 marks, then the cathedral staff were much more likely to go on observing it faithfully in time to come than would otherwise have been the case.
I've never heard before that Oliver King spied on Perkin Warbeck. He was a trusted advisor to Henry VII, spoke French and was one of the ignoble 'new men' denounced by Warbeck in his proclamation, but I've just checked Arthurson and Wroe and neither has anything to say about spying activities.
Oliver King does have a will. It was proved at the PCC, so is downloadable from TNA website. It is indexed as the will of "Oliver Bishop of Bath and Wells" without surname, and with date 23 October 1503, so if you put in Oliver for first name and 1503 for the date range it should come up.
I have to say that I personally don't think it's likely that there is any connection between the fact that Thomas's former employer at Wells, and possible mentor, was keenly loyal to Henry VII, and that Thomas's sister Margaret, in a different political world, had married a supporter of Richard III who, in the early years after Bosworth picked up the boy later known as Perkin Warbeck in the Low Countries and brought him along with him and his wife when they moved to Portugal.I certainly see no evidence that the Beamond brother and sister, who are not known to have had any further involvement with that young man (who found himself a job as page to a Portuguese nobleman), were involved in later years in an active plot to betray him to King Henry, if that's where this is heading. Poor old Brampton gets an unfairly harsh press because Cecil Roth felt he had to come down hard on him for supporting the evil Richard III, and blamed Sir Edward himself for exaggerated claims made about him by his family after he was dead.
Sorry, once again the damp squib.

Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.
In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.
There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.
Again a thought.. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?
And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche. H


On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 22:50:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost...

Hi Doug,
The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
Nico

On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:41:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Rather like Adam Hart-Davis and his What the Tudors did for us, including printing!

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 09 September 2019 04:31
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Church

 
 
 
 
Paul,
Do you recall if the church was just a nice, plain Gothic? Or perhaps it was possibly an example of Perpendicular?
Apparently, this student of architecture skipped a few classes...
Doug
 
Paul wrote:
Just happened to catch the start of an episode of  Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire.
Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced.
I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture.
Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine!
If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts.
1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer!
Annoyed? You bet I am.
 
 

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

Marie:

The story originates with More, and More's education had been funded by Morton. Whether More ever visited Ely place in his early childhood, before Morton became Archbishop of Canterbury, I don't know.

I'm not sure what you mean about the 6-ft wall. There are two pictures in the article. One is an 18thC picture of the ruins, the other a bird's eye view of the area in the 16th century. I can see high walls around the quadrangle, and around what looks like an extremely formal pleasure garden, but surely the strawberries would have been grown in something more like a vegetable plot? (Wild strawberries spread like wildfire too, I know because I have them in my own garden and we need to do something about them.) I would suggest they would more probably have been grown in the large open area on the other side of the church marked "Field", which actually looks in the drawing to have been more like an orchard garden.

In fact, I clicked on Hatton Garden, and look what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_Garden

Do I think it's important? Historically, I imagine you mean. Not at all. I think More probably made it up for dramatic effect and symbolic reasons. Strawberries are red and heart-shaped and symbolised love (like the strawberry hankie in Othello). This incident would have told 16th century readers that Richard was feigning friendship, and Morton innocently offered him his.

Hilary wrote:Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483.EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects.After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know.If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. H
Marie's thoughts:There's a lot of merit in the idea that EW was trying to win over council members. In fact, if you see the Woodvilles as the fount of the plot (which I do), then it's rather built-in, isn't it? The problem is that this on its own doesn't explain the way events unfolded on Friday 13th. Nor does it get the Woodvilles over the hurdle that Richard had been formally recognised as Protector, and had the backing in this of Cardinal Bourchier. Richard can always sack councillors and co-opt new ones. The events of the day strongly evidence an armed plot, and it doesn't seem to me plausible that the Woodvilles could have regained supremacy without taking Richard out of the equation.

I agree. Perhaps a bit of both. But it would be interesting indeed if Morton carried this through to HT in the aftermath of 1483 and that there were behind the scenes attempts to get the Church on board well before Bosworth. Bourchier was a Plantagenet and old. He probably lasted longer than they thought, like Warham later. H
On Monday, 9 September 2019, 13:56:36 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483.EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects.After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know.If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. H
Marie's thoughts:There's a lot of merit in the idea that EW was trying to win over council members. In fact, if you see the Woodvilles as the fount of the plot (which I do), then it's rather built-in, isn't it? The problem is that this on its own doesn't explain the way events unfolded on Friday 13th. Nor does it get the Woodvilles over the hurdle that Richard had been formally recognised as Protector, and had the backing in this of Cardinal Bourchier. Richard can always sack councillors and co-opt new ones. The events of the day strongly evidence an armed plot, and it doesn't seem to me plausible that the Woodvilles could have regained supremacy without taking Richard out of the equation.

        Paul wrote: The church was built without nails perpendicular style using just wood and what looked like wattle and daub for the wall plaster..    Ah, that explains it! Everyone knows (apparently including students of architecture) that all buildings made of wood with those white plaster walls are from the Tudor Period. Did it also have those black, crisscrossed beams, inside and out? Honestly, what's wrong with the term medieval? Doug Who's willing to bet this student of architecture doesn't even know that Perpendicular was an outgrowth of Gothic!      
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.

We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.

Marie

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.

We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.

Marie

Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.Again a thought.. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche.


Hi Hilary,
I haven't had much time over the weekend, but I think I may have cracked the AALT.

Was Richard the Pinner the son of Thomas the Salter or a cousin? Unfortunately, Yahoo has chopped off some of the earlier messages on the thread including the one about John Beaumont, the Chandler's will. He had a few sons, Adam and I think a Richard. Could that be Richard the Pinner? Thomas could have been named for Thomas the Salter, who I think was a grandson of John the Chandler. Thomas the Salter's will is listed in the BHOL index, but the actual will doesn't seem to be a available. There is also a Thomas Beaumond, Woolmonger. I have just found the archive.org copy of London wills so I will go through that.

In the Luton Guild book, were there any Wilfords listed? I haven't found any in the Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire area, and they seem to be more of a London/Kent group.

Nico




On Monday, 9 September 2019, 17:14:02 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.

We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.

Marie

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.

We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.

Marie

Doug wrote

If I have the general flow of things correctly, the Woodville faction's first attempt in re-making the Council was when they planned to get young Edward to London so he could chair the Council. That, I think, was the real meaning behind Dorset's (?) boast that they ruled all. IOW, from the beginning the plan was to alter the composition of the Council, hobble the Protector and force Richard to choose between actually being a Protector, with the necessary power/authority to fulfill the job's requirement, or be in a position of holding the title of Protector, with all the responsibilities attendant to that position but not having the authority to actually do anything. AKA a scapegoat. That was Plan A.

Marie answers:

I'm afraid that isn't what the sources tell us.

The Woodville faction did not feel bound by Edward's desire for his brother to be Protector at all - they weren't relying on numbers in council, or the young Edward V, to 'hobble' him. The Protector had specific powers, in any case, for the defence of the King and the realm.

The point about a protectorate was that, albeit the powers of a protector were much more limited than those of a regent and he had to govern in cooperation with other council members, it was a recognition of the fact that the King was unable to rule in his own right. Edward V's presence in Council during a protectorate would, therefore, not of itself have made any difference.

The Woodvilles' actual policy was to rely on the precedent set in the 1420s, when it was ruled by parliament that (a) the late king's wishes could not bind people's actions after his death, and (b) it was incompatible with the royal dignity to have a protector once the king had been crowned.

So, in order to ensure that Richard would not be Protector, they aimed to get Edward crowned as soon as possible, and the date they had set for the coronation was 4 May. This is confirmed by the letter written (ostensibly) by King Edward himself and received by the Mayor and Council of King's Lynn on 24 April. I quote from it: (in modern spelling-

" And, where it hath pleased Him [God] to ordain and provide us to succeed and inherit my said lord and father in the pre-eminence and dignity royal of the crowns of England and France, we intend, by Him that sendeth all power, . . . so to govern, rule and protect this our realm of England as shall be to His pleasure, our honour and the well and surety of all our subjects in the same, and to be at our city of London in all convenient haste, by God's grace, to be crowned at Westminster. . . . not failing to execute our commandment and your authority in that behalf for favour or doubt of any person, what estate or degree he be of, . . ."

I have emboldened particularly important words and phrases, which as you can see confirm the Woodville intention for an immediate coronation following which Edward will rule in his own right, his powers to include the protection of the realm. Opposition from a highly placed individual or individuals is anticipated in the last phrase.

That was Plan A, and seems to me to be unarguable given the evidence. Richard's plan to meet Rivers and the King on their way south is therefore a very serious problem for the Woodvilles. Richard's claim, when he reached London, was that the Woodvilles had attempted to ambush and kill him. The Tudor tradition, on the other hand, claims the Woodvilles had no concerns about Richard and he was simply a villain paving his own way to the throne. You pays you money, as they say. For me, the Woodvilles' stated aims certainly provide more than adequate motive for an attempt on their part to either kill or imprison Richard to prevent him reaching London and effecting a delay to the hasty coronation, the purpose of which he very well knew.

I agree that Friday 13th was a Plan C (or perhaps Plan B - I'm not sure whether dashing into sanctuary counts as a plan). Where Edward V sat (literally) in it all, I don't know. He must have attended council meetings at the Tower in order to prepare him for governance when he was a bit older; and we know he was signing documents by the advice of his uncle and the Council, etc. Did he attend the meeting of Friday 13th? If not, why not? If he did, why is his presence not mentioned by any source at all?

It seems to me that Richard would not have wanted the King at the meeting if he knew things were going to turn nasty, and (assuming the plot was genuine) the plotters wouldn't have wanted him there either. So his apparent absence from that particular meeting may have been unusual.

Hi Hilary,

You are probably right about the weapons, but if Mancini's account is to be believed (and he was living in London at the time), the city had already been disrupted by a last-minute attempt by the Queen and Dorset to get them to take up arms against Gloucester. Both sides were reflecting their own ratcheted-up concerns on to the population, never apparently imagining said population might prefer to put their fingers in their ears.

But, to change the subject. I finally got a minute to check the St. Albans Abbey Register properly, and you were right about the grant of stewardship of the Abbey lands. Abbot Wallingford had granted the post to John Forster for life in June 1471, and then granted it to Hastings for life just before Christmas 1478. This can't have been an accident. An institution like that can't have failed to know the identity of the steward of all its properties. It was the sort of thing Edward IV did all the time, actually - regranting offices and lands without formally cancelling the previous grant.

Now it may be that Hastings kept Forster on as his deputy, but that would have been at greatly reduced remuneration since Hastings was now receiving all the wages and perks and would only have passed a proportion of those on to his deputy.

The 1482 grant, which I have now fully translated, granted the office to both men for life jointly and severally (coniunctim et divisim), which meant either of them could exercise the office without reference to the other - one can't see how that could have worked if both were genuinely trying to do the job themselves; I think it is unlikely that Hastings would have tried to do the job himself, but both were allowed to appoint a deputy so it would have been a messy situation unless the two men were actually expected to cooperate with each other in friendly fashion. The indentures specified that the wages and perks were all to go to Forster as long as he lived, but that after his death Hastings would be sole steward and enjoy these benefits himself. Again, I feel that Forster was the one expected to do the actual work.

I wonder if Forster had not proved a very diligent steward, and the Abbey had initially replaced him with Hastings in order for him to work under Hastings, who would then have the onus of keeping him in order? If so, the 1482 grant would have vastly improved Forster's position in that it restored to him the full wages and perks, but it still left Hastings with the power to step in. That, really is the only reason I can think for the abbey making a joint grant rather than simply regranting the office to Forster with reversion to Lord Hastings.

However this business started, I think the likeliest outcome would have been that this situation had enabled Hastings and Forster to get to know each other, assuming they didn't already.

