richard and hastings' treason

one of the secrets of the reign of richard the third is why was
hastings summarily executed without trial, or possibly very quickly
after the june 13, 1483 meeting.

no record survives of charges/hearings etc.

i postulate that hastings was executed for treason for a few reasons.

first and foremost, hastings knew of the precontract to eleanor
butler/nee talbot.

by this time, stillington had appeared on the scene. richard needed
to find out who all knew about the precontract and if it were true.

such was the damning evidence coming from stillington that it changed
the legal succession of the throne.

catesby on the evening of june 12th met with lord hastings. catesby,
an associate of both hastings and buckingham, reported the
information to buckingham and richard.

the precontract would have been shocking and troubling to richard. he
had promised to protect his brother's son and the realm.

richard was only a young lad of 9 when his brother became king.

moreover, richard would not have been in the know regarding the
precontract, simply because no one was in the know regarding the
secret marriage of edward to woodville. let alone the breach of
honour thrust upon the heroic talbot family.

those who knew of the precontract were "quietly" dismissed and
silenced. others remained loyal to king edward and kept the secret.

hastings withholding the information of the precontract, and allowing
e4's illegitimate son to rule would have been considered an act of
treason.

richard's right to the throne was betrayed by a trusted councillor, a
friend to only edward, but also richard. but, the bottom line was
hastings was true to edward and edward alone. hastings knew of
edward's betrothal. he knew of the illegitimacy of edward and
woodville's marriage. he knew their children had no legal right to
the throne.

he also knew, richard by law should have been king. it was this
deception that caused the immediate execution of hastings, with or
without trial.

it was the information of the precontract that caused richard
to "sleep late" on june 13th. imagine the shock and confusion such a
revelation would have caused richard. he knew such information would
undoubtably turn the kingdom into turmoil.

the stress most likely caused a minor stroke, ergo the comments of
being overly tired of body, the withered arm, which in most likely
hood was a numbness of arm.

richard may even have had an allergic reaction to morton's
strawberries.

reading old documents, and reading between the lines with the concept
of "precontract" playing an important role in the events in early to
mid june 1483 begins to answer many questions.

hastings was executed because he had committed treason. his silence
and loyalty to edward was allowing an illegitmate heir to the throne.
hastings knew richard was the rightful king. hastings had betrayed
the country and king, the true and legal king, king richard.

interferring with the legal succession of the throne was an
unpardonable act, for which hastings lost his head.

roslyn

Or perhaps Hastings had just got wise to Richard's plan to have
himself crowned, and had to be shut up quickly, hence the lack of a
trial.
Hastings was no friend of the Woodvilles, but his loyalty to Edward
meant that he couldn't go along with making Richard King. Catesby
probably sounded him out about this and got a reply in the negative.
If Hastings had stood firm for crowning young Edward, he may well
have taken the majority of the old nobility with him.
But with Hastings removed, the princes would be seen soley as
representing the "Woodville Faction", who had made enemies of so many
powerful magnates. Hence Richard would be seen as the only
alternative to Woodville domination.

For me, the big mystery of the events of that summer is what happened
on that night in Stony Stratford when Richard and Buckingham met the
Royal party and seemed to get along fine with them. Then in the
morning they had them arrested and seized possession of the King for
themselves.
It is at this point that the story becomes a struggle for power
between Richard and the Woodvilles. Explain why the sudden hostility
of the morning happened and most of what follows will become clear.
Unfortunately I'm by no means clear as to what did happen! If R & B
had been planning a coup why did they wait 'till morning? And if
not, what did they learn during the night that prompted this drastic
course of action?


