A Word for Catesby
A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 10:41:38
Much though I distrust lawyers, and doubtful though I am whether I
would have liked the Cat had I had the opportunity to meet him (his
will pretty baldly admits that he'd made unjust acquisitions of
land), but some of the charges laid at his feet in recent posts have
been a tad unfair.
1) In dobbing on Hastings he was not being disloyal to his one former
client: he also had Buckingham, Stanley and even Richard on his
books. So he had a difficult choice to make. He cannot have known at
that time which side was going to win.
2) He did not come to Henry looking for a job after Bosworth. The
Croyland Chronicler, who was in Leicester at the time, tells us that
while Richard's body, followed by Henry Tudor, were entering
Leicester:
"many noblemen and others were captured. . . William Catesby, who was
pre-eminent among all the counsellers of the late king, was also
captured; as a final reward for excellent service his head was cut
off at Leicester. Two esquires from the western parts of the kingdom,
fathr and son, going under the name of Brecher, who had also fallen
into the hands of the victors after the battle was over, were hanged
on the gallows. And since it was not heard nor read nor committed to
memory that any others who had withdrawn from the battle had
afterwards been cut down by such punishments. . . the new prince
began to receive praise from everyone. . . "
In other words, Catesby was singled out for execution. Others on his
family tree were amongst the limited number of men attainted in
December (ie Roger Wake & Lord Zouche). The explanation, I believe,
lies in their close relationship to Margaret Beaufort (Catesby's
wife, Margaret Zouche, was a daughter of Margaret Beaufort's half-
sister Elizabeth St John). These, I suggest, were relatives of the
Tudor who had spurned his mother's approaches during Richard's reign.
Perhaps Margaret Beaufort had approached her niece, William's wife,
and she had tried to win her husband over but he told her to sod off,
as in his will he says to her "I heartily cry you mercy if I have
dealt uncourteously with you". Or perhaps he'd just been a horrible
husband. Yet he seemed to love her and cared how she fared, asked her
not to remarry and named her as his executor (or was it just her
prayers for her soul he wanted?)
As you might have gathered, the only other evidence for what was
going on with Catesby before his death is his will, written on the
day of his execution (25th), when he had given up hope of reprieve
from execution but was still hoping to avoid attainder and so secure
his son's inheritance and his widow's livelihood. IN THAT CONTEXT,
yes, he did claim to love Henry Tudor ("I doute not the king wilbe
good and gracious lord to them, for he is callid a full gracious
prince And I never offended hym by my good and Free will, for god I
take to my Juge I haue euer lovid hym").
Yes, he was grovelling and in a highly charged emotional state. Not
being very brave about it at all. But I don't think it's for us to
judge. He did address Stanley, a very longtime client as well as
Henry's stepfather, who had evidently promised that he would plead
with HT for his life, but hadn't ("My Lord Stanley, Strange, and all
that blood, pray for my soul, as ye have not for my body as I trusted
in you").
Marie
P.S. Interestingly, he also left money to the widow of his other old
client, Buckingham:-
"Item that my lady of Buckinghaum have £100 to help her children, and
that she will see my Lord's debts paid and his will executed, and in
especial in such land as should be amortised to the house of Pleshey".
Pleshey College was the Buckingham mausoleum in Essex. It sounds as
though Catesby had held moneys on Buckingham's behalf, and also his
will. Now, when did Buckingham write that? Apparently it was only
thought proper to write a will when facing death or some enterprise
which could bring it about - a long journey, battle, or for a woman
childbirth. Did Buck make his will and lodge it with Catesby during
the June 1483 crisis, or before his rebellion, or when facing
execution? Wouldn't ya love to know?
PPS. He didn't leave a penny to Hastings' widow.
would have liked the Cat had I had the opportunity to meet him (his
will pretty baldly admits that he'd made unjust acquisitions of
land), but some of the charges laid at his feet in recent posts have
been a tad unfair.
1) In dobbing on Hastings he was not being disloyal to his one former
client: he also had Buckingham, Stanley and even Richard on his
books. So he had a difficult choice to make. He cannot have known at
that time which side was going to win.
2) He did not come to Henry looking for a job after Bosworth. The
Croyland Chronicler, who was in Leicester at the time, tells us that
while Richard's body, followed by Henry Tudor, were entering
Leicester:
"many noblemen and others were captured. . . William Catesby, who was
pre-eminent among all the counsellers of the late king, was also
captured; as a final reward for excellent service his head was cut
off at Leicester. Two esquires from the western parts of the kingdom,
fathr and son, going under the name of Brecher, who had also fallen
into the hands of the victors after the battle was over, were hanged
on the gallows. And since it was not heard nor read nor committed to
memory that any others who had withdrawn from the battle had
afterwards been cut down by such punishments. . . the new prince
began to receive praise from everyone. . . "
In other words, Catesby was singled out for execution. Others on his
family tree were amongst the limited number of men attainted in
December (ie Roger Wake & Lord Zouche). The explanation, I believe,
lies in their close relationship to Margaret Beaufort (Catesby's
wife, Margaret Zouche, was a daughter of Margaret Beaufort's half-
sister Elizabeth St John). These, I suggest, were relatives of the
Tudor who had spurned his mother's approaches during Richard's reign.