Marie

Hi Doug (and Marie if this helps a bit to save you looking up sources) I've looked at JAH 'The Mythology of the Princes' chapter 'What did Lord Hastings do?'. He doesn't really give us any answers but the chronology/interpretation is interesting.
Firstly, he has hostility between Hastings and EW, Rivers and particularly Dorset. He has him on friendly terms with Richard, but not that close. He didn't ride out to meet him or the young King. And he has him in agreement with Edward V being king as long as the Woodvilles are kept in the background.
Mancini (written in December 1483) 9th June - Meeting at the Guildhall of the 'Three Estates' (I take it by this he means the Commons and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal - Three Estates is the French term for this). Stillington announces the impediment to Edward's kingship.Then follows JAH's interpretation which is that 'presumably' Hastings must have been hostile and 'certain other lords' must have also had reservations 'these included Archbishop Thomas Rotherham of York - who previously in April had been working with Elizabeth Widville - and Bishop John Morton of Ely' Mancini again after the Guildhall meeting Hastings, Morton and Rotherham 'were known to have' met in secret in each others' houses. 'Presumably' again .....since they objected to the removal of Edward V from the throne they were planning a campaign in the young King's defence. 'They must have felt that they needed to oppose the lord protector and the government he was leading.JAH The Council was split into two halves, those opposing the removal of Edward who were in the majority - and the rest. Gloucester decided to arrange two meetings where the opposing factions were to meet separately and they were to be held simultaneously.Paul Murray Kendall One meeting took place a the Palace of Westminster the other at the Tower of London(Don't quite follow the reasoning here. Why were Richard and Buckingham with the hostile lot? That is they must have been if Rotherham, Hastings and Morton were there?) Account of a London Citizen (now dated to the sixteenth century) 'in the mene tyme ther was dyvers imagnyd the deyth of the Duke of Gloceter, and hit as asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges ws takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith , the xiij of June Anno 1483'Continuator of the Crowland Chronicle 1486 On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 06:16:41 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Doug:

Yes, I was thinking of that more formal garden area. Possibly because I associate strawberries with being planted in their own specific area, as opposed to their being gathered from, say, wherever they might be growing wild. FWIW, there's also what appears to be some sort of garden directly in front of the church/chapel and, as it's definitely outside the walls, whatever might be growing there would be visible to anyone passing.

Marie:

Yep, what you were looking at was a private formal pleasure garden (hence the very high walls). This is not where strawberries (not all that attractive with their straw bedding) or any other crop would be grown. But just because the sort of strawberries they were growing are native plants, and therefore we now refer to them as wild strawberries, does not mean they would just left to grow wild, despite their tendency to spread. As the name indicates, even back then strawberries were grown in specific spots with straw laid down around them to stop them from getting munched away or spoilt by drooping on to the soil.

Both the rows of beds in the front of the sketch (i.e. at the back of the church) and the large field behind the church (north side) were gardens of some sort belonging to Ely Place so far as I can make out, and formed part of the Hatton sale.

You'll find much more detail here than in Wikipedia:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol2/pp514-526

If you go to Google Maps you can also find the modern street names it lists as deriving from this extensive garden area.

What I would say is that, although Morton's strawberries were undoubtedly bigger than mine as they were grown further south and better looked after, to get enough of the little blighters to go round the council would require a generous amount of growing space. That's where I think the large space available for gardens around Ely Place (compared to other London addresses) was probably the factor that enabled the bishops to grow strawberries in quantities that other Londoners could only envy. So the strawberries at Holborn might have been well known.

Doug:

I don't recall having heard about strawberries symbolizing love (have to brush up my Shakespeare?).

Marie:

Every plant had its symbolic meaning, and these were not the same as the Victorian symbolisms. Everything - plants, animals, the lot - symbolised something else. You wouldn't really expect to have heard about medieval plant symbolism unless you have read about medieval gardening or the like (or, in the case of strawberries, studied Othello for exams). Try this one:-

https://web.extension.illinois.edu/strawberries/history.cfm

I still don't think whether Richard had seen Morton's strawberries is particularly important. Morton might have mentioned them. They might have been famous. There are too many other possible explanations.

Marie answers:

Wendy's article is in two parts, vol 9, nos 122 & 123. Unfortunately it is not available to download, and that will only mean that Anne Sutton hasn't succeeded in getting Wendy's permission so no point moaning to the Society about it.

The hidden arms claim is in Mancini:-

". . . the Protector cried out by arrangement that a trap had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms in order to be first to begin the assault. Then knights who had been set there by the Lord ran in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings by the sword under the false name of treason. They spared the rest, out of respect for their religion and priesthood as it is considered.

(that's my translation, not Armstrong's although it comes to the same thing)

No, these are not the displayed weapons you're thinking of - those were the ones (cartloads of them, with the Woodville arms on the carts) that had been confiscated from Rivers' party at Stony Stratford. There's no suggestion that the few weapons that (if Mancini is correct) were seized in the Tower were ever displayed. There would have been no way of demonstrating to the crowds who they had belonged to, in any case.

This is a quotation from Annette's book:

"Whatever happened, the attempted attack (or exposure of conspiracy) took place in front of witnesses.221 This invited precisely such treason charges as could be brought expeditiously before the High Constable."

Annette indicates that summary courts under the Law of Arms were generally only used for cases such as men taken in battle, displaying treasonable banners or the like. You'd really need to read the book yourself, but the impression I have is that such a summary trial would only have been acceptable if they'd been caught pretty much red-handed. This would also be the most logical explanation for the arrests having taken place during the council meeting rather than Richard having sent soldiers to some other meeting of the conspirators to arrest them in a situation that did not put himself at personal risk.

Stephen answered:

Wendy's article will be accessible online via this index:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php

Marie: Approximately which year was it?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 September 2019 05:15
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot





Marie,
I've got Carson's book/let on my to buy list; is Moorhen's article accessible on-line?
To be honest, I don't think I'd heard about that particular batch of stashed weapons before! It isn't the same batch that were later claimed by some to have been placed wherever in order to arm troops against the Scots, is it?
As I said, I haven't gotten Carson's book yet, but it was my understanding from posts here on the Forum that even without a scuffle a plot against the Lord Constable was treason, punishable by death and that the Lord Constable had the necessary authority to try, condemn and execute someone found guilty of such a crime. It couldn't have been done solely on Richard's accusation, however, so there must have been some evidence. An actual attempt would certainly provide it, or so I'd imagine.
My major problem with seeing what happened to Hastings as having been any sort of set up, even by Buckingham, is probably because it complicates an otherwise fairly simply situation in which a group of highly-placed, important people are faced with the possibility of losing, if not everything, then almost everything and decided to simplify matters by removing Richard. Then again, what is there about any of this that's been simple?
I suppose warnings could have come to Richard from Catesby via Buckingham, with Buckingham holding onto the information until it was too late for Hastings to back out or, more likely, before Hastings had sufficiently compromised himself?
I've never been in the Tower and have absolutely no idea how suitable the interior of it would be for an ambush/attack. My idea was that extra men would be brought into the Tower grounds, kept in the proximity of the Mint and then attack Richard and Buckingham as they left the Tower itself. The various photos and plans I have seen suggests it was possible, although success would depend entirely on large the group of attackers was. Success would depend, of course, on just how many men accompanied Richard and Buckingham to the Tower and might also be waiting outside for their departure.
Doug

Marie wrote:
There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what \I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story.
Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.
I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed.. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him.
Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the name given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae  being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham. Catesby had professional links with Buckingham.
I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up, it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together.
Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais ad his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important.
P.S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Hastings had been properly condemned and executed.. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.


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

Hi Hilary,

That is odd - Mancini doesn't date anything, and even complains in his introduction to Cato that his understanding of the chronology and timing of events was not good enough for a written account (and he was right).

I'm afraid this is very much JAH's own interpretation.

The meeting of 9 June doesn't come from Mancini and did not take place in the Guildhall - it is referred to in Stallworth's letter of 9 June, and had taken place at Westminster that morning. The MPs would not even have reached London that early. Incidentally, we do also use the term the Three Estates, though we call formal assemblies of the same' Parliament' and not 'the Estates General' like the French.

It is not known at all whether the precontract was broached at that meeting; Stallworthe wasn't present since he wasn't a lord. It is often suggested that it was disclosed then, and that this was what galvanised Hastings, but this is pure speculation. We simply do not have a record of when the precontract was first disclosed and the meeting could as easily have been about the impending coronation, which Stallworthe tells us was keeping everybody very busy.

.

JAH seems to have conflated the 9 June Great Council with the meeting of the Three Estates (which is an English term as well, and the proper one in this context as there had been no formal opening of parliament) on c. 23 June which decided to offer Richard the crown. Mancini has this as the 'lords' going to Baynards to take oath of allegiance to Richard, and then 'the people of London and the higher clergy" doing likewise the next day. Then he says: "All important matters are deliberated, and decrees made law by these three orders, whom they call the three estates."

Mancini doesn't have Richard makes any claim to the throne till he had got possession of RdoY and taken out Hastings (in that order). In fact, Mancini in fact says of people's feelings after Hastings' death: "Thus far, though all the evidence looked as if he coveted the crown, yet there remained some hope, because he was not yet claiming the throne. . ."

I think there are complaints in some sources (I'd need to check what they are - not Crowland) that Richard and his inner circle often met at Crosby Place without the rest of the Council. Also that Hastings and his friends were meeting in their houses - but I can't see this in Mancini.

That is a separate issue from the splitting of formal council meetings into two halves, one at the Tower (with the King, of course), and the other at Westminster. I'm not sure if it was explicitly stated anywhere - perhaps you can check, Hilary - but the prosaic explanation is that such splitting off into committees was pretty standard and that the Westminster council was organising the coronation.

The very best-considered and most authoritative timeline of events during the Protectorate is given in Hammond & Sutton's Coronation of Richard III, if you're looking for a ready-made secondary source. It's hideously expensive but you could order it from a library.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

That is odd - Mancini doesn't date anything, and even complains in his introduction to Cato that his understanding of the chronology and timing of events was not good enough for a written account (and he was right).

I'm afraid this is very much JAH's own interpretation.

The meeting of 9 June doesn't come from Mancini and did not take place in the Guildhall - it is referred to in Stallworth's letter of 9 June, and had taken place at Westminster that morning. The MPs would not even have reached London that early. Incidentally, we do also use the term the Three Estates, though we call formal assemblies of the same' Parliament' and not 'the Estates General' like the French.

It is not known at all whether the precontract was broached at that meeting; Stallworthe wasn't present since he wasn't a lord. It is often suggested that it was disclosed then, and that this was what galvanised Hastings, but this is pure speculation. We simply do not have a record of when the precontract was first disclosed and the meeting could as easily have been about the impending coronation, which Stallworthe tells us was keeping everybody very busy.

.

JAH seems to have conflated the 9 June Great Council with the meeting of the Three Estates (which is an English term as well, and the proper one in this context as there had been no formal opening of parliament) on c. 23 June which decided to offer Richard the crown. Mancini has this as the 'lords' going to Baynards to take oath of allegiance to Richard, and then 'the people of London and the higher clergy" doing likewise the next day. Then he says: "All important matters are deliberated, and decrees made law by these three orders, whom they call the three estates."

Mancini doesn't have Richard makes any claim to the throne till he had got possession of RdoY and taken out Hastings (in that order). In fact, Mancini in fact says of people's feelings after Hastings' death: "Thus far, though all the evidence looked as if he coveted the crown, yet there remained some hope, because he was not yet claiming the throne. . ."

I think there are complaints in some sources (I'd need to check what they are - not Crowland) that Richard and his inner circle often met at Crosby Place without the rest of the Council. Also that Hastings and his friends were meeting in their houses - but I can't see this in Mancini.

That is a separate issue from the splitting of formal council meetings into two halves, one at the Tower (with the King, of course), and the other at Westminster. I'm not sure if it was explicitly stated anywhere - perhaps you can check, Hilary - but the prosaic explanation is that such splitting off into committees was pretty standard and that the Westminster council was organising the coronation.

The very best-considered and most authoritative timeline of events during the Protectorate is given in Hammond & Sutton's Coronation of Richard III, if you're looking for a ready-made secondary source. It's hideously expensive but you could order it from a library.

Marie

Marie,

I didn't think it was the same as those cartloads of arms, but I wasn't certain, so thank you for setting that question to rest!