--- In , "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> one of the secrets of the reign of richard the third is why was
> hastings summarily executed without trial, or possibly very quickly
> after the june 13, 1483 meeting.
>
> no record survives of charges/hearings etc.
>
> i postulate that hastings was executed for treason for a few
reasons.
>
> first and foremost, hastings knew of the precontract to eleanor
> butler/nee talbot.
>
> by this time, stillington had appeared on the scene. richard needed
> to find out who all knew about the precontract and if it were true.
>
> such was the damning evidence coming from stillington that it
changed
> the legal succession of the throne.
>
> catesby on the evening of june 12th met with lord hastings.
catesby,
> an associate of both hastings and buckingham, reported the
> information to buckingham and richard.
>
> the precontract would have been shocking and troubling to richard.
he
> had promised to protect his brother's son and the realm.
>
> richard was only a young lad of 9 when his brother became king.
>
> moreover, richard would not have been in the know regarding the
> precontract, simply because no one was in the know regarding the
> secret marriage of edward to woodville. let alone the breach of
> honour thrust upon the heroic talbot family.
>
> those who knew of the precontract were "quietly" dismissed and
> silenced. others remained loyal to king edward and kept the secret.
>
> hastings withholding the information of the precontract, and
allowing
> e4's illegitimate son to rule would have been considered an act of
> treason.
>
> richard's right to the throne was betrayed by a trusted councillor,
a
> friend to only edward, but also richard. but, the bottom line was
> hastings was true to edward and edward alone. hastings knew of
> edward's betrothal. he knew of the illegitimacy of edward and
> woodville's marriage. he knew their children had no legal right to
> the throne.
>
> he also knew, richard by law should have been king. it was this
> deception that caused the immediate execution of hastings, with or
> without trial.
>
> it was the information of the precontract that caused richard
> to "sleep late" on june 13th. imagine the shock and confusion such
a
> revelation would have caused richard. he knew such information
would
> undoubtably turn the kingdom into turmoil.
>
> the stress most likely caused a minor stroke, ergo the comments of
> being overly tired of body, the withered arm, which in most likely
> hood was a numbness of arm.
>
> richard may even have had an allergic reaction to morton's
> strawberries.
>
> reading old documents, and reading between the lines with the
concept
> of "precontract" playing an important role in the events in early
to
> mid june 1483 begins to answer many questions.
>
> hastings was executed because he had committed treason. his silence
> and loyalty to edward was allowing an illegitmate heir to the
throne.
> hastings knew richard was the rightful king. hastings had betrayed
> the country and king, the true and legal king, king richard.
>
> interferring with the legal succession of the throne was an
> unpardonable act, for which hastings lost his head.
>
> roslyn
>

On 2 Jun 2006, at 17:39, theblackprussian wrote:

> Or perhaps Hastings had just got wise to Richard's plan to have
> himself crowned, and had to be shut up quickly, hence the lack of a
> trial.

You been at the Shakespeare again?
I doubt Richard had considered taking the crown at this time, but
feel Hastings had become envious of Buckingham's pre-eminence and
started plotting against Richard with the Beaufort mare.
Paul



"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"

comments interspersed, see below

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote: Or perhaps Hastings had just got wise to Richard's plan to have
himself crowned, and had to be shut up quickly, hence the lack of a
trial.


yes, hastings needed to be quickly silenced, but imagine if you were due to inherit something, and you found that a person you trusted was betraying you to allow another to acquire your rightful inheritance. i think you'd be a tad irrate. i know i would have been.

hastings had much to gain with the woodvilles disempowered.

however, why he didn't tell richard about the precontract etc, does remain somewhat of a mystery/puzzle. perhaps hastings felt that once e5 was crowned, that richard would allow the new king to rule, simply because richard was the protector, he had the power of king. richard could have manipulated that into years of benefits.

perhaps hastings hoped richard wouldn't be willing to go to war for the crown. there had already been so much bloodshed.

but, hastings didn't count on richard being a man of scruples, nor did he count on the appearence of stillington....the man who was thought to be silenced in 1478.

someone knew, and sent for stillington. was it buckingham? remember he was married to woodville's sister. interception of letters/communication. never forget buckingham. he had been raised in woodville's household. he knew revenge and manipulation. he played their game, and he tried to manipulate richard...and in buckingham's mind, richard was not grateful enough, fast enough. ergo, buckingham's rebellion a few months down the road.

richard was astute in having the council meeting where upon he outted hastings and his treason. this would provide not only witnesses, but also should/could help quieten any powerful lord from becoming disgruntled and joining the woodville faction.
-----------------------
Hastings was no friend of the Woodvilles, but his loyalty to Edward
meant that he couldn't go along with making Richard King.

very true, hastings was no friend to the woodvilles. in fact he "feared" them. they had a reputation for waiting to gain vengence. hastings alerted richard to the intended woodville coupe to control the boy king, not for richard's sake but for his own. woodville and hastings had a lot of history. her son, the new king would do her bidding.

hastings' loyalty to edward 4, ergo his son e5 superceded any loyalty he had towards richard. hastings was playing kingmaker. it cost him his life.

