Re: holinshed - richard declares innocence before the world

roslyn wrote: ... for instance, i'm reading about
richard's moaning to thomas rotherham..who just
happens to connect to john alcock bishop of ely..and
who happens to connect to john de vere, whose mother
had provable issue with ric iii regarding the
consfication of her lands.
some of these speeches/scenes are fanciful and
definitely written to paint richard in a bad
light..and almost everyone else as being flower of
virtuous knighthood.

morton is the source of this info..and he extracted
the info from his peers and underlings of the lords
spiritual...confession is good for the soul..and in
the tudor era..good for gossip too.

*****

Does anyone know when confessions became confidential?
I've heard that priests are supposed to keep
confessions confidential, but I'm not Catholic, so I
don't know how accurate my impression is. If
confessions are supposed to be confidential now, was
there ever a time when they weren't?

If Rotherham violated Richard's confidence and Morton
spread stories slanted in his favor, that gives me
even more reason to take the Tudor version of history
with a generous dose of salt.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> roslyn wrote: ... for instance, i'm reading about
> richard's moaning to thomas rotherham..who just
> happens to connect to john alcock bishop of ely..and
> who happens to connect to john de vere, whose mother
> had provable issue with ric iii regarding the
> consfication of her lands.
> some of these speeches/scenes are fanciful and
> definitely written to paint richard in a bad
> light..and almost everyone else as being flower of
> virtuous knighthood.
>
> morton is the source of this info..and he extracted
> the info from his peers and underlings of the lords
> spiritual...confession is good for the soul..and in
> the tudor era..good for gossip too.
>
> *****
>
> Does anyone know when confessions became confidential?
> I've heard that priests are supposed to keep
> confessions confidential, but I'm not Catholic, so I
> don't know how accurate my impression is. If
> confessions are supposed to be confidential now, was
> there ever a time when they weren't?
>
> If Rotherham violated Richard's confidence and Morton
> spread stories slanted in his favor, that gives me
> even more reason to take the Tudor version of history
> with a generous dose of salt.

Exactly. I'm not sure why Richard would have used rotherham as his
confessor. Firstly, they were not exactly mates, and secondly Richard
had his own confessor (the name Roby pops into my head). Also, you're
quite right, confessors are bound to secrecy. andthey were then too;
I've just found this on the net:

"Let him beware of betraying the sinner by word or sign or in any
other way whatsoever. . . we decree that he who dares to reveal a sin
made known to him in the tribunal of penance shall not only be
deposed from the priestly office, but shall moreover be subjected to
close confinement in a monastery and the performance of perpetual
penance" (Fourth Lateran Council, cap. xxi; Denzinger, "Enchir.",
438).
That takes the rule back to at least 1215.

But to be fair to Vergil he doesn't suggest rotherham was actually
told it in confession:
" for first he forbare to lie with her, and withal began to complain
much unto many noble men of his wife's unfruitfulness, for that she
brought him forth no children, and that chiefly did he lament with
Thomas Rotheram, Archbishop of York, because he was a grave and good
man, whom he had a little before let out of prison (who thereupon
gathered and supposed it would come to pass that the Queen should not
long live, and foreshowed the same to divers his friends)."

By the by, I've also found vergil dangerously unreliable. Rotherham
died in 1500, a little while before Vergil came to England, so Vergil
cannot have had the story directly from Rotherham (or Morton, for
that matter). If Rotherham had been putting this story about after
Richard's death, I think it must have been baseless tittle-tattle to
make himself look wise after the event. Why would Richard choose
Rotherham as his chief confidant? Rotherham was not particuarly grave
and good, and he had shown himself after Edward IV's death to be a
bit of a loose cannon. There's only one thing for sure, and that's
that Rotherham was not in a position to deny Vergil's story.

Marie

PS. Of course, all these people connect to each other. But some of
the connections were closer than others. Rotherham had enough reason
to hold a grudge against Richard himself, without postulating string-
pulling by Morton or Oxford.

comments interspersed, see below


mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@...> wrote:
>
> roslyn wrote: ... for instance, i'm reading about
> richard's moaning to thomas rotherham..who just
> happens to connect to john alcock bishop of ely..and
> who happens to connect to john de vere, whose mother
> had provable issue with ric iii regarding the
> consfication of her lands.
> some of these speeches/scenes are fanciful and
> definitely written to paint richard in a bad
> light..and almost everyone else as being flower of
> virtuous knighthood.
>
> morton is the source of this info..and he extracted
> the info from his peers and underlings of the lords
> spiritual...confession is good for the soul..and in
> the tudor era..good for gossip too.
>
> *****
>
> Does anyone know when confessions became confidential?
> I've heard that priests are supposed to keep
> confessions confidential, but I'm not Catholic, so I
> don't know how accurate my impression is. If
> confessions are supposed to be confidential now, was
> there ever a time when they weren't?
>
> If Rotherham violated Richard's confidence and Morton
> spread stories slanted in his favor, that gives me
> even more reason to take the Tudor version of history
> with a generous dose of salt.