Perhaps Margaret Beaufort had approached her niece, William's wife,
and she had tried to win her husband over but he told her to sod off,
as in his will he says to her "I heartily cry you mercy if I have
dealt uncourteously with you". Or perhaps he'd just been a horrible
husband. Yet he seemed to love her and cared how she fared, asked her
not to remarry and named her as his executor (or was it just her
prayers for her soul he wanted?)
As you might have gathered, the only other evidence for what was
going on with Catesby before his death is his will, written on the
day of his execution (25th), when he had given up hope of reprieve
from execution but was still hoping to avoid attainder and so secure
his son's inheritance and his widow's livelihood. IN THAT CONTEXT,
yes, he did claim to love Henry Tudor ("I doute not the king wilbe
good and gracious lord to them, for he is callid a full gracious
prince And I never offended hym by my good and Free will, for god I
take to my Juge I haue euer lovid hym").
Yes, he was grovelling and in a highly charged emotional state. Not
being very brave about it at all. But I don't think it's for us to
judge. He did address Stanley, a very longtime client as well as
Henry's stepfather, who had evidently promised that he would plead
with HT for his life, but hadn't ("My Lord Stanley, Strange, and all
that blood, pray for my soul, as ye have not for my body as I trusted
in you").
Marie
P.S. Interestingly, he also left money to the widow of his other old
client, Buckingham:-
"Item that my lady of Buckinghaum have £100 to help her children, and
that she will see my Lord's debts paid and his will executed, and in
especial in such land as should be amortised to the house of Pleshey".
Pleshey College was the Buckingham mausoleum in Essex. It sounds as
though Catesby had held moneys on Buckingham's behalf, and also his
will. Now, when did Buckingham write that? Apparently it was only
thought proper to write a will when facing death or some enterprise
which could bring it about - a long journey, battle, or for a woman
childbirth. Did Buck make his will and lodge it with Catesby during
the June 1483 crisis, or before his rebellion, or when facing
execution? Wouldn't ya love to know?
PPS. He didn't leave a penny to Hastings' widow.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 11:09:42
Was the Cat your dad in a previous life? I really pushed your buttons
didn't I?:-)
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 10:40, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Much though I distrust lawyers, and doubtful though I am whether I
> would have liked the Cat had I had the opportunity to meet him (his
> will pretty baldly admits that he'd made unjust acquisitions of
> land), but some of the charges laid at his feet in recent posts have
> been a tad unfair.
>
> 1) In dobbing on Hastings he was not being disloyal to his one former
> client: he also had Buckingham, Stanley and even Richard on his
> books. So he had a difficult choice to make. He cannot have known at
> that time which side was going to win.
>
> 2) He did not come to Henry looking for a job after Bosworth. The
> Croyland Chronicler, who was in Leicester at the time, tells us that
> while Richard's body, followed by Henry Tudor, were entering
> Leicester:
> "many noblemen and others were captured. . . William Catesby, who was
> pre-eminent among all the counsellers of the late king, was also
> captured; as a final reward for excellent service his head was cut
> off at Leicester. Two esquires from the western parts of the kingdom,
> fathr and son, going under the name of Brecher, who had also fallen
> into the hands of the victors after the battle was over, were hanged
> on the gallows. And since it was not heard nor read nor committed to
> memory that any others who had withdrawn from the battle had
> afterwards been cut down by such punishments. . . the new prince
> began to receive praise from everyone. . . "
>
> In other words, Catesby was singled out for execution. Others on his
> family tree were amongst the limited number of men attainted in
> December (ie Roger Wake & Lord Zouche). The explanation, I believe,
> lies in their close relationship to Margaret Beaufort (Catesby's
> wife, Margaret Zouche, was a daughter of Margaret Beaufort's half-
> sister Elizabeth St John). These, I suggest, were relatives of the
> Tudor who had spurned his mother's approaches during Richard's reign.
> Perhaps Margaret Beaufort had approached her niece, William's wife,
> and she had tried to win her husband over but he told her to sod off,
> as in his will he says to her "I heartily cry you mercy if I have
> dealt uncourteously with you". Or perhaps he'd just been a horrible
> husband. Yet he seemed to love her and cared how she fared, asked her
> not to remarry and named her as his executor (or was it just her
> prayers for her soul he wanted?)