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

Catesby
probably sounded him out about this and got a reply in the negative.
If Hastings had stood firm for crowning young Edward, he may well
have taken the majority of the old nobility with him.

true, but with richard and his supporters being able to cry traitor, justifiably so by that era's canon law, and with swift retribution for the act of treason the "following" of the peers was lessened. this is also the reason richard sent for troops.

he felt/thought there might be an uprising with regards to the execution of hastings and the revelation that e4's sons were illegit.

-------------------------
But with Hastings removed, the princes would be seen soley as
representing the "Woodville Faction", who had made enemies of so many
powerful magnates. Hence Richard would be seen as the only
alternative to Woodville domination.

exactly, but richard was provably and witnessessed as the legitimate ruler/king, ergo no uprising or conflict. it was simply a matter of getting the word out to the commoners, and the remainder of the peers. ergo the street theatre etc.
---------------------------

For me, the big mystery of the events of that summer is what happened
on that night in Stony Stratford when Richard and Buckingham met the
Royal party and seemed to get along fine with them. Then in the
morning they had them arrested and seized possession of the King for themselves.
It is at this point that the story becomes a struggle for power
between Richard and the Woodvilles. Explain why the sudden hostility of the morning happened and most of what follows will become clear.
---

richard had been warned of the woodville uprising by hastings. he played dumb with regards to this fact. simply a hale fellow well met to rivers, grey, vaughan et al was the best possible ploy to get these leaders away from the troops. in military parlay, it was a decapitation move. richard lured his adversary into a sense of "false" security. fine wine and fellowship in the evening, capture/detainment by morning.

he used this ploy with hastings on june 13th too.
--------------------------------
Unfortunately I'm by no means clear as to what did happen! If R & B
had been planning a coup why did they wait 'till morning? And if
not, what did they learn during the night that prompted this drastic
course of action?

they learned of the woodville uprising well before the meeting with rivers, grey et al. there was no drastic change of course of action. it was a well conceived plan to gain control of the king with as little bloodshed, particularily their own, as well as others.

if richard had immediately challenged rivers/grey/vaughan upon meeting them. if he had gone in willy nilly blasting at what traitors you are..what sort of reaction do you think richard would have incurred?

i think a full blown battle.

a battle on the woodville side with overwhelming odds of men and might. richard would have been at worst killed, at best held captive until young e5 was crowned, and then richard would have met his own butt of malmsey.

richard played stoney stratford appropriately given the circumstances. he knew, via hastings that the woodvilles were out to usurp him as protector..never forget that.

what he didn't know at the time was the reasons the woodvilles dreaded richard everso much. they feared what richard would find out about the precontract, and why his brother george had died and more....all due to woodville vengence and manipulations.

richard was the true king, and the woodvilles knew it. they did whatever it takes to ensure their blood would rule. buckingham also knew the woodville secrets and fears. he used them. he had been the apt student of woodville. he had his revenge.

woodville's son would not be king...nor would he live long after richard had become king..because the smarmy weasel had the boys killed..in the name of the king.

buckingham, did not count on richard being a fair and just man. the boys had nothing to do with the sins of their parents. richard did not want the princes killed. buckingham did.

who knows what else buckingham had planned. more research will reveal it.

i do believe, richard HAD to have control of e5 before reaching london and the remainder of the woodville faction or history would have been recorded very, very differently.

stoney stratford was played exactly right. it was the events that followed, that showed that richard was a capable ruler even in a nest of vipers and weasels.