Exactly. I'm not sure why Richard would have used rotherham as his
confessor. Firstly, they were not exactly mates, and secondly Richard
had his own confessor (the name Roby pops into my head).
--------------
as i read the rotherham/richard commentary, i personally wondered was richard possibly seeking information/advice on how to go about annulling his marriage to anne...i'm not saying richard did that..but the commentary left me with the impression, that that was the purpose of the interaction.
moreover, as richard had released rotherham from prison, it is possible richard could have believed rotherham would be grateful, and be willing to work a little harder to find the necessary answer.
this could mean that rotherham had to consult with other more informed doctors of divinty/ecclesatical laws..much like his great nephew h8 did.
-------------------------
Also, you're
quite right, confessors are bound to secrecy. andthey were then too;
I've just found this on the net:

"Let him beware of betraying the sinner by word or sign or in any
other way whatsoever. . . we decree that he who dares to reveal a sin
made known to him in the tribunal of penance shall not only be
deposed from the priestly office, but shall moreover be subjected to
close confinement in a monastery and the performance of perpetual
penance" (Fourth Lateran Council, cap. xxi; Denzinger, "Enchir.",
438).
That takes the rule back to at least 1215.
-------------
i think for the most part we can throw out a lot of the church decrees.
we have popes running amuk in rome in this era. the rules were for the common folk. clergy were supposed to be celebate, however, it is historically provable they had concubines/mistresses, and even illegitimate children.
alexander vi used poison, manipulated and appointed the "right sort" of cardinals to ensure his election. he had illegits, and is even rumoured to have had an incestuos relationship with his own daughter lucrecia. he held orgies..he was the ultimate amongst the despotic popes.
if the lords spiritual were leading this kind of lifestyle, it is not hard to assume the lords temporal could do the same.
it was this behaviour that caused martin luther to post his thesis.
one could do what one wanted, as long as, one had the coin to purchase a dispensation/absolution during the high middle ages/renaissance era, the church and for the most part it's clergy were extremely corrupt. luther was fed up with sinners being able to buy their way into heaven. and that the only way into heaven was via the clergy/church.

also regarding the "confessional" i think it would be safe to assume that lower ranking clergy were discuss with higher ranking clergy and their peers information divulged in confession, or private conversation.
the ban on betraying sinners, would be more applied that the parish priest could not go about his parrish doing a "tell all" to any one who would listen. it was a form of assurance that what was said in confession remained private, and not for public consumption. nor could the confessor to a lord temporal go forth and divulge the intimate details of the confession to other lords temporal.
think in modern terms, there has been a issue regarding priests molesting children. rome knew about it via the bishops and cardinalls. the public did not. the offending priest would be often moved to another parish.
this way of "doing" business has not changed over the centuries.
the church even has three levels of bastardy. although, i can't recall the exact names for the classification. but i do know these are the classifications.
non-clergy and non-clergy
clergy and non-clergy
and
clergy and clergy..i.e. priest/nun
the clergy/clergy was the most damnable.
roslyn

But to be fair to Vergil he doesn't suggest rotherham was actually
told it in confession:
" for first he forbare to lie with her, and withal began to complain
much unto many noble men of his wife's unfruitfulness, for that she
brought him forth no children, and that chiefly did he lament with
Thomas Rotheram, Archbishop of York, because he was a grave and good
man, whom he had a little before let out of prison (who thereupon
gathered and supposed it would come to pass that the Queen should not
long live, and foreshowed the same to divers his friends)."

By the by, I've also found vergil dangerously unreliable. Rotherham
died in 1500, a little while before Vergil came to England, so Vergil
cannot have had the story directly from Rotherham (or Morton, for
that matter). If Rotherham had been putting this story about after
Richard's death, I think it must have been baseless tittle-tattle to
make himself look wise after the event. Why would Richard choose
Rotherham as his chief confidant? Rotherham was not particuarly grave
and good, and he had shown himself after Edward IV's death to be a
bit of a loose cannon. There's only one thing for sure, and that's
that Rotherham was not in a position to deny Vergil's story.