Apparently between Mancini (!) and Carson, my idea of an attack as Richard and Buckingham were leaving the Tower building itself is a no-go. Oh well, not the first time I've had to change my thinking...

I've read Stephen's posts and will go after the article this weekend.

Doug

Marie wrote:

Wendy's article is in two parts, vol 9, nos 122 & 123. Unfortunately it is not available to download, and that will only mean that Anne Sutton hasn't succeeded in getting Wendy's permission so no point moaning to the Society about it.

The hidden arms claim is in Mancini:-

". . . the Protector cried out by arrangement that a trap had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms in order to be first to begin the assault. Then knights who had been set there by the Lord ran in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings by the sword under the false name of treason. They spared the rest, out of respect for their religion and priesthood as it is considered.

(that's my translation, not Armstrong's although it comes to the same thing)

No, these are not the displayed weapons you're thinking of - those were the ones (cartloads of them, with the Woodville arms on the carts) that had been confiscated from Rivers' party at Stony Stratford. There's no suggestion that the few weapons that (if Mancini is correct) were seized in the Tower were ever displayed. There would have been no way of demonstrating to the crowds who they had belonged to, in any case.

This is a quotation from Annette's book:

"Whatever happened, the attempted attack (or exposure of conspiracy) took place in front of witnesses.221 This invited precisely such treason charges as could be brought expeditiously before the High Constable."

Annette indicates that summary courts under the Law of Arms were generally only used for cases such as men taken in battle, displaying treasonable banners or the like. You'd really need to read the book yourself, but the impression I have is that such a summary trial would only have been acceptable if they'd been caught pretty much red-handed. This would also be the most logical explanation for the arrests having taken place during the council meeting rather than Richard having sent soldiers to some other meeting of the conspirators to arrest them in a situation that did not put himself at personal risk.

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 13:17
To:
Subject: RE: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Marie answers:

Wendy's article is in two parts, vol 9, nos 122 & 123. Unfortunately it is not available to download, and that will only mean that Anne Sutton hasn't succeeded in getting Wendy's permission so no point moaning to the Society about it.

The hidden arms claim is in Mancini:-

". . . the Protector cried out by arrangement that a trap had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms in order to be first to begin the assault. Then knights who had been set there by the Lord ran in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings by the sword under the false name of treason. They spared the rest, out of respect for their religion and priesthood as it is considered.

(that's my translation, not Armstrong's although it comes to the same thing)

No, these are not the displayed weapons you're thinking of - those were the ones (cartloads of them, with the Woodville arms on the carts) that had been confiscated from Rivers' party at Stony Stratford. There's no suggestion that the few weapons that (if Mancini is correct) were seized in the Tower were ever displayed. There would have been no way of demonstrating to the crowds who they had belonged to, in any case.

This is a quotation from Annette's book:

"Whatever happened, the attempted attack (or exposure of conspiracy) took place in front of witnesses.221 This invited precisely such treason charges as could be brought expeditiously before the High Constable."

Annette indicates that summary courts under the Law of Arms were generally only used for cases such as men taken in battle, displaying treasonable banners or the like. You'd really need to read the book yourself, but the impression I have is that such a summary trial would only have been acceptable if they'd been caught pretty much red-handed. This would also be the most logical explanation for the arrests having taken place during the council meeting rather than Richard having sent soldiers to some other meeting of the conspirators to arrest them in a situation that did not put himself at personal risk.

Stephen answered:

Wendy's article will be accessible online via this index:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php

Marie: Approximately which year was it?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 September 2019 05:15
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot





Marie,
I've got Carson's book/let on my to buy list; is Moorhen's article accessible on-line?
To be honest, I don't think I'd heard about that particular batch of stashed weapons before! It isn't the same batch that were later claimed by some to have been placed wherever in order to arm troops against the Scots, is it?
As I said, I haven't gotten Carson's book yet, but it was my understanding from posts here on the Forum that even without a scuffle a plot against the Lord Constable was treason, punishable by death and that the Lord Constable had the necessary authority to try, condemn and execute someone found guilty of such a crime. It couldn't have been done solely on Richard's accusation, however, so there must have been some evidence. An actual attempt would certainly provide it, or so I'd imagine.
My major problem with seeing what happened to Hastings as having been any sort of set up, even by Buckingham, is probably because it complicates an otherwise fairly simply situation in which a group of highly-placed, important people are faced with the possibility of losing, if not everything, then almost everything and decided to simplify matters by removing Richard. Then again, what is there about any of this that's been simple?
I suppose warnings could have come to Richard from Catesby via Buckingham, with Buckingham holding onto the information until it was too late for Hastings to back out or, more likely, before Hastings had sufficiently compromised himself?
I've never been in the Tower and have absolutely no idea how suitable the interior of it would be for an ambush/attack. My idea was that extra men would be brought into the Tower grounds, kept in the proximity of the Mint and then attack Richard and Buckingham as they left the Tower itself. The various photos and plans I have seen suggests it was possible, although success would depend entirely on large the group of attackers was. Success would depend, of course, on just how many men accompanied Richard and Buckingham to the Tower and might also be waiting outside for their departure.
Doug

Marie wrote:
There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what \I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story.
Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.
I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed.. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him.
Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the name given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae  being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham. Catesby had professional links with Buckingham.
I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up, it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together.
Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais ad his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important.
P.S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Hastings had been properly condemned and executed.. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.


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

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Ah, They must have left the old index up as well, which has links to some of the articles.

So I was looking at the wrong thing!

Thank you.

Indeed, everything up to 2010 is included  not us yet.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 18:36
To:
Subject: RE: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Ah, They must have left the old index up as well, which has links to some of the articles.

So I was looking at the wrong thing!

Thank you.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there.

Hi Hilary,

I just found the archive.org online version of the London Wills from the Court of Hustings and it is quite fascinating. I wish I had seen it sooner. The Beamonds/Beaumonds/Beaumonts/Bonauntres that I found are as follows. I don't have the PCC will of Thomas the Salter, but I would be interested to see it if you have it. I haven't had time to have a good look at the AALT yet.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Hi Nico, I'll come back on the rest of this later but I forgot I can't attach things on this forum. If you write to me direct with your email address I'll attach it. H
On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 12:39:18 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there.

Hi Hilary,

I just found the archive.org online version of the London Wills from the Court of Hustings and it is quite fascinating. I wish I had seen it sooner. The Beamonds/Beaumonds/Beaumonts/Bonauntres that I found are as follows. I don't have the PCC will of Thomas the Salter, but I would be interested to see it if you have it. I haven't had time to have a good look at the AALT yet.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Marie,

Ah, so once Edward had been crowned he, or his relatives, could over-rule the Council, even without remaking it! OTOH, and what actually happened, was that Richard's position as Protector was confirmed by the Council pending a vote in the Parliament that was to be called to meet after Edward's coronation?

It rather looks as if the Woodvilles presumed that, should the Council agree to Richard ever assumed the position of Protector (even for the short period between that confirmation and the meeting of Parliament after Edward's coronation), it was likely that Parliament would follow the Council's lead and confirm him as Protector. Sort of looks as if the Woodvilles knew exactly where they stood with the majority of the political nation, doesn't it?

Might Edward's apparent absence on 13 June have been because he, or rather his legitimacy, was going to be decided at that meeting?

Doug

Marie wrote:

I'm afraid that isn't what the sources tell us.

The Woodville faction did not feel bound by Edward's desire for his brother to be Protector at all - they weren't relying on numbers in council, or the young Edward V, to 'hobble' him. The Protector had specific powers, in any case, for the defence of the King and the realm.

The point about a protectorate was that, albeit the powers of a protector were much more limited than those of a regent and he had to govern in cooperation with other council members, it was a recognition of the fact that the King was unable to rule in his own right. Edward V's presence in Council during a protectorate would, therefore, not of itself have made any difference.

The Woodvilles' actual policy was to rely on the precedent set in the 1420s, when it was ruled by parliament that (a) the late king's wishes could not bind people's actions after his death, and (b) it was incompatible with the royal dignity to have a protector once the king had been crowned.

So, in order to ensure that Richard would not be Protector, they aimed to get Edward crowned as soon as possible, and the date they had set for the coronation was 4 May. This is confirmed by the letter written (ostensibly) by King Edward himself and received by the Mayor and Council of King's Lynn on 24 April. I quote from it: (in modern spelling-

" And, where it hath pleased Him [God] to ordain and provid we us to succeed and inherit my said lord and father in the pre-eminence and dignity royal of the crowns of England and France, we intend, by Him that sendeth all power, . . . so to govern, rule and protect this our realm of England as shall be to His pleasure, our honour and the well and surety of all our subjects in the same, and to be at our city of London in all convenient haste, by God's grace, to be crowned at Westminster. . . . not failing to execute our commandment and your authority in that behalf for favour or doubt of any person, what estate or degree he be of, . . ."

I have emboldened particularly important words and phrases, which as you can see confirm the Woodville intention for an immediate coronation following which Edward will rule in his own right, his powers to include the protection of the realm, Opposition from a highly placed individual or individuals is anticipated in the last phrase.

That was Plan A, and seems to me to be unarguable given the evidence. Richard's plan to meet Rivers and the King on their way south in therefore a very serious problem for the Woodvilles. Richard's claim, when he reached London, was that the Woodvilles had attempted to ambush and kill him. The Tudor tradition, on the other hand, claims the Woodvilles had no concerns about Richard and he was simply a villain paving his own way to the throne. You pays your money, as they say. For me, the Woodvilles' stated aims certainly provide more than adequate motive for an attempt on their part to either kill or imprison Richard to prevent him reaching London and effecting a delay in the hasty coronation the purpose of which he very well knew.

I agree that Friday 13th was a Plan C (or perhaps B  I'm not sure whether dashing into sanctuary counts as a plan). Where Edward V sat (literally) in it all, I don't know. He must have attended council meetings at the Tower in order to prepare him for governance when he was a bit older, and we know he was signing documents by the advice of his uncle and the Council etc. Did he attend the meeting of Friday 13th? If not, why not? If did, why is his presence not mentioned by any source at all?

It seems to me that Richard would not have the king at the meeting if he knew things were going to turn nasty, and (assuming the plot was genuine) the plotters wouldn't have wanted him there either. So his apparent absence from that particular meeting may have been unusual.

http://www.thericardian..online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Doug wrote:

Ah, so once Edward had been crowned he, or his relatives, could over-rule the Council, even without remaking it! OTOH, and what actually happened, was that Richard's position as Protector was confirmed by the Council pending a vote in the Parliament that was to be called to meet after Edward's coronation?

Marie replies:

Yes. And the dangerous thing for the Woodvilles is that the plan was to ask parliament to go further than it had in the 1420s and not only ratify Richard's past tenure of the office, but allow him to retain it, even though Edward had now been crowned, until the king had reached years of discretion. We know this was what was planned because the opening address that Russell had planned to give that parliament survives, and this is what it is arguing for.

Doug wrote:

It rather looks as if the Woodvilles presumed that, should the Council agree to Richard ever assumed the position of Protector (even for the short period between that confirmation and the meeting of Parliament after Edward's coronation), it was likely that Parliament would follow the Council's lead and confirm him as Protector. Sort of looks as if the Woodvilles knew exactly where they stood with the majority of the political nation, doesn't it?

Marie:

I agree. The Woodvilles really do not seem to have been the more popular political party at this time. Richard's claim to steer the ship of state during Edward's minority, as Edward's closest male relative of the Blood Royal (as well as the late king's preferred choice), was seen as inherently more legitimate than the claims of the boy's mother. In addition, Richard was seen at that time as more honest and competent than the Woodvilles.

In France things might have been looked at differently, but this was the way things had been done in the past in the most recent English minorities, and so was the course the English felt in their guts to be constitutionally correct. Crowland understands this.

I think we can see the way that particular parliament would have voted regarding the prolongation of Richard's powers from the fact that it proved so easy, in the event, to get its members - or as many of them as had reached the capital - to petition Richard to take the throne.

So the way I see it is that the Friday 13th plot would have been an attempt to thwart parliament, and it was the need to take Richard out of the equation before parliament opened - which was only 9 days off, I think (and the coronation only 6 days off) that necessitated what was probably an over-hasty plan.