roslyn


--- In , "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> one of the secrets of the reign of richard the third is why was
> hastings summarily executed without trial, or possibly very quickly
> after the june 13, 1483 meeting.
>
> no record survives of charges/hearings etc.
>
> i postulate that hastings was executed for treason for a few
reasons.
>
> first and foremost, hastings knew of the precontract to eleanor
> butler/nee talbot.
>
> by this time, stillington had appeared on the scene. richard needed
> to find out who all knew about the precontract and if it were true.
>
> such was the damning evidence coming from stillington that it
changed
> the legal succession of the throne.
>
> catesby on the evening of june 12th met with lord hastings.
catesby,
> an associate of both hastings and buckingham, reported the
> information to buckingham and richard.
>
> the precontract would have been shocking and troubling to richard.
he
> had promised to protect his brother's son and the realm.
>
> richard was only a young lad of 9 when his brother became king.
>
> moreover, richard would not have been in the know regarding the
> precontract, simply because no one was in the know regarding the
> secret marriage of edward to woodville. let alone the breach of
> honour thrust upon the heroic talbot family.
>
> those who knew of the precontract were "quietly" dismissed and
> silenced. others remained loyal to king edward and kept the secret.
>
> hastings withholding the information of the precontract, and
allowing
> e4's illegitimate son to rule would have been considered an act of
> treason.
>
> richard's right to the throne was betrayed by a trusted councillor,
a
> friend to only edward, but also richard. but, the bottom line was
> hastings was true to edward and edward alone. hastings knew of
> edward's betrothal. he knew of the illegitimacy of edward and
> woodville's marriage. he knew their children had no legal right to
> the throne.
>
> he also knew, richard by law should have been king. it was this
> deception that caused the immediate execution of hastings, with or
> without trial.
>
> it was the information of the precontract that caused richard
> to "sleep late" on june 13th. imagine the shock and confusion such
a
> revelation would have caused richard. he knew such information
would
> undoubtably turn the kingdom into turmoil.
>
> the stress most likely caused a minor stroke, ergo the comments of
> being overly tired of body, the withered arm, which in most likely
> hood was a numbness of arm.
>
> richard may even have had an allergic reaction to morton's
> strawberries.
>
> reading old documents, and reading between the lines with the
concept
> of "precontract" playing an important role in the events in early
to
> mid june 1483 begins to answer many questions.
>
> hastings was executed because he had committed treason. his silence
> and loyalty to edward was allowing an illegitmate heir to the
throne.
> hastings knew richard was the rightful king. hastings had betrayed
> the country and king, the true and legal king, king richard.
>
> interferring with the legal succession of the throne was an
> unpardonable act, for which hastings lost his head.
>
> roslyn
>








SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

> richard played stoney stratford appropriately given the
circumstances. he knew, via hastings that the woodvilles were out to
usurp him as protector..never forget that.

I'd agree with that. Also, I wonder if Buckingham told Richard
something after Rivers went to bed which made the whole situation
appear even more sinister. We assume Buckingham was meant to be
joining Richard, but he was Rivers' brother-in-law.
>
> what he didn't know at the time was the reasons the woodvilles
dreaded richard everso much. they feared what richard would find out
about the precontract, and why his brother george had died and
more....all due to woodville vengence and manipulations.

I must admit I'm not convinced the Woodvilles knew about the
precontract - they made no move to silence Stillington after Edward's
death, after all. Also Stillington's imprisonment in 1478 came a
month or so AFTER Clarence's execution, and I wonder if he maybe
unburdened himself to a third party after the Duke's death, and the
third party told the King. Edward himself would not have told
Elizabeth about a former marriage, I'm quite sure of that, and
there's no evidence that Clarence circulated such a story. We do
know, however, that before his arrest Clarence was again claiming
Edward IV himself was a bastard. After his execution, the Woodvilles
got the custody of his heir, young Warwick (his wardship was given to
Dorset).

I do agree that the Woodvilles and Richard both behaved as if they
feared each other, and I'm inclined to believe it was the
terrible "revelation" of Edward IV's own bastardy which was the cause
of it. Mancini tells us that after Clarence's death Richard avoided
the jealousy of the Queen, from whom he lived far separated, and when
Edward IV died the Woodvilles avoided lettig Richard know for as long
as possible, and may have been planning to use the Northampton
rendezvous to put him out of the picture completely.