Marie

PS. Of course, all these people connect to each other. But some of
the connections were closer than others. Rotherham had enough reason
to hold a grudge against Richard himself, without postulating string-
pulling by Morton or Oxford.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed, see below
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In , marion
davis
> <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> > roslyn wrote: ... for instance, i'm reading about
.
> -------------
> i think for the most part we can throw out a lot of the church
decrees.
> we have popes running amuk in rome in this era. the rules were
for the common folk. clergy were supposed to be celebate, however, it
is historically provable they had concubines/mistresses, and even
illegitimate children.
> alexander vi used poison, manipulated and appointed the "right
sort" of cardinals to ensure his election. he had illegits, and is
even rumoured to have had an incestuos relationship with his own
daughter lucrecia. he held orgies..he was the ultimate amongst the
despotic popes.
> if the lords spiritual were leading this kind of lifestyle, it is
not hard to assume the lords temporal could do the same.
> it was this behaviour that caused martin luther to post his
thesis.
> one could do what one wanted, as long as, one had the coin to
purchase a dispensation/absolution during the high middle
ages/renaissance era, the church and for the most part it's clergy
were extremely corrupt. luther was fed up with sinners being able to
buy their way into heaven. and that the only way into heaven was via
the clergy/church.
>
> also regarding the "confessional" i think it would be safe to
assume that lower ranking clergy were discuss with higher ranking
clergy and their peers information divulged in confession, or private
conversation.
> the ban on betraying sinners, would be more applied that the
parish priest could not go about his parrish doing a "tell all" to
any one who would listen. it was a form of assurance that what was
said in confession remained private, and not for public consumption.
nor could the confessor to a lord temporal go forth and divulge the
intimate details of the confession to other lords temporal.
> think in modern terms, there has been a issue regarding priests
molesting children. rome knew about it via the bishops and
cardinalls. the public did not. the offending priest would be often
moved to another parish.
> this way of "doing" business has not changed over the centuries.
> the church even has three levels of bastardy. although, i can't
recall the exact names for the classification. but i do know these
are the classifications.
> non-clergy and non-clergy
> clergy and non-clergy
> and
> clergy and clergy..i.e. priest/nun
> the clergy/clergy was the most damnable.
> roslyn

I don't think you could grow up in England at the time I did and not
understand that this was the received view of the reasons for
the 'Reformation'. And it's certainly true that there were a lot of
career clergy, many with bastards (an inevitable by-product of the
celibacy rule, in my opinion), and much shocking stuff going on in
Rome. Of course, Richard himself delivered a lecture to the English
clergy exhorting them to improve their morals and set an example.
But the Borgia pope hadn't yet surfaced in Richard's day, and the
more we learn about the 15th century the more we realise that the
Church also held a large number of extremely sincere and dedicated
clergy. There were strong movements for internal reform (particularly
in the North), and Richard was very attracted to the sort of
clergyman associated with these movements. If I recall, Richard's
personal confessor was a Franciscan named Roby. He also strongly
promoted other good learned priests such as Bishops Redman and
Langton.
I also can't see how ignoring the confessional seal would have been
OK for important priests if they were the ones hearing the
confessions of the important laymen. Important laymen, particularly
kings, certainly didn't want their secrets to go any further.
Rotherham had once been Oxford's chaplain, and I imagine he must have
fully realised the value of keeping the secrets of the confessional.
Finally but most importantly, that really isn't the implication of
Vergil's passage. Vergil tells us that Rotherham construed from
Richard's words that Anne was not going to live long. In other words,
Rotherham thought Richard planned to kill her, not divorce her.
Also, Vergil tells us Richard spoke like this also to many noblemen.
They couldn't help him with an annulment, could they? Nor, probably,
could Rotherham. He was a doctor of divinity (ie general theology);
what Richard would have needed for an annulment was a canon lawyer.
He could also do with someone whose former employers weren't the Earl
of Oxford and Elizabeth Woodville. Rotherham had been archbishop of
York for some years before Richard became king. The two men had had
had plenty of time to size each other up and don't ever seem to have
become friends.

If you want my personal opinion (rather than a scholarly argument)
about the probable truth behind the story, it is this. After Bosworth
(when he was free to tittle-tattle about the previous reign),
Rotherham was wont to go around telling people, "As soon as that boy
died and she still failed to conceive again, I knew Queen Anne wasn't
going to be long for this world". The thing is, Rotherham's supposed
conversations with Richard didn't tell him anything everyone didn't
already know - ie that Anne was barren.