Perhaps, if the Woodvilles had recovered power that Friday, the writs for parliament would even have been cancelled, who knows.

Plus ca change - it's Friday 13th again tomorrow.

Marie,

The two links were very informative, thank you! The wild strawberries in my yard are only about the size of a large pea and hard as a rock, but I suppose if they were being tended the fruit might get a bit bigger  bean-sized perhaps? Hopefully the taste improved with the size!

Seemingly, Shakespeare got much of his information for his Richard III (1593 or thereabouts) from Holinshed, first published in 1577 and and then again in 1587. So, if there is anything in the strawberry story, I guess we'd need to know where Holinshed got his information? As you say, it's likely nothing, but I find myself extremely leery of accepting at face value anything concerning Morton!

Doug

Marie wrote:

Yep, what you were looking at was a private formal pleasure garden (hence the very high walls). This is not where strawberries (not all that attractive with their straw bedding) or any other crop would be grown. But just because the sort of strawberries they were growing are native plants, and therefore we now refer to them as wild strawberries, does not mean they would just left to grow wild, despite their tendency to spread. As the name indicates, even back then strawberries were grown in specific spots with straw laid down around them to stop them from getting munched away or spoilt by drooping on to the soil.

Both the rows of beds in the front of the sketch (i.e. at the back of the church) and the large field behind the church (north side) were gardens of some sort belonging to Ely Place so far as I can make out, and formed part of the Hatton sale.

You'll find much more detail here than in Wikipedia:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol2/pp514-526

If you go to Google Maps you can also find the modern street names it lists as deriving from this extensive garden area.

What I would say is that, although Morton's strawberries were undoubtedly bigger than mine as they were grown further south and better looked after, to get enough of the little blighters to go round the council would require a generous amount of growing space. That's where I think the large space available for gardens around Ely Place (compared to other London addresses) was probably the factor that enabled the bishops to grow strawberries in quantities that other Londoners could only envy. So the strawberries at Holborn might have been well known.

Doug:

I don't recall having heard about strawberries symbolizing love (have to brush up my Shakespeare?).

Marie:

Every plant had its symbolic meaning, and these were not the same as the Victorian symbolisms. Everything - plants, animals, the lot - symbolised something else. You wouldn't really expect to have heard about medieval plant symbolism unless you have read about medieval gardening or the like (or, in the case of strawberries, studied Othello for exams). Try this one:-

https://web.extension.illinois.edu/strawberries/history.cfm

I still don't think whether Richard had seen Morton's strawberries is particularly important. Morton might have mentioned them. They might have been famous. There are too many other possible explanations.

Hilary wrote:

I know he wasn't then but he was one of HT's great friends from his accession. Now to be that you had to qualify, like Daubeny or Uncle Jasper. He only had half a dozen all his life. And look how he supported King over the refurbishment of the Bishop's Palace. Clearly PW and his supporters knew of him.

Marie:

Yes, absolutely there was a lot of trust there. But, just to replace the goalposts, we have no evidence he was a spy. In fact, someone so well recognised and such good friends with Henry would have been useless as a spy because nobody would ever say anything incriminating in his presence.

Thanks Hilary, my email address is nico11238@... Nico

On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 13:14:06 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, I'll come back on the rest of this later but I forgot I can't attach things on this forum. If you write to me direct with your email address I'll attach it. H
On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 12:39:18 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there.

Hi Hilary,

I just found the archive.org online version of the London Wills from the Court of Hustings and it is quite fascinating. I wish I had seen it sooner. The Beamonds/Beaumonds/Beaumonts/Bonauntres that I found are as follows. I don't have the PCC will of Thomas the Salter, but I would be interested to see it if you have it. I haven't had time to have a good look at the AALT yet.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Hilary wrote (re Oliver King):

Sorry just found this Marie. I agree. I was thinking he must have done something to get that close to HT in the first place; which in my books could have been double dealing with the French and via them HT. That is well before HT became king. He was in quite a unique position as Edward's secretary. There wasn't much he didn't know.

Marie replies:

Sorry, been away for a few days in Wales with no internet access or phone signal.

We shouldn't push this spying thing too far, I think. King was not Edward's general secretary, only his secretary in the French language (thanks to the years he had spent studying in France). So his role would have been confined to diplomatic correspondence and any interstate spying in which Edward engaged, which something tells me probably wasn't very much.

Anyhow, I wouldn't have though top-secret correspondence would have gone through the Secretary. We never think of John Kendall as a spy, do we?

But King was also employed on diplomatic missions to French-speaking areas, including Brittany, and that may explain the roots of the relationship of trust he enjoyed with HVII.

Henry's dislike of Stillington is usually put down to "Dr. Stillington" having been (according to Hall) the person sent over to bring Tudor back to England in the 1470s, but ironically that person in real life was almost certainly Dr. King, who really was a future - rather than the present - Bishop of Bath at the time, as King had been sent on the previous mission to Brittany which laid the groundwork for the handover (sadly, we don't have a record of the mission to bring Tudor back); and, far from hating King, Tudor thought really well of him.

So maybe the two got to know each other when Henry was in Brittany, and Henry had come to trust him then.

In fact, if one were being conspiracy-minded, is it possible that Henry managed to get himself into sanctuary with King's connivance?

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 12:25 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops.
Marie replies:You'll come across Cosyn's name in connection with kitting out anyone who was being kept at the Kings expense (including Richard in his childhood) because he was the Keeper of the Great Wardrobe. He wasn't one of Henry's attendants.King Henry's keepers, who received their final salary payments after his death, were Robert Radcliff and William Sayer, both esquires.

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes

Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes

Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes

Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.

Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes

Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Marie replies:Well, yes, he certainly is one of those receiving payments relating to Henry's final maintenance costs; I'd agree with that. But the payment to him is not for looking after Henry - why would it be?There is just one such reference in the Foedera (vol xI, p. 712), and that is a payment of £10 for the provision of robes, beds and other necessities that Cosyn had provided for Henry VI in the Tower. An English-language summary of the self-same payment is given in Devon's Issues of the Exchequer (p. 497).That is the one and only reference to Cosyn in the accounts relating to Henry VI's final maintenance costs. There are payments Radcliffe and Sayer either side, but these are completely separate things.This payment doesn't indicate in any way that Cosyn was personally involved with Henry VI during his imprisonment. These are items that the Great Wardrobe provided. The Wardrobe accounts were always in the name of the current Keeper of the Wardrobe, and the payment was thus made to Cosyn personally.

Hi, he's certainly named in the Foedera as one of three - the others being Sayer and Radcliffe - receiving reimbursement after the death of Henry in the Tower.
The others I'll have to trawl for again. H
Show message history On Tuesday, 17 September 2019, 19:52:32 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes

Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Can I throw a suggestion and a question in touching this:
I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert. I have still to find Mathew. The Cosyns, Beaumonts and Spaynes certainly worked in the same circles in London.
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont' and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one? You see there are quite a few Bramptons in London (no doubt successors of Mayor William) and I'd hate to think we were following a wrong trail.
Is there a deed which links Margaret Beaumont with Brampton? H

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 20:01:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.

Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.

Hilary wrote:I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert.
Marie:It's not impossible, but I have to say that I've found quite a number of Emmas in the records so I'm afraid I can't agree that it's particularly significant. I do agree that, when looking for identities of spouses, families named in wills, enfeoffments and the like are the best place to start looking for evidence. Good luck.

Hilary wrote:
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont'
Marie:The Portuguese Chronicle of the Carmelites records that Brampton's wife was "Dona Margarida de Beamonda" - they jointly founded the chapel of St. Sebastian in the monastery.
Hilary:and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one?
Marie:I have explained the Somerset wills before, but it was a long time ago. They are all summaries - some more complete than others - of PCC wills. Bath and Wells sent its wills down to Exeter Cathedral for safekeeping and they were all destroyed along with the Devon & Cornwall wills when said cathedral was bombed during WWII.I don't know why T Beaumont refers to Brampton as "Master Edward Brampton" rather than Sir. We don't have a record of his knighthood, but he starts to be referred to as a knight in the summer of 1484, and then after Bosworth of course he mainly disappears from the English records.The earliest extant list of knightings for the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III was compiled, presumably from existing lists, by John Writhe, Garter King of Arms in the early 1500s. It's not absolutely complete, and it doesn't include Brampton.Henry VII does seem to have recognised his knighthood, however, as he is named as a knight in the pardon he was granted in 1489. (According to Barrie Williams' translation, the Chronicle of the Carmelites refers to him as "the great Edward Brampton" though it accords his wife the title of Dona.)By the time Thomas Beaumont made his will Sir Edward's eldest son had been knighted by Henry VII and Thomas Beaumont correctly names him as Sir John Brampton.But we have to remember that the PCC wills are copies entered into the register, so sometimes there are small errors. I once found a will which survived in the PCC copy and also the original will, and it was interesting to compare them. A whole chunk of words had been missed at one point. So it would perhaps be unwise to draw inferences from just this one wrong word.

Hi,
Marie, thanks for the info on the Oliver King and the 1475/6 negotiations about the return of Henry Tudor. Also, I do recall some reference to Henry having a preference for speaking French, so in that sense Oliver King would have been an invaluable contact.

Hilary, you could be right about Emma possibly being a Cosyn by birth, thus making King, Cosyn and Beaumont all related - certainly much more likely than my speculation about Cosyn and Beaumont being his illegitmate sons. As for Beaumont's will, it is the Somerset one that I read. I couldn't find a PCC version. I haven't seen any deeds connecting the two either, but I hadn't checked for any specifically, so it is worth a look. However, the Somerset will is definitely a reference to Brampton as the relevant text that follows his bequest to Emme Spayne states:To Maister Edward Brampton, an hope of gold to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of gold with a flatte diamonde, and to eche of their children, ie Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s, with this scripture to be made within everyche of the same hoopes, "Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these rynges to be made and sent into Portingale unto them by some sure messenger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."
The reference to Portugal connects the will to 'our' Sir Edward Brampton, and Margaret and the children's names match those listed in genealogies, (although some differ on the age order), so it must be the right one. Also, Brampton's eldest son was knighted by HT in 1500. I have just seen Marie's note on Maister/Sir, so I will leave that to her. I was a bit surprised that Thomas Beaumont called himself Sir, as I didn't think he had been knighted. Perhaps it is a courtesy title for clergy. FWIW, here are some links to auxiliary notes:
http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-brampton.htmlhttp://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?t=33250https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928

Nico




On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 10:11:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Can I throw a suggestion and a question in touching this:
I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert. I have still to find Mathew. The Cosyns, Beaumonts and Spaynes certainly worked in the same circles in London.
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont' and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one? You see there are quite a few Bramptons in London (no doubt successors of Mayor William) and I'd hate to think we were following a wrong trail.
Is there a deed which links Margaret Beaumont with Brampton? H

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 20:01:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.

Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.

Hi,
Marie, thanks for the info on the Oliver King and the 1475/6 negotiations about the return of Henry Tudor. Also, I do recall some reference to Henry having a preference for speaking French, so in that sense Oliver King would have been an invaluable contact.

Hilary, you could be right about Emma possibly being a Cosyn by birth, thus making King, Cosyn and Beaumont all related - certainly much more likely than my speculation about Cosyn and Beaumont being his illegitmate sons. As for Beaumont's will, it is the Somerset one that I read. I couldn't find a PCC version. I haven't seen any deeds connecting the two either, but I hadn't checked for any specifically, so it is worth a look. However, the Somerset will is definitely a reference to Brampton as the relevant text that follows his bequest to Emme Spayne states:To Maister Edward Brampton, an hope of gold to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of gold with a flatte diamonde, and to eche of their children, ie Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s, with this scripture to be made within everyche of the same hoopes, "Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these rynges to be made and sent into Portingale unto them by some sure messenger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."
The reference to Portugal connects the will to 'our' Sir Edward Brampton, and Margaret and the children's names match those listed in genealogies, (although some differ on the age order), so it must be the right one. Also, Brampton's eldest son was knighted by HT in 1500. I have just seen Marie's note on Maister/Sir, so I will leave that to her. I was a bit surprised that Thomas Beaumont called himself Sir, as I didn't think he had been knighted. Perhaps it is a courtesy title for clergy. FWIW, here are some links to auxiliary notes:
http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-brampton.htmlhttp://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?t=33250https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928

Nico




On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 10:11:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Can I throw a suggestion and a question in touching this:
I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert. I have still to find Mathew. The Cosyns, Beaumonts and Spaynes certainly worked in the same circles in London.
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont' and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one? You see there are quite a few Bramptons in London (no doubt successors of Mayor William) and I'd hate to think we were following a wrong trail.
Is there a deed which links Margaret Beaumont with Brampton? H

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 20:01:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.

Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.

Hilary wrote:These are the Emmes/Emmas I've found in London and the Home Counties. The dates have to be right of course, as does whether being married to someone else disqualifies them:Emme Bramanger/Polyver - husband still alive in the 1490sEmme Unknown/Stone/Petit. Petit last seen in the early 1490sEmme Fretwell (wife of John) -still married at crucial dates - disqualifiedEmme Moager (wife of John, Pewterer) as above - disqualifiedEmma Gregory (orphan daughter of Robert 1469) not of age then - possible candidateEmme Constantine - wife of William (Alderman) - disqualifiedEmma Shetford - married - disqualifiedEmme Bonyfaunt - daughter of John - interestingEmme Cruse - daughter of JohnEmme Godlwell - daughter of John, married Henry Wadlowe - disqualified
I haven't listed those whose circumstances and dates just don't fit. I do think Emme Spayne, whoever she was was someone who won't be off the map. Beaumont was undoubtedly rich - look at his bequests. And I still have to find Mathew Cosyn and his son.
Re the Beaumonts and wills remember I missed the start of the discussion. I think Thomas Beaumont died quite young - Cosyn didn't go to Eton till the late 1480s. So at the time of his death Thomas's sister Margaret must have been mid- thirties? Would she have had a grown-up knighted son by then? I don't think we're chasing hares; just need to be sure. H

Hi Hilary,
Of all the Emmes listed above, only 4 are realistic candidates - Emme Cruse, Emme Bonyfaunt, Emme Bramanger/Poliver and Emme Unknown/Stone/Petit. I would say that Emme Gregory is too young to be her.
Thomas Beaumont died in 1507 aged around 43/44, so he was born c.1463/1464. Margaret's age is unknown, but she married Brampton after his first wife died in 1480. Perhaps Margaret was a few years older, born around 1460. Emme and Mr. Beaumont were most likely born in the 1430s or early 1440s. Margaret's and Brampton's son John was knighted in 1500, probably in his late teens. I don't know what John Brampton did for his knighthood, but it was most likely a reward for his father's efforts. However, he may have been able to give some information. According to the Setubal testimonies, his son had been friendly with PW.
FWIW, I assume that all the children are Margaret's biological children. Brampton's first wife was Isabel Tresham, widow of Sir William Tresham. Presumably, she would have been too old to have had any children by Brampton, but Marie and I did speculate about the possibility that Sir William may have married two women named Isabel, and that Brampton's wife was the second (younger) wife and the stepmother rather than the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham (d. 1471). I noticed that Brampton named a daughter Isabel, so I wonder if the older children were actually the children of Isabel and Margaret was the stepmother. In that case they could have been a bit older and Sir John of some use to HT.

Thanks for sending Thomas Beaumonts will. I will take a look at it later.
Nico

On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:47:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
I'm not saying he looked after Henry but he was associated with him, my guess through the supply of clothes. So he would likely have met him several times.
He also supplied Edward with cloth of silver for a meeting with the Scottish ambassadors in 1462.


Marie replies:
I don't know how many staff there were in the Wardrobe, or whether the Keeper would actually measure people up for clothing. The King would have his tailor as well, and the tailor and the Wardrobe worked together. The trouble is, Hilary, you could use that argument about anyone being supplied by the King. I've been through all the Wardrobe accounts for the early years of Edward's reign, looking for what I was looking for, and there are clothes made for Clarence, Gloucester, the Lady Margaret. There were all sorts of specialists making things for the Wardrobe - broiderers, horse harness makers, people stamping designs of roses on to leather, etc, etc, all sorts, because the total kitting out of the household for long journeys and ceremonial occasions was included. There is even reference to waxing of outer clothes for travelling in wet weather. The Wardrobe also encompassed the office of the King's Beds.Silks and satins also had to be purchased from merchants, particularly for big occasions, and that would be the Keeper's responsibility as shown by the law suit Piers Curteys later brought against Thomas Lynom (as the Crown representative with whom he had dealt) for reimbursing the cost of fabrics for Katherine's marriage.
So I would think the Keeper would have been kept pretty busy ensuring this important department ran smoothly. He would have had enough to do overseeing the high-end stuff, and I can't see him personally going round to measure people up. It doesn't mean he'd never met King Henry, only that this entry is not evidence of a personal working relationship.

Brampton's knighthood, from memory, no earlier than May/June 1484.
M

Hi,

Hilary wrote:If you read the will can you check that the Cosyn name is Mathew? I can't think of anything else it could be but sometimes it's easy to confuse Ms ith Ws. Strangely enough it's perhaps the most difficult thing to read in the will.
I have had a look at the will, but it seems to be only one page. The main part of it reads much like the Somerset will, but the last word is Emme (the bequest to Emme Spayne) with more to follow. I couldn't find 'Cosyn,' but I think it is on the next page, as the Somerset will lists 'Maister William Cousyn, Dean of Wellys' as one of his executors, not Matthew.

In the meantime, I will have a look up the Bonyfaunts.




Doug wrote:A thought occurred to me; could that Maister refer to Brampton's profession, that of being a ship's captain? As in The master of the vessel?
You could be right about this. I would have thought he would have used his title 'Sir,' but Maister appears to be a mark of a powerful respectable position. It could refer to his having been a ship's captain, or perhaps to him being a person of wealth and standing.

Doug also wrote:The only problem I have with the possibility that the Woodvilles might have known of the Pre-Contract before Edward IV died is that what they did, or planned to do, after Edward's death seems to me to be very, well, ad hoc, don't they? I can understand plans misfiring because they were conceived and carried out in a hurry, but if there was time, years or even months, for consideration and planning, one would think better ideas would have come to the fore. Or, I suppose, it's just another example of the Woodvilles' general unfitness for the positions they made a grab for?
Last year when we discussed the events leading up to Stony Stratford after Edward died, it was evident that while it was clearly important for the Woodvilles to get Edward V to London to be crowned, Anthony Woodville seemed to be taking his time and wasn't particularly organized about the journey, which led us to conclude that it was likely that the Woodvilles were unaware of the precontract. Neverthless, it can't be ruled out.If Eleanor's family and a few others knew, the secret could have travelled in certain circles. Maybe trying to get a boy King to his coronation quickly and co-ordinate a coup against his protector was a difficult task and he was overwhelmed. Another possibility was that the Woodvilles were just over confident, entitled and so used to getting their own way that they couldn't imagine anything going wrong for them. Alternatively, could it be possible that the Woodvilles couldn't agree on a strategy even if they knew about the precontract and the danger surrounding it? AW doesn't strike me as a man of action, so if EW and Dorset were pushing for an attack on Richard, I could see him being reluctant.
Anyway, I just downloaded an ebook about AW by a medium called Dorothy Davies. If she comes up with any gems from the ghost world I will let you know.

Nico
On Saturday, 21 September 2019, 12:31:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Brampton's knighthood, from memory, no earlier than May/June 1484.
M

On Sunday, September 22, 2019, 4:57 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019, 4:34 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019, 6:14 pm, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

He pulls it off for once as a sort of Hornblower captain. And Paul Bettany is good as the surgeon- they play duets together . And a clever twist at the end. Sorry but I love the Nelson era of British seafaring. The Frogs versus the Lobsters (army of course). And considering it's a film with hardly any women ....... :). H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, September 23, 2019, 4:34 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

And a beautiful rendition of Vaughan Williams' Ode on Theme of Thomas Tallis during a storm. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, September 23, 2019, 6:14 pm, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

He pulls it off for once as a sort of Hornblower captain. And Paul Bettany is good as the surgeon- they play duets together . And a clever twist at the end. Sorry but I love the Nelson era of British seafaring. The Frogs versus the Lobsters (army of course). And considering it's a film with hardly any women ....... :). H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, September 23, 2019, 4:34 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nicholas replied on 21 September:

I have had a look at the will, but it seems to be only one page. The main part of it reads much like the Somerset will, but the last word is Emme (the bequest to Emme Spayne) with more to follow. I couldn't find 'Cosyn,' but I think it is on the next page, as the Somerset will lists 'Maister William Cousyn, Dean of Wellys' as one of his executors, not Matthew.

Marie adds:

Finally home, so I've been able to access my copy of Thomas Beaumont's will (the surname is spelled Beamount in TNA catalogue, if anyone is looking for it). The reference I think Nicholas meant - but you can verify this, Nicholas - comes on the second page near the end of the will, and the word is Maistres, not Mathew. What it says is "Item, to Maistres Cosen* and Robert Coysn hir sonne eche of them a hope** of golde iiij li price".

*or possibly Cosyn with the tail of the -y faded out.

** hoop or ring.

Nicholas wrote:

AW would have wanted to keep clear of any obvious complicity in the intended fate of Richard and Buckingham. While their may have been suspicion about his involvement, it may have been hard to prove.

Marie:

The other possibility is that they planned to do what all the sources hostile to Richard have done ever since - accuse Richard (wo was not yet Protector) - of attempting to kidnap the King, or at least of forcing him to act against his will.

Richard would thus not have been simply the victim of an unfortunate accident, but a traitor whose lands and titles were forfeit to the Crown.

The letter from "Edward V" to King's Lynn sets the scene for such an event, in having Edward direct the town authorities in advance that any attempt by any person, no matter how exalted, who might attempt to prevent him hurrying to London to be crowned and take up the reins of government for himself would be acting against the wishes of the King and of God and was to be resisted.

The uncomfortable fact is, of course, that even if Rivers wrote that letter (and presumably others like it, now lost), Rivers' plan would almost certainly have been more to young Edward's liking than the protectorate his father had envisaged.

Hi Hilary,

I totally agree about the sources. We simply don't have enough reliable information to enable us to be sure about exactly what happened. But I think the sources can probably reveal more accurate details than are usually derived from them if they are carefully put together and scrutinised, using, as you say, surviving letters, etc, as pivots.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any extant town records for Northampton. There is a published book, but it just contains transcripts of charters relating to the town that survive in the central archives.

Marie

Hilary wrote:If you read the will can you check that the Cosyn name is Mathew? I can't think of anything else it could be but sometimes it's easy to confuse Ms ith Ws. Strangely enough it's perhaps the most difficult thing to read in the will.

Nicholas replied on 21 September:

I have had a look at the will, but it seems to be only one page. The main part of it reads much like the Somerset will, but the last word is Emme (the bequest to Emme Spayne) with more to follow. I couldn't find 'Cosyn,' but I think it is on the next page, as the Somerset will lists 'Maister William Cousyn, Dean of Wellys' as one of his executors, not Matthew.

Marie adds:

Finally home, so I've been able to access my copy of Thomas Beaumont's will (the surname is spelled Beamount in TNA catalogue, if anyone is looking for it). The reference I think Nicholas meant - but you can verify this, Nicholas - comes on the second page near the end of the will, and the word is Maistres, not Mathew. What it says is "Item, to Maistres Cosen* and Robert Coysn hir sonne eche of them a hope** of golde iiij li price".

*or possibly Cosyn with the tail of the -y faded out.

** hoop or ring.

Hi Hilary,

I totally agree about the sources. We simply don't have enough reliable information to enable us to be sure about exactly what happened. But I think the sources can probably reveal more accurate details than are usually derived from them if they are carefully put together and scrutinised, using, as you say, surviving letters, etc, as pivots.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any extant town records for Northampton. There is a published book, but it just contains transcripts of charters relating to the town that survive in the central archives.

Marie

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, it was entirely my fault for reading 'hir' as 'his'. I wasn't expecting a title rather than a first name and what complicates it more there was a priest called Masculin Cosyn - I saw the 's' not 'th'.