Marie

PS I quite like the notion that Hastings may have known about the
precontract and kept it secret. However, I'm not sure that would have
condemned himany more than it did Stillington or various relatives of
Eleanor's who may also have known the truth. It has to have been
something to do with what he was actually up to in June of 1483.

comments interspersed
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
> richard played stoney stratford appropriately given the
circumstances. he knew, via hastings that the woodvilles were out to
usurp him as protector..never forget that.

I'd agree with that. Also, I wonder if Buckingham told Richard
something after Rivers went to bed which made the whole situation
appear even more sinister. We assume Buckingham was meant to be
joining Richard, but he was Rivers' brother-in-law.

------------------
my feeling towards buckingham, is he went were he felt it was in his best interest. do we know when he and richard met. my understanding it was before stoney stratford.

these people used spies vigorously to keep them informed on the "doings" at court. did richard invite buckingham to join him, or did buckingham conveniently "find" richard along the way.

nothing like a good suck up to new king's protector. is it possible buckingham intercepted a msg from eliz to katherine. was there something in it that made buckingham concerned for his position within the royal family, ergo he'd butter his bread on ric iii's side rather than the woodville side.

was katherine with buckingham when he connected with richard? if not, then where was she? we know richard left anne in york. richard knew he had serious business ahead of him. did buckingham too.
------------------
>
> what he didn't know at the time was the reasons the woodvilles
dreaded richard everso much. they feared what richard would find out
about the precontract, and why his brother george had died and
more....all due to woodville vengence and manipulations.

I must admit I'm not convinced the Woodvilles knew about the
precontract - they made no move to silence Stillington after Edward's
death, after all. Also Stillington's imprisonment in 1478 came a
month or so AFTER Clarence's execution, and I wonder if he maybe
unburdened himself to a third party after the Duke's death, and the
third party told the King.

geo died feb 18 1477/8. stillingham was arrested sometime between feb 28 to march 5. ergo less than a month, and possibly as little as 10 days after the execution. he was pardoned in june of the same year after satisfying the king and council he had done nothing to betray the king.

it could be a third party who reported stillington to the king, or it could have been simply a distance/travel delay in locating and arresting stillington and transporting him to the tower.

if george knew about the precontract, his info may have come from stillington, but it also could have come from warwick. warwick was eleanor talbot's uncle by marriage. his wife anne, was a half sister to margaret beauchamp mother of eleanor.

i find it interesting that warwick is alleged to have been upset by edward's marriage to woodville in 1465, but does not begin to actively formulate his uprising until mid 1468, a few months after talbot dies.

geo joins warwick and they both flee to france. is this where geo learns of edward's bastardy, and of the precontract? geo's mother cecily is warwick's aunt.

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


Edward himself would not have told
Elizabeth about a former marriage, I'm quite sure of that, and
there's no evidence that Clarence circulated such a story. We do
know, however, that before his arrest Clarence was again claiming
Edward IV himself was a bastard.

edward may or may not have told woodville. but remember cecily is supposed to have interogated "eliz lucy" about her precontract to the king. if such an incident did occur, it would have been court gossip, if only within the "inner circle". woodville could have been very likely to have known about the precontract to talbot.

----------------------
After his execution, the Woodvilles
got the custody of his heir, young Warwick (his wardship was given to
Dorset).

I do agree that the Woodvilles and Richard both behaved as if they
feared each other, and I'm inclined to believe it was the
terrible "revelation" of Edward IV's own bastardy which was the cause
of it. Mancini tells us that after Clarence's death Richard avoided
the jealousy of the Queen, from whom he lived far separated, and when
Edward IV died the Woodvilles avoided lettig Richard know for as long
as possible, and may have been planning to use the Northampton
rendezvous to put him out of the picture completely.

was it fear on richard's part that caused him to live far separated? was it jealousy of the queen, but more the deadly vengence prone manipulations of her that caused him to put a safe distance between him and her.

did he take an "out of sight, out of mind" route with her to ensure she had nothing to manipulate him. he had a strong bond with his brother. that does not mean he had to like his brother's wife.


as i'm writing this, a thought has occurred, and please correct me if i'm wrong, but was richard the constable of the tower at the time of the trial of geo? or am i confusing this post with the death of h6?