Marie

alexander vi aka the borgia pope was the pinnacle/poster boy of depotism for the popes in the 15thC and beyond.
here is a link to borgia's wikipedia bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI

by clicking preceded and succeeded by, you can gain thumbnail sketches of the personalities of the popes of the era.

borgia may have occurred after ric iii, but that despotic era of the popes was the era that ric iii grew up in...and we know morton was promoted to cardinal by borgia.

i was not aware richard had told the clergy to behave in a more moral fashion, to set a good example. however, with cleric like morton.."them was fightin' words".

to me is indicative of a motivation for morton to be involved/behind the scenes to stop richard from becoming protector. richard as protector, and then as king would have more powerfully curbed the errant clergy. morton went on to inspire buckingham to rebellion, and then fled to france to take up his cause with h7.

and yes not all clergy, then and now are bad, but we do know scum floats to the top of the pond, and is more noticable, making the whole pool look contaminated.

as for richard talking to rotherham, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. as for richard conversing with his peers of the realm...don't forget the man was human, and he may have been asking other men..how did you get your annullment or what they knew about annullments...or the annullment issue could be entirely a wild goose chase.

the bottom line is the tudor era historians were out to paint richard in as bad a light as possible.

also, i don't see one bishop gossiping with another bishop, but more of a professional discussion regarding a specific issue. further, once richard was dead, and being demonised by the less than moral clergy, it would have been all bets are off and tell all.

whose going to send clerics like morton to outer reaches for breaching eccesiatical guidelines? certainly not the popes of the era. the more dirt they could dig up, twist and fling at richard all the better for h7. so he wasn't about to complain either.

now with that being said, h7 had his conflict with the borgia pope too.

when the new world was discovered the pope issued a bull, essentially giving all new land/discoveries to spain. (borgia was after all spanish by birth.)

h7 still sent john cabot off in 1496 to discover the continent/mainland of north america. columbus had only discovered the west indies.

i haven't studied a lot about this land issue, but i have to wonder if part of the marriage negotiations for catherine of aragon were part and parcel of the delays etc, regarding the marriage of aragon to h7's sons.

roslyn





mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed, see below
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
> --- In , marion
davis
> <phaecilia@> wrote:
> >
> > roslyn wrote: ... for instance, i'm reading about
.
> -------------
> i think for the most part we can throw out a lot of the church
decrees.
> we have popes running amuk in rome in this era. the rules were
for the common folk. clergy were supposed to be celebate, however, it
is historically provable they had concubines/mistresses, and even
illegitimate children.
> alexander vi used poison, manipulated and appointed the "right
sort" of cardinals to ensure his election. he had illegits, and is
even rumoured to have had an incestuos relationship with his own
daughter lucrecia. he held orgies..he was the ultimate amongst the
despotic popes.
> if the lords spiritual were leading this kind of lifestyle, it is
not hard to assume the lords temporal could do the same.
> it was this behaviour that caused martin luther to post his
thesis.
> one could do what one wanted, as long as, one had the coin to
purchase a dispensation/absolution during the high middle
ages/renaissance era, the church and for the most part it's clergy
were extremely corrupt. luther was fed up with sinners being able to
buy their way into heaven. and that the only way into heaven was via
the clergy/church.
>
> also regarding the "confessional" i think it would be safe to
assume that lower ranking clergy were discuss with higher ranking
clergy and their peers information divulged in confession, or private
conversation.
> the ban on betraying sinners, would be more applied that the
parish priest could not go about his parrish doing a "tell all" to
any one who would listen. it was a form of assurance that what was
said in confession remained private, and not for public consumption.
nor could the confessor to a lord temporal go forth and divulge the
intimate details of the confession to other lords temporal.
> think in modern terms, there has been a issue regarding priests
molesting children. rome knew about it via the bishops and
cardinalls. the public did not. the offending priest would be often
moved to another parish.
> this way of "doing" business has not changed over the centuries.
> the church even has three levels of bastardy. although, i can't
recall the exact names for the classification. but i do know these
are the classifications.
> non-clergy and non-clergy
> clergy and non-clergy
> and
> clergy and clergy..i.e. priest/nun
> the clergy/clergy was the most damnable.
> roslyn

I don't think you could grow up in England at the time I did and not
understand that this was the received view of the reasons for
the 'Reformation'. And it's certainly true that there were a lot of
career clergy, many with bastards (an inevitable by-product of the
celibacy rule, in my opinion), and much shocking stuff going on in
Rome. Of course, Richard himself delivered a lecture to the English
clergy exhorting them to improve their morals and set an example.
But the Borgia pope hadn't yet surfaced in Richard's day, and the
more we learn about the 15th century the more we realise that the
Church also held a large number of extremely sincere and dedicated
clergy. There were strong movements for internal reform (particularly
in the North), and Richard was very attracted to the sort of
clergyman associated with these movements. If I recall, Richard's
personal confessor was a Franciscan named Roby. He also strongly
promoted other good learned priests such as Bishops Redman and
Langton.
I also can't see how ignoring the confessional seal would have been
OK for important priests if they were the ones hearing the
confessions of the important laymen. Important laymen, particularly
kings, certainly didn't want their secrets to go any further.
Rotherham had once been Oxford's chaplain, and I imagine he must have
fully realised the value of keeping the secrets of the confessional.
Finally but most importantly, that really isn't the implication of
Vergil's passage. Vergil tells us that Rotherham construed from
Richard's words that Anne was not going to live long. In other words,
Rotherham thought Richard planned to kill her, not divorce her.
Also, Vergil tells us Richard spoke like this also to many noblemen.
They couldn't help him with an annulment, could they? Nor, probably,
could Rotherham. He was a doctor of divinity (ie general theology);
what Richard would have needed for an annulment was a canon lawyer.
He could also do with someone whose former employers weren't the Earl
of Oxford and Elizabeth Woodville. Rotherham had been archbishop of
York for some years before Richard became king. The two men had had
had plenty of time to size each other up and don't ever seem to have
become friends.