Marie:

The trick with palaeography is to read like an editor - letter by letter rather than word by word. It helps to stop the deep parts of the brain leaping to conclusions based on its 20th/21st-century data foundation.

Was "Masculin Cosyn" also in the SW? Could that name be Malcolin, I wonder? Malcolin (or Malcolinus in Latin) was the English form of Malcolm at the time, and for some obscure reason was most common in the SW of England.

Hilary:

So, as I said to Nico, this is of course Elizabeth King, Oliver's sister and Robert was William's brother.

Marie:

Indeed. It's a long time after the death of her husband (Robert Cosyn of the Wardrobe) but I see that Elizabeth King, widow, of London was suing in Common Pleas as late as 1505.

Hilary:

Interestingly, Elizabeth's daughter, another Elizabeth married Sir John Philpot who came from the parish of St Dionis Backchurch, which was also the parish of Chandler John Beaumond and his children So I think it is feasible that there was a blood relationship between the Cosyns, the Beaumonts and the Kings.

Marie:

I think that's probable too. Oliver King seems to have been one of those churchmen, like Morton, who found jobs for the family. That seems to have been how William Cosyn's career initially got going, and it fell into the doldrums for some time after Bishop Oliver's death. The same pattern can be seen with Thomas Beamont, and I think it's more likely that a family relationship was the thing that got King to promote Beaumont, rather than Beaumont sharing information on the Bramptons' boy, though that's not to say King might not have tried to find out if he knew anything useful about the subject (which I imagine he didn't).

I am only a bit cautious though because Beaumont was at Wells with William Cosyn and could also have got to know his mother and brother that way; plus they were all Londoners. The Reynyon sisters also rewarded were probably related to the Richard Renyon who also appears at Wells. Or this whole bunch of people might have been inter-related. There's some work to be done. What the relationship, if any, was in Beaumont's case we haven't established. The naming of Mistress Cosyn might suggest that the Beaumonts were directly related to the Kings rather than the previous generation of Cosyns. My first thought was Elizabeth King might have been Thomas and Margaret's maternal aunt, but so far as we know Oliver only had two sisters, Elizabeth and Alienore - the angel said no Emme.

I think that's probable too. Oliver King seems to have been one of those churchmen, like Morton, who found jobs for the family. That seems to have been how William Cosyn's career initially got going, and it fell into the doldrums for some time after Bishop Oliver's death. The same pattern can be seen with Thomas Beamont, and I think it's more likely that a family relationship was the thing that got King to promote Beaumont, rather than Beaumont sharing information on the Bramptons' boy, though that's not to say King might not have tried to find out if he knew anything useful about the subject (which I imagine he didn't).

Hilary wrote: Our only real primary sources are the voices of those who were actually involved. For example we know Edward V's signature was not in keeping with one brought up from birth to be king&So I do find it interesting that there is no mention in the Coventry Leet Books of new king Edward passing by. The city had a special relationship with him and an earlier visit by EW was well-recorded. Similarly, Northampton features quite a bit in this of course, but where is the local record of the young king's visit? Everywhere you try to investigate is swamped by the mythology of the three sources above, so that mythology has become unquestioned history.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, it was entirely my fault for reading 'hir' as 'his'. I wasn't expecting a title rather than a first name and what complicates it more there was a priest called Masculin Cosyn - I saw the 's' not 'th'.

Marie:

The trick with palaeography is to read like an editor - letter by letter rather than word by word. It helps to stop the deep parts of the brain leaping to conclusions based on its 20th/21st-century data foundation.

Was "Masculin Cosyn" also in the SW? Could that name be Malcolin, I wonder? Malcolin (or Malcolinus in Latin) was the English form of Malcolm at the time, and for some obscure reason was most common in the SW of England.

Hilary:

So, as I said to Nico, this is of course Elizabeth King, Oliver's sister and Robert was William's brother.

Marie:

Indeed. It's a long time after the death of her husband (Robert Cosyn of the Wardrobe) but I see that Elizabeth King, widow, of London was suing in Common Pleas as late as 1505.

Hilary:

Interestingly, Elizabeth's daughter, another Elizabeth married Sir John Philpot who came from the parish of St Dionis Backchurch, which was also the parish of Chandler John Beaumond and his children So I think it is feasible that there was a blood relationship between the Cosyns, the Beaumonts and the Kings.

Marie:

I think that's probable too. Oliver King seems to have been one of those churchmen, like Morton, who found jobs for the family. That seems to have been how William Cosyn's career initially got going, and it fell into the doldrums for some time after Bishop Oliver's death. The same pattern can be seen with Thomas Beamont, and I think it's more likely that a family relationship was the thing that got King to promote Beaumont, rather than Beaumont sharing information on the Bramptons' boy, though that's not to say King might not have tried to find out if he knew anything useful about the subject (which I imagine he didn't).

I am only a bit cautious though because Beaumont was at Wells with William Cosyn and could also have got to know his mother and brother that way; plus they were all Londoners. The Reynyon sisters also rewarded were probably related to the Richard Renyon who also appears at Wells. Or this whole bunch of people might have been inter-related. There's some work to be done. What the relationship, if any, was in Beaumont's case we haven't established. The naming of Mistress Cosyn might suggest that the Beaumonts were directly related to the Kings rather than the previous generation of Cosyns. My first thought was Elizabeth King might have been Thomas and Margaret's maternal aunt, but so far as we know Oliver only had two sisters, Elizabeth and Alienore - the angel said no Emme.

Nicholas wrote:

As Hilary pointed out, his lack of visibility in towns like Coventry on the way to London seems strange. A new King is a historical event, so you would think that the local records would mention things like Edward V greeting crowds.

Marie here:

It's only strange if you assume we have complete records from the period. We don't. As per my previous post, there are no town records for Northampton and those for Coventry are patchy, not because nobody bothered recording a lot of things but because a lot of material was lost before anybody bothered to take the stuff to the bookbinder's. It's even possible that, after Edward V's deposition, records of a massive reception and citizens taking an oath of allegiance to him would have been used as firelighters.

Absence of evidence, as far as the 15th century is concerned, is almost never evidence of absence, I'm afraid, although it's often used as such even by some professional historians.

Nicholas wrote:

We had a discussion about EV's health before, and the strange way that he wrote his name does raise questions about what sort of condition he was in.

Marie:

We don't know about Edward's health, but it's worth remembering this was the second visit he had made to London in a very few months. He attended the parliament of January 1483, and travelled back to Ludlow again when it was over.

As for that wobbly signature, there are again so many possible explanations if you want to look for them. He may have been a natural left-hander forced to use his right. He may have been sobbing his heart out, and the signature game was an attempt to cheer him up. He may have been quivering with rage, and the exercise was an attempt to calm him down. Maybe he had been given a quill with a very bad nib. . . .

Marie,

As I wrote in another post, I've given up on the ambush scenario and was trying to imagine how Rivers was going to accomplish getting rid of Richard, but if I correctly understand what you've written below, there wasn't to be an ambush so to speak, but rather a cold-blooded murder, possibly done in River's presence as he, Richard and Buckingham rode to Stony Stratford? That is, of course, if Rivers had been in Northampton so as to be able to accompany Richard and Buckingham; he would have been the Judas goat, so to speak.

The other possibility, I suppose, would have been immediately after Richard and Buckingham arrived at Stony Stratford and before their meeting with the king? The problem I have is with what I guess could be called the logistics. In the first instance I mentioned, all that would be required would be for Rivers to have enough of his own retainers with him or, if Rivers wasn't in Northampton, to have someone trustworthy enough to carry out the deed while the party was en route Stony Stratford. However, if Rivers, Grey and Vaughan, were arrested at Stony Stratford, how was it managed? Even if all the retainers that accompanied Richard and Buckingham accompanied them on their ride from Northampton, they'd still have been out-numbered by the Woodville retainers attending Edward, wouldn't they? I suppose there'd have been a short period between their arrival and their meeting with the king when Richard could have used his authority as Constable, but talk about running risks!

Doug

Marie wrote:

The other possibility is that they planned to do what all the sources hostile to Richard have done ever since - accuse Richard (wo was not yet Protector) - of attempting to kidnap the King, or at least of forcing him to act against his will.

Richard would thus not have been simply the victim of an unfortunate accident, but a traitor whose lands and titles were forfeit to the Crown.

The letter from "Edward V" to King's Lynn sets the scene for such an event, in having Edward direct the town authorities in advance that any attempt by any person, no matter how exalted, who might attempt to prevent him hurrying to London to be crowned and take up the reins of government for himself would be acting against the wishes of the King and of God and was to be resisted.

The uncomfortable fact is, of course, that even if Rivers wrote that letter (and presumably others like it, now lost), Rivers' plan would almost certainly have been more to young Edward's liking than the protectorate his father had envisaged.

Nicholas wrote:

As Hilary pointed out, his lack of visibility in towns like Coventry on the way to London seems strange. A new King is a historical event, so you would think that the local records would mention things like Edward V greeting crowds.

Marie here:

It's only strange if you assume we have complete records from the period. We don't. As per my previous post, there are no town records for Northampton and those for Coventry are patchy, not because nobody bothered recording a lot of things but because a lot of material was lost before anybody bothered to take the stuff to the bookbinder's. It's even possible that, after Edward V's deposition, records of a massive reception and citizens taking an oath of allegiance to him would have been used as firelighters.

Absence of evidence, as far as the 15th century is concerned, is almost never evidence of absence, I'm afraid, although it's often used as such even by some professional historians.

Nicholas wrote:

We had a discussion about EV's health before, and the strange way that he wrote his name does raise questions about what sort of condition he was in.

Marie:

We don't know about Edward's health, but it's worth remembering this was the second visit he had made to London in a very few months. He attended the parliament of January 1483, and travelled back to Ludlow again when it was over.

As for that wobbly signature, there are again so many possible explanations if you want to look for them. He may have been a natural left-hander forced to use his right. He may have been sobbing his heart out, and the signature game was an attempt to cheer him up. He may have been quivering with rage, and the exercise was an attempt to calm him down. Maybe he had been given a quill with a very bad nib. . . .

Doug wrote:

As I wrote in another post, I've given up on the ambush scenario and was trying to imagine how Rivers was going to accomplish getting rid of Richard, but if I correctly understand what you've written below, there wasn't to be an ambush so to speak, but rather a cold-blooded murder, possibly done in River's presence as he, Richard and Buckingham rode to Stony Stratford? That is, of course, if Rivers had been in Northampton so as to be able to accompany Richard and Buckingham; he would have been the Judas goat, so to speak.

The other possibility, I suppose, would have been immediately after Richard and Buckingham arrived at Stony Stratford and before their meeting with the king? The problem I have is with what I guess could be called the logistics. In the first instance I mentioned, all that would be required would be for Rivers to have enough of his own retainers with him or, if Rivers wasn't in Northampton, to have someone trustworthy enough to carry out the deed while the party was en route Stony Stratford. However, if Rivers, Grey and Vaughan, were arrested at Stony Stratford, how was it managed? Even if all the retainers that accompanied Richard and Buckingham accompanied them on their ride from Northampton, they'd still have been out-numbered by the Woodville retainers attending Edward, wouldn't they? I suppose there'd have been a short period between their arrival and their meeting with the king when Richard could have used his authority as Constable, but talk about running risks!

Marie replies:

No, that isn't exactly what I was thinking, but I'd like to just stress again that we don't have enough reliable information on what went on, and almost none about what the Woodvilles would have done if they hadn't been seized, so trying to pin things down too precisely is probably unwise. We can say, on the basis of the two letters from "Edward V", that certain things were so that are not always recognised as having been so, i.e.:-

1) The Woodville side were aiming to get Edward to London as fast as possible in order to be crowned immediately and begin his personal rule.

2) The same side let it be known to at least one town that they were to keep the peace to that end, and ignore any attempts to the contrary from any party, no matter how exalted in rank, suggesting that they were expecting opposition to (1) and wished to make it clear that their plan was the one that represented the King's own will.

3) Richard and Buckingham returned to Northampton after the coup at Stony Stratford, and stayed there until 2 May.

4) By 2 May Richard had apparently learned that the Woodvilles were also aiming to get hold of the Great Seal and the Tower treasure, since he instructed Cardinal Bourchier to secure both.