if ric iii was the constable of the tower at the time of clarence's execution, how soon after geo's death did ric iii leave london?

the reason i'm asking is..if ric was constable during geo's incaration, then ric iii should have been aware of the precontract, if it came up in geo's trial. ric iii could have been well aware of the alleged bastardy of his older brother.

however, if ric iii left london immediately after..i.e. within 10 days, could this have been the reason for the delay in arresting stillington.

see more below the ps.

roslyn
-------------------
Marie

PS I quite like the notion that Hastings may have known about the
precontract and kept it secret. However, I'm not sure that would have
condemned himany more than it did Stillington or various relatives of
Eleanor's who may also have known the truth. It has to have been
something to do with what he was actually up to in June of 1483.

good point, however, if richard trusted hastings, and then determined that hastings was betraying him/richard, as i said..i'd be more than a tad irrate.

i suppose also, one needs to look at richard's relationship with his mother cecily. i'd certainly be very upset if my mother had withheld such information from me. especially if it cost my brother his life and was going to disinherit me.

i think e4's untimely death caused a huge uproar within the cecily's household too..but then again she would have been put into a very tricky position with regard's to her daughter in law.

one has to question what cecily's actions were after the death of her son, george. the unexpected death of edward, followed by the disinheriting of her grandson.

what was cecily's relationship with woodville?

tracking this family, is like cats..they have kittens, and each kitten has kittens..who in turn have kittens. the more you find and connect, the more the kittens pop up.

roslyn









SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii United kingdom United kingdom flower delivery United kingdom phone United kingdom phone card United kingdom travel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

>
> I must admit I'm not convinced the Woodvilles knew about the
> precontract - they made no move to silence Stillington after
Edward's
> death, after all. Also Stillington's imprisonment in 1478 came a
> month or so AFTER Clarence's execution, and I wonder if he maybe
> unburdened himself to a third party after the Duke's death, and the
> third party told the King.
>
> geo died feb 18 1477/8. stillingham was arrested sometime between
feb 28 to march 5.

You're right about date - should have checked my notes. On 6 March
Elizabeth Stonor wrote to her husband "Ye shall understand that the
Bishop of Bath is brought to the Tower since you departed" (Stonor
Papers). StillingTON (sure that was a slip of your fingers) was
undoubtedly in London when he was arrested. He spent little time in
his diocese, and had been a Trier of Petitions in the parliament
which had attainted Clarence. I imagine, therefore, that Elizabwth
Stonor wrote from London, and that London was the place from which
her husband had recently departed.
Does anyone on the forum have a copy of the Stonor Letters???

Since Clarence's execution had been so long delayed after his trial
(10 days or something, was it?) it doesn't seem likely to me that the
delay in this report of Stillington's arrest is due to a time lag
between the event and the report. Bear in mind that the accusations
against Clarence had been codified, so to speak, before the trial
even began. Perhaps Stonor was an MP in that parliament, which is why
historians date the arrest to between 28th Feb (end of Parl) and 5th
March (day before writing of letter).
Also, if Stillington had publicised the precontract, why does no
writer pick up on this?
And why do the Woodvilles leave him at large in 1483?
I know this is an oft-repeated Ricardian argument, but I don't see
it. I do accept that the proximity of Stillington's arrest to
Clarence's execution is almost certainly significant, but he seems to
have uttered these "words prejudicial to the King and his state"
(which in June Edward accepted as "nothing contrary to his oath of
fealty") after Clarence's death. If he had given this info to
Clarence - a pretender to the English throne if we are honest - not
only would he have been arrested earlier but it could hardly have
been construed as "nothing contrary to his oath of fealty".
Nonetheless, Stillington had done something - he was never again to
be a Trier of parliamentary petitions.

> was katherine with buckingham when he connected with richard?

Almost certainly not. She may have been at Brecon, or perhaps at
their castle of Thornbury in Gloucestershire. She did not attend
Richard's coronation, so it is highly unlikely that she came to
London with her husband, and none of the sources say she did. By mid
august Lionel Woodville was in hiding at Thornbury. Since this
probably wasn't on the Duke's itinerary, then it was probably the
Duchess - Lionel's sister - who gave him houseroom.
>
> i find it interesting that warwick is alleged to have been upset
by edward's marriage to woodville in 1465, but does not begin to
actively formulate his uprising until mid 1468, a few months after
talbot dies.