If you want my personal opinion (rather than a scholarly argument)
about the probable truth behind the story, it is this. After Bosworth
(when he was free to tittle-tattle about the previous reign),
Rotherham was wont to go around telling people, "As soon as that boy
died and she still failed to conceive again, I knew Queen Anne wasn't
going to be long for this world". The thing is, Rotherham's supposed
conversations with Richard didn't tell him anything everyone didn't
already know - ie that Anne was barren.

Marie

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> alexander vi aka the borgia pope was the pinnacle/poster boy of
depotism for the popes in the 15thC and beyond.
> here is a link to borgia's wikipedia bio.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI
>
> by clicking preceded and succeeded by, you can gain thumbnail
sketches of the personalities of the popes of the era.
>
> borgia may have occurred after ric iii, but that despotic era of
the popes was the era that ric iii grew up in...and we know morton
was promoted to cardinal by borgia.
>
> i was not aware richard had told the clergy to behave in a more
moral fashion, to set a good example. however, with cleric like
morton.."them was fightin' words".
>
> to me is indicative of a motivation for morton to be
involved/behind the scenes to stop richard from becoming protector.
richard as protector, and then as king would have more powerfully
curbed the errant clergy. morton went on to inspire buckingham to
rebellion, and then fled to france to take up his cause with h7.
>
> and yes not all clergy, then and now are bad, but we do know scum
floats to the top of the pond, and is more noticable, making the
whole pool look contaminated.
>
> as for richard talking to rotherham, maybe he did, maybe he
didn't. as for richard conversing with his peers of the realm...don't
forget the man was human, and he may have been asking other men..how
did you get your annullment or what they knew about annullments...or
the annullment issue could be entirely a wild goose chase.

sorry, another message zapped by aliens.
The problem with Morton being the source of these stories, or annoyed
by Richard's letter to the clergy, is the thing you've highlighted
yourself - ie that he was abroad at the time. Nor did he have, so far
as I am aware, a reputation for sexual corruption (which is what
richard's letter was exercised about).
By the by, did you know Morton went to Rome after fleeing England and
made friends with the new pope, Innocent VIII (who did have
bastards), the same Pope who obligingly went on to anathematise the
Yorkists for Henry VII?
I also noticed that it was Pope Borgia (Alexander VI) who gave Morton
the cardinal's hat. It wasn't too long after he became pope, either.
Does this suggest he too saw Morton as a mate? Can't you tell a lot
about a person by the company they keep?

I suspect Rotherham and Richard had had an uneasy relationship since
Roth's appointment as Archbishop of York (probably the most powerful
man in the north after Richard). Given his background, he looks like
a Woodville placement. Reasonably (by the standards of the day)
Richard might have expected to have some say in who was to replace
his wife's uncle as the new archbishop over his territory. I wonder
if one of Rotherham's jobs had always been feeding stories about
Richard back to the Queen.
I'm sure I've read he was not in York for richard's state visit.
The more I think about it, the more the idea of Richard confiding in
Rotherham looks odd.

Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old mistress
Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter. She would have
found his doctorate in divinity useful, as the uncle-niece
relationship was potentially covered not only by canon law (ie Church
rules) but by the Bible (the rules on prohibited relationships set ot
in Leviticus). The Pope was not supposed to grant dispensation for
relationships prohibited by the Bible.
Croyland tells us Catesby & Ratcliffe wheeled in a dozen doctors of
theology to persuade Richard that the relationship was one the Pope
couldn't dispense.
(It's actually not clear. Leviticus states that a man couldn't marry
his aunt, which makes it look as though, logically, a woman couldn't
marry her uncle. However, Lev. is concerned only with what women a
man couldn't have knowledge of, as for the Hebrew culture of the time
women were merely objects to be taken (most as concubines). This
makes it difficult to relate to Christian concepts of marriage (as
being a voluntary partnership between two people, with the same rules
applying to both sexes). Had the Hebrews minded a woman marrying her
uncle, Leviticus would have expressed it as a prohibition on a man
marrying his niece. This is presumably why there were actually
dispensations granted for uncle-niece marriages in the Middle Ages.
None the less, it wasn't clear cut, as Leviticus as it stands does
not translate logically to European medieval or modern thought. And
Catesby and Ratcliffe, of course, were trying to prevent the marriage.
Was the marriage to Elizabeth ever really mooted? Was it Richard's
idea, or the Woodvilles'? Another topic altogether, but we can hardly
look to Tudor sources to admit to any Woodville involvement.