Then we have the earliest chronicle accounts:-

1) College of Arms MS 2M6 (the 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen') indicates that Richard held an important council meeting whilst at Northampton, which decided the way forward, viz " King Edward the vth schuld haue ben crownyd the iiij day of May, and the duke of Gloseter and his lordes at Northampton seid he schuld be crownyd annother tyme with more honour at London. . .

2) Mancini's is the protoype for More's account (I actually suspect that a version of Mancini was available to More, but that's another subject altogether). He has the two parties stop close to the meeting of their routes into London from the west and north. The royal party stop at a village or country town (pagus), whilst Richard and Buckingham stopping at a fortified town (oppidum) belonging to Richard. The young King send Rivers up to Richard's town to greet him. They spent a large part of the night in conviviality, but Richard has Rivers and his attendants imprisoned before setting out, and set a watch on the roads so that no one could warn the King. Richard and Buckingham then galloped off to the pagus and you get the scene where they greet Edward V.

Interestingly, Mancini says the King could do nothing to counter the dukes as he was deprived of his soldiers, but how this came to be is not explained; it could be important as it may mean they had been deployed elsewhere for some purpose. Richard tells the King that the men he had arrested had conspired his death and prepared ambushes both in the capital (urbe) and on the road, which had been revealed to him by those who knew of it. In Stony Stratford Lord Richard Grey was arrested and Edward's attendants were ordered home.

3) According to Crowland, Richard reached Northampton. Then he was joined by Rivers, who had been sent to him by the young king. Then Buckingham arrived quite late. Like Mancini, Crowland says the three took dinner together and passed the evening in "pleasant conversation." During the night they took counsel (not made clear whether Rivers excluded from this or not), then all three set out the next morning to meet Edward V at Stony Stratford. Just as they were about to enter the town, they had Rivers arrested, along with Lord Richard Grey and some others who were with them. Then they carried on and met the King, taking prisoner some of his servants, including Sir Thomas Vaughan. Richard told the King " he was only taking precautions to safeguard his own person because he knew for certain that there were men in attendance on the king who had plotted to destroy his honour and his life."

4) The other fairly early source is Rous, who completed his work for Henry VII about 1489/90, who says:

At length, Richard duke of Gloucester, the brother of the deceased king and by his decree Protector of England, arriving with a strong force at Stony Stratford, took his nephew the King into his governance as Protector of England. As for others (viz. Anthony, Earl Rivers, the Queen's eldest brother; the new king's maternal uncle Richard Grey, that king's brother through his mother; and Thomas Vaghan, knight), they were discharged, indeed arrested and sent to be imprisoned in the North Parts, and there soon afterwards unjustly slain. And thus the new king, torn away from his most faithful men, received with kisses and embraces, fell like an innocent lamb into the hands of wolves. Also his distinguished tutor, Master John Alkok, Bishop of Worcester, a man attentive to morals to the pleasure of God, was removed along with the rest, though not burdened with the rigour of prison.

You will notice that both Crowland and Rous have Rivers arrested at Stony Stratford, in contrast to the Mancini/More tradition.

The ambush theory was written about quite well by Gordon Smith some years back, and the article was published in the Bulletin (March 2004):-

http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/bulletin/2004_03_spring_bulletin.pdf

Hilary wrote:

With regard to the journey, are there any records at St Albans (where you have him spending 1 night and JAH 2)? Did I read somewhere that it had a Cartulary? And I assume the Bishop's Palace is Lambeth?

Marie replies:

I don't know what JAH has, but I think I know what might have happened given that Doug had the party

arrive in London on the 6th. There is a discrepancy with the recorded dates, viz:

1) They were at Northampton for at least part of 2 May (the letter to Cardinal Bourchier)

2) There is a copy in Harley 433 (vol 1, p. 3) of a letter written by Edward V "apud villam Sancti Albani [blank space] die Maij" . Despite the text of the letter itself not bearing a date, the clerk who copied it up

into the Privy Seal register (i.e. Harley 433) headed it "Quinto die Maij". This could be seen to place Edward V at St. Albans on 5 May.

3) The various London sources, however, record the arrival of Edward and his uncle in the city on 4 May. These include sober strictly contemporary accounts such as the minutes of the Drapers' Company.

Therefore it seems to me that Rhoda Edwards (Itinerary of Richard III) was probably correct to assume that the copy of the St. Albans letter must have been written on 3 May (or possibly 4th, before the party set off for London). Perhaps 5 May in the heading is not a mistake but the date on which the letter was

copied into the Privy Seal Register at Westminster.

Marie,

I'm surprised that the letter to King's Lynn hasn't been better appreciated for what it displays about the Woodvilles' intentions! Who other than the proposed Protector could it possibly refer to?

The link was very interesting indeed! One thing I noticed was that Mr. Smith has Mancini claiming that the Council refused Richard's request to have the trio executed because of a lack of evidence, while the author wrote that it was because Richard wasn't yet confirmed as Protector when the plot was laid. Did no one know about the powers of the Constable before Carson looked into them? I can understand Mancini not knowing, as it wouldn't be his first mistake in writing about England! I also wonder if the stories about Rivers meeting Richard at Northampton, or returning there to do so, weren't cut from the same cloth that had Morton agreeing to send those symbols of purity, aka strawberries, to Richard. Just another example of mean ol' Richard hitting out at those trying to be nice to him?

If I understand the article correctly, it appears as if Mr. Smith believed the plan was to await Richard and Buckingham as they traveled from Northampton to Stony Stratford, but Richard and Buckingham either took the longer route (avoiding the ambush entirely) or else, warned of what was planned charged through/past, arriving at Stony Stratford where they met Edward. Grey and Vaughan were taken into custody at Stony Stratford, with Rivers then being arrested on the way back to Northampton. I do find it noteworthy that apparently all sources have Edward basically unguarded at Stony Stratford. FWIW, I'm inclined to think Richard and Buckingham likely went around the ambush rather than trying to run through it. Doing so would, or so it seems to me, mean that if Rivers was encountered while Edward, Richard, Buckingham and their troops were on the way back to Northampton, they'd have the element of surprise when they appeared at his rear. Nor would Rivers likely be in any position to know whether or not even more troops were between him, his troops and Northampton. Of course, once he'd lost possession of Edward...

Marie wrote:

No, that isn't exactly what I was thinking, but I'd like to just stress again that we don't have enough reliable information on what went on, and almost none about what the Woodvilles would have done if they hadn't been seized, so trying to pin things down too precisely is probably unwise. We can say, on the basis of the two letters from "Edward V", that certain things were so that are not always recognised as having been so, i.e.:-

1) The Woodville side were aiming to get Edward to London as fast as possible in order to be crowned immediately and begin his personal rule.

2) The same side let it be known to at least one town that they were to keep the peace to that end, and ignore any attempts to the contrary from any party, no matter how exalted in rank, suggesting that they were expecting opposition to (1) and wished to make it clear that their plan was the one that represented the King's own will.

3) Richard and Buckingham returned to Northampton after the coup at Stony Stratford, and stayed there until 2 May.

4) By 2 May Richard had apparently learned that the Woodvilles were also aiming to get hold of the Great Seal and the Tower treasure, since he instructed Cardinal Bourchier to secure both.

Then we have the earliest chronicle accounts:-

1) College of Arms MS 2M6 (the 'Historical Notes of a London Citizen') indicates that Richard held an important council meeting whilst at Northampton, which decided the way forward, viz " King Edward the vth schuld haue ben crownyd the iiij day of May, and the duke of Gloseter and his lordes at Northampton seid he schuld be crownyd annother tyme with more honour at London. . .

2) Mancini's is the protoype for More's account (I actually suspect that a version of Mancini was available to More, but that's another subject altogether). He has the two parties stop close to the meeting of their routes into London from the west and north. The royal party stop at a village or country town (pagus), whilst Richard and Buckingham stopping at a fortified town (oppidum) belonging to Richard. The young King send Rivers up to Richard's town to greet him. They spent a large part of the night in conviviality, but Richard has Rivers and his attendants imprisoned before setting out, and set a watch on the roads so that no one could warn the King. Richard and Buckingham then galloped off to the pagus and you get the scene where they greet Edward V.

Interestingly, Mancini says the King could do nothing to counter the dukes as he was deprived of his soldiers, but how this came to be is not explained; it could be important as it may mean they had been deployed elsewhere for some purpose. Richard tells the King that the men he had arrested had conspired his death and prepared ambushes both in the capital (urbe) and on the road, which had been revealed to him by those who knew of it. In Stony Stratford Lord Richard Grey was arrested and Edward's attendants were ordered home.

3) According to Crowland, Richard reached Northampton. Then he was joined by Rivers, who had been sent to him by the young king. Then Buckingham arrived quite late. Like Mancini, Crowland says the three took dinner together and passed the evening in "pleasant conversation." During the night they took counsel (not made clear whether Rivers excluded from this or not), then all three set out the next morning to meet Edward V at Stony Stratford. Just as they were about to enter the town, they had Rivers arrested, along with Lord Richard Grey and some others who were with them. Then they carried on and met the King, taking prisoner some of his servants, including Sir Thomas Vaughan. Richard told the King " he was only taking precautions to safeguard his own person because he knew for certain that there were men in attendance on the king who had plotted to destroy his honour and his life."

4) The other fairly early source is Rous, who completed his work for Henry VII about 1489/90, who says:

At length, Richard duke of Gloucester, the brother of the deceased king and by his decree Protector of England, arriving with a strong force at Stony Stratford, took his nephew the King into his governance as Protector of England. As for others (viz. Anthony, Earl Rivers, the Queen's eldest brother; the new king's maternal uncle Richard Grey, that king's brother through his mother; and Thomas Vaghan, knight), they were discharged, indeed arrested and sent to be imprisoned in the North Parts, and there soon afterwards unjustly slain. And thus the new king, torn away from his most faithful men, received with kisses and embraces, fell like an innocent lamb into the hands of wolves. Also his distinguished tutor, Master John Alkok, Bishop of Worcester, a man attentive to morals to the pleasure of God, was removed along with the rest, though not burdened with the rigour of prison.

You will notice that both Crowland and Rous have Rivers arrested at Stony Stratford, in contrast to the Mancini/More tradition.

The ambush theory was written about quite well by Gordon Smith some years back, and the article was published in the Bulletin (March 2004):-

http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/bulletin/2004_03_spring_bulletin.pdf

Marie,

As I wrote in another post, I've given up on the ambush scenario and was trying to imagine how Rivers was going to accomplish getting rid of Richard, but if I correctly understand what you've written below, there wasn't to be an ambush so to speak, but rather a cold-blooded murder, possibly done in River's presence as he, Richard and Buckingham rode to Stony Stratford? That is, of course, if Rivers had been in Northampton so as to be able to accompany Richard and Buckingham; he would have been the Judas goat, so to speak.

The other possibility, I suppose, would have been immediately after Richard and Buckingham arrived at Stony Stratford and before their meeting with the king? The problem I have is with what I guess could be called the logistics. In the first instance I mentioned, all that would be required would be for Rivers to have enough of his own retainers with him or, if Rivers wasn't in Northampton, to have someone trustworthy enough to carry out the deed while the party was en route Stony Stratford. However, if Rivers, Grey and Vaughan, were arrested at Stony Stratford, how was it managed? Even if all the retainers that accompanied Richard and Buckingham accompanied them on their ride from Northampton, they'd still have been out-numbered by the Woodville retainers attending Edward, wouldn't they? I suppose there'd have been a short period between their arrival and their meeting with the king when Richard could have used his authority as Constable, but talk about running risks!

Doug

Marie wrote:

The other possibility is that they planned to do what all the sources hostile to Richard have done ever since - accuse Richard (wo was not yet Protector) - of attempting to kidnap the King, or at least of forcing him to act against his will.

Richard would thus not have been simply the victim of an unfortunate accident, but a traitor whose lands and titles were forfeit to the Crown.

The letter from "Edward V" to King's Lynn sets the scene for such an event, in having Edward direct the town authorities in advance that any attempt by any person, no matter how exalted, who might attempt to prevent him hurrying to London to be crowned and take up the reins of government for himself would be acting against the wishes of the King and of God and was to be resisted.