Warwick's first rising against Edward didn't take place until 1469.
Whether the earliest Robin of Redesdale and Robin of Holderness
Rebellions, in the spring of 1469, calling for Henry Percy's
reinstatement, were fomented by Warwick, or whether he afterwards
used the name as a cover, is a moot point. I personally can't see why
he'd have fomented a rebellion calling for his brother to lose the
earldom of northumberland in favour of Henry Percy. I feel Warwick's
use of the name when he rode to Edgcote was a cover.

Mancini says that at some point (he doesn't give a date), Cecily
blurted out in a rage that Edward was not York's son and was
conceived in adultery. Michael K Jones suggests this took place early
in 1469 as there is evidence of a rift between Edward and Cecily at
this time. Basically, on 8th February Edward took fotheringhay castle
off his mother and gave her Berkhamsted instead. Fotheringhay was a
place she had strong links with, where a lot of her children had been
born, and on which she had lavished a lot of money during her
widowhood, so it isn't likely to have been voluntary as some
historians have since sugested.
Also, I have read the grant of Berkhamsted in the Patent Rolls. It is
dated 1st March - three weeks after she her surrender of
Fotheringhay - and it contains a promise by the King that "If she be
removed in any way from the same she shall be fully recompensed".
This grant seems to indicate that not only was the surrender of
fotheringhay not Cecily's idea, but that initially she had been
offered nothing in return. I think by March Edward was trying to
patch things up, perhaps becoming aware of the possible political
fallout. His daughter born that month was named Cecily (finally!),
and his mother was chief godmother.
However, Cecily clearly wasn't entirely mollified. In June 1469 she
didn't join the royal progress which went through East Anglia, to
Walsingham (where the Queen gave thanks for the birth of her latest
child) winding up at Fotheringhay. Instead she went down to Sandwich
to hob-nob with Warwick and Clarence, who were about to leave for
Calais for Clarence's marriage to Isabel. It has often been argued
that she went to talk them out of the marriage, but if she knew about
it (which does seem to be implied), the King learned nothing from her
of what was going on.
If you want evidence that the breach between Edward and his mother
was over Edward's legitimacy, then remember that 1469 is the year in
which the bastardy claim first surfaces - divulged to the French by
Warwick himself.
So that for me explains the 1469 breach, in which Warwick's favoured
option is thought have been to replace Edward with Clarence (with his
own daughter thus becoming queen).
I don't believe Eleanor's death had anything to do with Warwick's
treason. If he knew of the precontract he'd have made use of it.What
he actually made use of was a claim that Edward himself was not the
rightful king. If he knew of the precontract perhaps he would also
have been a little less enthusiastic about negotiating foreign
matches for Edward. Besides, how would her death have affected his
decision? Having her alive to be able to testify to the illegality of
the King's marriage would have been far preferable, wouldn't it? Even
if she wasn't willing, she could have been persuaded once the power
lay with Warwick and not her false lover.

> edward may or may not have told woodville. but remember cecily is
supposed to have interogated "eliz lucy" about her precontract to the
king. if such an incident did occur, it would have been court gossip,
if only within the "inner circle". woodville could have been very
likely to have known about the precontract to talbot.

This is More! I don't regard More as any kind of an authority. As I
have argued before on this forum, I believe More's story is a
corruption of Mancini's (which Mancini heard in England immediately
after Edward's death) that Cecily offered to submit to an enquiry
regarding her son's paternity. Okay, here is Mancini, chapter & verse.
On account of his marriage "Even his mother fell into such a frenzy,
that she offered to submit to a public inquiry, and asserted that
Edward was not the offspring of her husband the duke of York, but was
conceived in adultery, and therefore in no wise worthy of the honour
of kingship."
More was writing in Henry VIII's reign. Henry's security relied on
his "legitimate" Yorkist descent. This is why he could not mention
the true precontract lady (set up one you can easily bat down again)
and why he could not repeat the story of Cecily denouncing her own
son's birth.

Marie