Marie


>

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> alexander vi aka the borgia pope was the pinnacle/poster boy of
depotism for the popes in the 15thC and beyond.
> here is a link to borgia's wikipedia bio.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI
>
> by clicking preceded and succeeded by, you can gain thumbnail
sketches of the personalities of the popes of the era.
>
> borgia may have occurred after ric iii, but that despotic era of
the popes was the era that ric iii grew up in...and we know morton
was promoted to cardinal by borgia.
>
> i was not aware richard had told the clergy to behave in a more
moral fashion, to set a good example. however, with cleric like
morton.."them was fightin' words".
>
> to me is indicative of a motivation for morton to be
involved/behind the scenes to stop richard from becoming protector.
richard as protector, and then as king would have more powerfully
curbed the errant clergy. morton went on to inspire buckingham to
rebellion, and then fled to france to take up his cause with h7.
>
> and yes not all clergy, then and now are bad, but we do know scum
floats to the top of the pond, and is more noticable, making the
whole pool look contaminated.
>
> as for richard talking to rotherham, maybe he did, maybe he
didn't. as for richard conversing with his peers of the realm...don't
forget the man was human, and he may have been asking other men..how
did you get your annullment or what they knew about annullments...or
the annullment issue could be entirely a wild goose chase.

sorry, another message zapped by aliens.
The problem with Morton being the source of these stories, or annoyed
by Richard's letter to the clergy, is the thing you've highlighted
yourself - ie that he was abroad at the time.
---------------------
morton was with e4 when he died. apr. 83, by june.83 morton was in buckingham's custody. late oct/early nov. morton has fled to flanders, then on to paris, where he is interacting, recruiting h7 insurgents.
there are other clergy in france with morton...and lord only knows what other travels morton took while on the continent...and who he interacted with.
------------------------
Nor did he have, so far
as I am aware, a reputation for sexual corruption (which is what
richard's letter was exercised about).
----------------------------
of course, morton wouldn't have a reputation for sexual corruption. that info would have been purged by himself and the tudor parchment shredders. morton had to be "clean" and godly to be able to trash richard or any of his followeres.
------------------------
By the by, did you know Morton went to Rome after fleeing England and
made friends with the new pope, Innocent VIII (who did have
bastards), the same Pope who obligingly went on to anathematise the
Yorkists for Henry VII?
----------------
i think i knew, but i'm not going to swear to it. i've only had a brief glimpse of morton. but what i've glimpsed at..this was not a nice man. he was certainly aligned with "low life" powers that be.
---------------
I also noticed that it was Pope Borgia (Alexander VI) who gave Morton
the cardinal's hat. It wasn't too long after he became pope, either.
Does this suggest he too saw Morton as a mate? Can't you tell a lot
about a person by the company they keep?
--------------
bingo
--------------
I suspect Rotherham and Richard had had an uneasy relationship since
Roth's appointment as Archbishop of York (probably the most powerful
man in the north after Richard). Given his background, he looks like
a Woodville placement. Reasonably (by the standards of the day)
Richard might have expected to have some say in who was to replace
his wife's uncle as the new archbishop over his territory. I wonder
if one of Rotherham's jobs had always been feeding stories about
Richard back to the Queen.
I'm sure I've read he was not in York for richard's state visit.
The more I think about it, the more the idea of Richard confiding in
Rotherham looks odd.
------------
i've not even really had a bare glimpse on rotherham..but if he's associated with morton..his trail is sure to stink.
------------------
Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old mistress
Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter. She would have
found his doctorate in divinity useful, as the uncle-niece
relationship was potentially covered not only by canon law (ie Church
rules) but by the Bible (the rules on prohibited relationships set ot
in Leviticus). The Pope was not supposed to grant dispensation for
relationships prohibited by the Bible.
Croyland tells us Catesby & Ratcliffe wheeled in a dozen doctors of
theology to persuade Richard that the relationship was one the Pope
couldn't dispense.
(It's actually not clear. Leviticus states that a man couldn't marry
his aunt, which makes it look as though, logically, a woman couldn't
marry her uncle. However, Lev. is concerned only with what women a
man couldn't have knowledge of, as for the Hebrew culture of the time
women were merely objects to be taken (most as concubines). This
makes it difficult to relate to Christian concepts of marriage (as
being a voluntary partnership between two people, with the same rules
applying to both sexes). Had the Hebrews minded a woman marrying her
uncle, Leviticus would have expressed it as a prohibition on a man
marrying his niece. This is presumably why there were actually
dispensations granted for uncle-niece marriages in the Middle Ages.
None the less, it wasn't clear cut, as Leviticus as it stands does
not translate logically to European medieval or modern thought. And
Catesby and Ratcliffe, of course, were trying to prevent the marriage.
Was the marriage to Elizabeth ever really mooted? Was it Richard's
idea, or the Woodvilles'? Another topic altogether, but we can hardly
look to Tudor sources to admit to any Woodville involvement.
i did get a charge out of reading holinshed stating woodville was of "timorous spirit"...as if she was timid in anyway, shape or form..she was a barking cur dog who snapped at heels of people when their backs were turned..and runs for shelter when confronted..a malicious coward who manipulated others to do her dirty work..hmm..kind of mortonish behaviour if you ask me.
no wonder h7 shipped her off to a nunnery.
roslyn