The uncomfortable fact is, of course, that even if Rivers wrote that letter (and presumably others like it, now lost), Rivers' plan would almost certainly have been more to young Edward's liking than the protectorate his father had envisaged.

Hilary wrote:

With regard to the journey, are there any records at St Albans (where you have him spending 1 night and JAH 2)? Did I read somewhere that it had a Cartulary? And I assume the Bishop's Palace is Lambeth?

Marie replies:

I don't know what JAH has, but I think I know what might have happened given that Doug had the party

arrive in London on the 6th. There is a discrepancy with the recorded dates, viz:

1) They were at Northampton for at least part of 2 May (the letter to Cardinal Bourchier)

2) There is a copy in Harley 433 (vol 1, p. 3) of a letter written by Edward V "apud villam Sancti Albani [blank space] die Maij" . Despite the text of the letter itself not bearing a date, the clerk who copied it up

into the Privy Seal register (i.e. Harley 433) headed it "Quinto die Maij". This could be seen to place Edward V at St. Albans on 5 May.

3) The various London sources, however, record the arrival of Edward and his uncle in the city on 4 May. These include sober strictly contemporary accounts such as the minutes of the Drapers' Company.

Therefore it seems to me that Rhoda Edwards (Itinerary of Richard III) was probably correct to assume that the copy of the St. Albans letter must have been written on 3 May (or possibly 4th, before the party set off for London). Perhaps 5 May in the heading is not a mistake but the date on which the letter was

copied into the Privy Seal Register at Westminster.

Marie wrote: As per my previous post, there are no town records for Northampton and those for Coventry are patchy, not because nobody bothered recording a lot of things but because a lot of material was lost before anybody bothered to take the stuff to the bookbinder's. ... Absence of evidence, as far as the 15th century is concerned, is almost never evidence of absence, I'm afraid, although it's often used as such even by some professional historians.
As for that wobbly signature, there are again so many possible explanations if you want to look for them. He may have been a natural left-hander forced to use his right. He may have been sobbing his heart out, and the signature game was an attempt to cheer him up. He may have been quivering with rage, and the exercise was an attempt to calm him down. Maybe he had been given a quill with a very bad nib.

Hilary wrote: re Edward's writing, I do think it's strange for a Renaissance prince. He is after all a stroppy young man of twelve and that is the writing of a six-year old - or a woman who can only write her name, like EOY. We can't know his reaction to the Rivers arrests, but I would have thought it more likely to be extreme anger than sobs. Edward III, at only a year older, had his mother arrested, Edward VI was writing treatises at 9. If he didn't want to write his name I doubt they'd have made him. Was he practising to sign documents?
Our young Edward would have had a very similar education to Arthur and Edward VI after him. Now if he indeed favoured arms to books then I'm surprised he didn't make an appearance at one of Uncle Rivers' jousts in a miniature suit, like Henry VIII. To me he is just rather too invisible.


Hi,
That is true. If Edward V's visit to Northampton was recorded, the evidence could have been lost, but I would have thought that over the almost two months that he was King, EV would have had a higher level of visibility especially in London. I would have thought his presence at some sort of pageantry event or procession would have been noted along with a flattering description of him. Nevertheless, a threatening or unstable atmosphere may have been a reason to keep him sequestered for his own safety.
As someone who has been accused of having 'doctor's writing' I'm loath to criticize anyone else's handwriting, and there are explanations why a healthy 12 year old might write in such a shaky hand. A naturally left handed person using their right hand could easily have untidy handwriting. Also, the scrawled signature could also be the result of a recently injured arm. I'm not so sure about grief and rage. EIV had recently died, but they rarely saw each other and EV didn't really know him all that well. I would imaging that his mourning would have been more of a dignified reverence than an emotional outpouring of grief. The latter have been at the heart of Dr. Argentine's account of EV fearing for his his life after the execution of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey - with Vaughan being the most distressing.

When you look at the signature, some letters do appear to be practiced and mastered more fluently especially the final D in Edwardus, but what seems unusual is the number of pen strokes that he takes to accomplish the signature which given the appearance to being unused to writing. By 12 writing your name should be second nature. 'Quintus' is quite unclear and the final letters look like he is running out of energy. If I had to guess the age of the writer, I would have thought it was an elderly person with a shaky hand - or someone very young and learning cursive writing.

Rivers was officially in charge of young Edward's education, and it surprises me that he didn't get involved with him more personally. Not only would he get credit for making the future King such a wonderfully educated and sophisticated human being, but it would keep him in a powerful place for decades to come. If Edward wasn't very bright, then he could make him a champion jouster, or something like that. The Woodvilles never missed an opportunity to advance themselves, so this does make me question whether there was a problem with Edward V.

Nico

Hilary wrote:

So I reckon young Edward would have to rehearse, probably several times, as our current Queen did. In fact, you'll recall, she 'borrowed' the Crown to practice wearing it. Then there's the pallava surrounding the jewels - even today the Crown travels in its own coach for the opening of Parliament. Now I would agree our current monarchy have enjoyed enhancing spectacle and ceremony but I would think that what was lacking in that in Edward's time (and Richard and Anne's clothes were very sumptuous) would certainly be replaced by a deeper religious ceremony. A new monarch couldn't afford to stumble at a ceremony like that - it would bode ill.

Marie:

That's true, but I don't think there is any chance that Edward was being taken to Westminster for this purpose. The reason he was in the Tower at all is that Westminster wasn't felt safe with his mother holding out in the Abbey grounds. The whole coronation therefore was something of a risk in itself, and any rehearsals must have taken place in the Tower. And probably there wouldn't have been anywhere near as much rehearsing as we would expect these days. Elizabeth II's coronation was to be televised, so any stumbles and fumbles were for the first time going to be seen by the population at large.

In the case of Elizabeth of York's coronation, she and King Henry only rode down from Warwick just beforehand, and she had no opportunity at all to rehearse at the Abbey. The Heralds' Memoir itemises their movements, and it's very clear.

Just on the matter of Edward V's public appearances - I'm not sure what source would tell us about these.

We only know he attended the 1483 parliament because of a chance remark in a surviving letter from Rivers to his attorney Andrew Dymmoke. Again, it's the old problem of absence of evidence almost never being evidence of absence when it comes to this period of history (and often t's not even absence of evidence, just absence of well known evidence). I would need to check Hicks' Edward V again but I'm pretty sure Edward had visited the capital on other occasions, although the evidence isn't the sort that gets into most popular histories. He was also shown off in Coventry by his mum at a very young age, as Hilary will be able to confirm.

Marie

Marie,

Thank you for reminding me that EW was in sanctuary at Westminster! Certainly would have made for an awkward situation (to say the least) on Coronation Day, wouldn't it?

Doug

Marie wrote:

That's true, but I don't think there is any chance that Edward was being taken to Westminster for this purpose. The reason he was in the Tower at all is that Westminster wasn't felt safe with his mother holding out in the Abbey grounds. The whole coronation therefore was something of a risk in itself, and any rehearsals must have taken place in the Tower. And probably there wouldn't have been anywhere near as much rehearsing as we would expect these days. Elizabeth II's coronation was to be televised, so any stumbles and fumbles were for the first time going to be seen by the population at large.

In the case of Elizabeth of York's coronation, she and King Henry only rode down from Warwick just beforehand, and she had no opportunity at all to rehearse at the Abbey. The Heralds' Memoir itemises their movements, and it's very clear.

Hilary wrote:

So I reckon young Edward would have to rehearse, probably several times, as our current Queen did. In fact, you'll recall, she 'borrowed' the Crown to practice wearing it. Then there's the pallava surrounding the jewels - even today the Crown travels in its own coach for the opening of Parliament. Now I would agree our current monarchy have enjoyed enhancing spectacle and ceremony but I would think that what was lacking in that in Edward's time (and Richard and Anne's clothes were very sumptuous) would certainly be replaced by a deeper religious ceremony. A new monarch couldn't afford to stumble at a ceremony like that - it would bode ill.

Marie:

That's true, but I don't think there is any chance that Edward was being taken to Westminster for this purpose. The reason he was in the Tower at all is that Westminster wasn't felt safe with his mother holding out in the Abbey grounds. The whole coronation therefore was something of a risk in itself, and any rehearsals must have taken place in the Tower. And probably there wouldn't have been anywhere near as much rehearsing as we would expect these days. Elizabeth II's coronation was to be televised, so any stumbles and fumbles were for the first time going to be seen by the population at large.

In the case of Elizabeth of York's coronation, she and King Henry only rode down from Warwick just beforehand, and she had no opportunity at all to rehearse at the Abbey. The Heralds' Memoir itemises their movements, and it's very clear.

Just on the matter of Edward V's public appearances - I'm not sure what source would tell us about these.

We only know he attended the 1483 parliament because of a chance remark in a surviving letter from Rivers to his attorney Andrew Dymmoke. Again, it's the old problem of absence of evidence almost never being evidence of absence when it comes to this period of history (and often t's not even absence of evidence, just absence of well known evidence). I would need to check Hicks' Edward V again but I'm pretty sure Edward had visited the capital on other occasions, although the evidence isn't the sort that gets into most popular histories. He was also shown off in Coventry by his mum at a very young age, as Hilary will be able to confirm.

Marie

Hilary wrote:

Yes Marie, there's also at least one letter in the Leet Books not written from Ludlow but from somewhere else in the South West which I'll look up. EW really did try to 'court' Coventry. She wrote to them on at least one occasion probably without Edward's knowledge. I've often wondered why.

Marie:

Coventry was "the Prince's Chamber"; it was the Prince of Wales' own city. Margaret of Anjou had done the same thing.

Marie replies:

It's hoping too much. The Prince's Council must have generated and kept a body of paperwork, but I really don't think anything of that survives.

Marie replies:

It's hoping too much. The Prince's Council must have generated and kept a body of paperwork, but I really don't think anything of that survives.

Marie answers:

Isn't it more the effect of all the centuries that have passed since? Things are either thrown out at some point for lack of space, being too old to be any use and not old enough to be of any interest, or they are destroyed by fire (very common), rendered illegible by damp and then thrown out, inadvertently lost, eaten by rats, the writing scratched off so the parchment can be reused. . . .

Most of what has survived intact, with no gaps, are the records of the various government departments and the central courts.

Also, if a particular record has not been published and no historian to date has studied and used it, then we simply don't know about it.

Besides, there was no practical purpose in recording the minutiae of anybody's days or movements for the sake of it. Only grand occasions and actions that effected some change in the state of things would need to be recorded.

I'm actually amazed at how much has survived, given the amount of time that has passed, the wars that have been fought, the Great Fire of London, etc, etc. Plus the 15th century was a time of upheaval, and has thus left us less in the way of records than surrounding centuries.

Think of what Ireland lost during the Easter Rising, or the loss of all the wills proved in the south-west of England over many centuries with a single bomb dropping on the side wall of Exeter cathedral during World War II. You know, it could be worse.

Paul wrote:

Marie asks:

Where did this old chestnut originate? Was it Bacon? Anyhow, it was essentially made up. Vergil actually complained about the lack of documents available to him. Not that this means his account was without political bias, of course.

Actually, I have read that 16thC and possibly 17thC antiquarians were in the habit of throwing historical documents away once they had either transcribed them or summarized them in their work. Certainly it's the case that all too many of the documents that we have from antiquarian transcriptions are no longer extant in any other form.

My guess is that a lot of awkward documents were probably dispensed with very early in Henry VII's reign.

Doug wrote:

Who, and although I'm only semi-serious, still wouldn't mind finding a TARDIS under the tree 25 December.

Marie:

Or waiting under the fir trees next to that lamp post at the back of the wardrobe (which needs a sort out anyway).

I think I'd first like to get some good person to design me a trans-temporal bugging device. Then we could sneak a few into strategic locations, get safely home and find out what they were all really up to behind closed doors.

Or waiting under the fir trees next to that lamp post at the back of the wardrobe (which needs a sort out anyway).

I think I'd first like to get some good person to design me a trans-temporal bugging device. Then we could sneak a few into strategic locations, get safely home and find out what they were all really up to behind closed doors.