Marie

>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
> Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old
mistress
> Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
> possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter.


Whose old mistress, Marie? Richard's, Morton's, Rotherham's? I'm
intrigued by any of those possibilities.

I think you may well be onto something I had not even considered --
that Woodville was thinking (conniving) to get Eliz of York married to
Richard once Anne died. That would put a different light on quite a
few things, some of which are hard to explain. Woodville was
apparently a consumate schemer, so the idea seems quite possible.

Katy

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
morton was with e4 when he died. apr. 83,

Was he? Was he at E IV's deathbed? If I knew that, I had forgotten
it.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> > Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old
> mistress
> > Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
> > possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter.
>
>
> Whose old mistress, Marie? Richard's, Morton's, Rotherham's? I'm
> intrigued by any of those possibilities.

Rotherham's. Mistress as in employer, boringly. According to the
potted bio, he was in Queen Elizabeth's direct employ before becoming
Archbship of York.

Certainly Tudor thought she'd really dropped him in it when she made
her peace with Richard. Who knows?

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@> wrote:
> > > Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old
> > mistress
> > > Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
> > > possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter.
> >
> >
> > Whose old mistress, Marie? Richard's, Morton's, Rotherham's?
I'm
> > intrigued by any of those possibilities.
>
> Rotherham's. Mistress as in employer, boringly. According to the
> potted bio, he was in Queen Elizabeth's direct employ before
becoming
> Archbship of York.


Ah, phooey. I thought that here was a scandal I hadn't known about.

Katy

--->
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> > Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old
> mistress
> > Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
> > possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter.

Marie
>
> Katy wrote
>> I think you may well be onto something I had not even considered --
> that Woodville was thinking (conniving) to get Eliz of York married to
> Richard once Anne died. That would put a different light on quite a
> few things, some of which are hard to explain. Woodville was
> apparently a consumate schemer, so the idea seems quite possible.
>
> Katy

Lately I am more and more beginning to think that is how it was. For example the famous
letter written by Elizabeth of york - I dont think Buck could have just simply dreamed that
one up - and it seems to me, if that letter was fact then it was Elizabeth was doing all the
pushing/wishful thinking.. From there it is easy to see that it is very very possible it was
her dear mother who was doing all the conniving. My god, was she pushy or not????

Another thing would also fall nicely into place - Henry Weasle's animosity towards her
later on - she would only have to had to put one more step out of place, which it seems
she did (involvement in the Lambert Simnel episode) and she would have found herself in
Bermondsey Abbey so fast her feet wouldnt have touched the ground.

Eureka we have it!

Eileen


>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...> wrote:
>
> > >
> >> >
>> I suspect Rotherham and Richard had had an uneasy relationship since
> Roth's appointment as Archbishop of York (probably the most powerful
> man in the north after Richard). Given his background, he looks like
> a Woodville placement. Reasonably (by the standards of the day)
> Richard might have expected to have some say in who was to replace
> his wife's uncle as the new archbishop over his territory. I wonder
> if one of Rotherham's jobs had always been feeding stories about
> Richard back to the Queen.
> I'm sure I've read he was not in York for richard's state visit.
> The more I think about it, the more the idea of Richard confiding in
> Rotherham looks odd.
>
>
>> Marie

What i know about Rotherham/Richard you could put on the back of a postage stamp, but
just one little thought here - is it at all possible Richard did confide in Rotherham
regarding he had been barred from sharing Anne's bed (if she did indeed die from TB then
I think that would come as no surprise - I ask you, would anyone want to share a bed with
someone who had raging consumption?? but still it is pointed out as if Richard was just
simply abandoning her because she was sick, thin and barren), & her inability to have any
more children etc., Could he possibly been having a low moment, as you do. and he
confided in Rotherham who later twisted every word he said. I think everyone of us must
have at sometime or other had that happen. Something you say is later repeated in a
totally different context usually by someone out to cause mischief.

Paul Murray Kendall was of that mind about Richard's conversation (if there ever was one)
with Rotherham - I quote him here:

"...the tide of despair rose beyondhis control. To his former enemy who he had since
treated as a friend & familiar, Thomas Rotherham A of Y, he cried out in agony that he had
lost everything, his son had been taken from him - Anne had been unable to bear him no
more children - and now she too was slipping away, leaving him barren, alone"

Richard did at times seem all too ready to forgive people & allow them their freedom who
later worked hard at harming/totally destroying him. Was Rotherham one of these?

It is true though that Rotherham would never have needed to hold a conversation with
Richard to know these things i.e. Richard being barred from Anne's bed etc., as they would
have been common knowledge.

You may well be correct Marie, I was just wondering .....

Eileen


>
>
> >
>

I think even Elizabeth Woodville would have realised what a
ridiculous idea that would be to Richard. Only reason she would
suggest such a thing would be to embarrass the king in search of some
kind of revenge.
Paul

On 18 Jun 2006, at 18:24, oregonkaty wrote:

> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@...> wrote:
>> Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old
> mistress
>> Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
>> possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter.
>
>
> Whose old mistress, Marie? Richard's, Morton's, Rotherham's? I'm
> intrigued by any of those possibilities.
>
> I think you may well be onto something I had not even considered --
> that Woodville was thinking (conniving) to get Eliz of York married to
> Richard once Anne died. That would put a different light on quite a
> few things, some of which are hard to explain. Woodville was
> apparently a consumate schemer, so the idea seems quite possible.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email
> design.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/co.u8A/gOaOAA/Zx0JAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> I think even Elizabeth Woodville would have realised what a
> ridiculous idea that would be to Richard. Only reason she would
> suggest such a thing would be to embarrass the king in search of
some
> kind of revenge.
> Paul

I think you may well be on to something, Paul. Evidently there was
such a rumour: Richard had to deny it publicly. But I can't see that
Elizabeth Woodville would have actually wanted her daughter to marry
Richard. We are told how much she hated Warwick for the execution of
her brother John. She must equally have hated Richard for the
execution of her brother Anthony. She probably blamed him for the
premature death of her fugitive brother Bishop Lionel as well.
But if the Woodvilles were putting the rumour about, it wasn't in
Tudor's interests. It seems to have been as bad for him as it was for
Richard.
Could it be that Elizabeth Woodville was actually desperate to put
Tudor off his invasion? Had she possibly learned something which
made her daughter's marriage to him seem like a dangerous proposition?

I don't think Buck can have made up seeing that letter from
Elizabeth, although he was paraphrasing from memory and it might have
meant something diffferent. A letter in the Bulletin about a year ago
suggested she might have been referring to the proposed marriage to
the duke of Beja, the negotiations for which would also have been
waiting on the death of Queen Anne, as it was to be a double
marriage, with Richard proposed for Princess Joanna.
Was Elizabeth perhaps desperate about a marriage because there was
something about the Tudor proposition that had become wholly
unattractive?

Marie


Marie


>
> On 18 Jun 2006, at 18:24, oregonkaty wrote:
>
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@> wrote:
> >> Another possibility that occurs to me is that it was his old
> > mistress
> >> Elizabeth Woodville who was consulting Rotherham - about the
> >> possibility of Richard's marriage to her daughter.
> >
> >
> > Whose old mistress, Marie? Richard's, Morton's, Rotherham's? I'm
> > intrigued by any of those possibilities.
> >
> > I think you may well be onto something I had not even considered -
-
> > that Woodville was thinking (conniving) to get Eliz of York
married to
> > Richard once Anne died. That would put a different light on
quite a
> > few things, some of which are hard to explain. Woodville was
> > apparently a consumate schemer, so the idea seems quite possible.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------
-
> > ~-->
> > Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email
> > design.
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/co.u8A/gOaOAA/Zx0JAA/1WMplB/TM
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> > ~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>

On 19 Jun 2006, at 14:39, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> Was Elizabeth perhaps desperate about a marriage because there was
> something about the Tudor proposition that had become wholly
> unattractive?

Like discovering her brothers were still alive perhaps, or that they
were dead but Richard had had nothing to do with it? Or that Tudor as
king wasn't being greeted with any enthusiasm in England?
Paul

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

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Jun 2006, at 14:39, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > Was Elizabeth perhaps desperate about a marriage because there was
> > something about the Tudor proposition that had become wholly
> > unattractive?
>
> Like discovering her brothers were still alive perhaps,

Paul

Oi Paul I was going to say that!! :-)

Eileen

>