>
> As you might have gathered, the only other evidence for what was
> going on with Catesby before his death is his will, written on the
> day of his execution (25th), when he had given up hope of reprieve
> from execution but was still hoping to avoid attainder and so secure
> his son's inheritance and his widow's livelihood. IN THAT CONTEXT,
> yes, he did claim to love Henry Tudor ("I doute not the king wilbe
> good and gracious lord to them, for he is callid a full gracious
> prince And I never offended hym by my good and Free will, for god I
> take to my Juge I haue euer lovid hym").
>
> Yes, he was grovelling and in a highly charged emotional state. Not
> being very brave about it at all. But I don't think it's for us to
> judge. He did address Stanley, a very longtime client as well as
> Henry's stepfather, who had evidently promised that he would plead
> with HT for his life, but hadn't ("My Lord Stanley, Strange, and all
> that blood, pray for my soul, as ye have not for my body as I trusted
> in you").
>
> Marie
>
> P.S. Interestingly, he also left money to the widow of his other old
> client, Buckingham:-
> "Item that my lady of Buckinghaum have £100 to help her children, and
> that she will see my Lord's debts paid and his will executed, and in
> especial in such land as should be amortised to the house of Pleshey".
>
> Pleshey College was the Buckingham mausoleum in Essex. It sounds as
> though Catesby had held moneys on Buckingham's behalf, and also his
> will. Now, when did Buckingham write that? Apparently it was only
> thought proper to write a will when facing death or some enterprise
> which could bring it about - a long journey, battle, or for a woman
> childbirth. Did Buck make his will and lodge it with Catesby during
> the June 1483 crisis, or before his rebellion, or when facing
> execution? Wouldn't ya love to know?
>
> PPS. He didn't leave a penny to Hastings' widow.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
didn't I?:-)
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 10:40, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Much though I distrust lawyers, and doubtful though I am whether I
> would have liked the Cat had I had the opportunity to meet him (his
> will pretty baldly admits that he'd made unjust acquisitions of
> land), but some of the charges laid at his feet in recent posts have
> been a tad unfair.
>
> 1) In dobbing on Hastings he was not being disloyal to his one former
> client: he also had Buckingham, Stanley and even Richard on his
> books. So he had a difficult choice to make. He cannot have known at
> that time which side was going to win.
>
> 2) He did not come to Henry looking for a job after Bosworth. The
> Croyland Chronicler, who was in Leicester at the time, tells us that
> while Richard's body, followed by Henry Tudor, were entering
> Leicester:
> "many noblemen and others were captured. . . William Catesby, who was
> pre-eminent among all the counsellers of the late king, was also
> captured; as a final reward for excellent service his head was cut
> off at Leicester. Two esquires from the western parts of the kingdom,
> fathr and son, going under the name of Brecher, who had also fallen
> into the hands of the victors after the battle was over, were hanged
> on the gallows. And since it was not heard nor read nor committed to
> memory that any others who had withdrawn from the battle had
> afterwards been cut down by such punishments. . . the new prince
> began to receive praise from everyone. . . "
>
> In other words, Catesby was singled out for execution. Others on his
> family tree were amongst the limited number of men attainted in
> December (ie Roger Wake & Lord Zouche). The explanation, I believe,
> lies in their close relationship to Margaret Beaufort (Catesby's
> wife, Margaret Zouche, was a daughter of Margaret Beaufort's half-
> sister Elizabeth St John). These, I suggest, were relatives of the
> Tudor who had spurned his mother's approaches during Richard's reign.
> Perhaps Margaret Beaufort had approached her niece, William's wife,
> and she had tried to win her husband over but he told her to sod off,
> as in his will he says to her "I heartily cry you mercy if I have
> dealt uncourteously with you". Or perhaps he'd just been a horrible
> husband. Yet he seemed to love her and cared how she fared, asked her
> not to remarry and named her as his executor (or was it just her
> prayers for her soul he wanted?)
>
> As you might have gathered, the only other evidence for what was
> going on with Catesby before his death is his will, written on the
> day of his execution (25th), when he had given up hope of reprieve
> from execution but was still hoping to avoid attainder and so secure
> his son's inheritance and his widow's livelihood. IN THAT CONTEXT,
> yes, he did claim to love Henry Tudor ("I doute not the king wilbe
> good and gracious lord to them, for he is callid a full gracious
> prince And I never offended hym by my good and Free will, for god I
> take to my Juge I haue euer lovid hym").
>
> Yes, he was grovelling and in a highly charged emotional state. Not
> being very brave about it at all. But I don't think it's for us to
> judge. He did address Stanley, a very longtime client as well as
> Henry's stepfather, who had evidently promised that he would plead
> with HT for his life, but hadn't ("My Lord Stanley, Strange, and all
> that blood, pray for my soul, as ye have not for my body as I trusted
> in you").
>
> Marie
>
> P.S. Interestingly, he also left money to the widow of his other old
> client, Buckingham:-
> "Item that my lady of Buckinghaum have £100 to help her children, and
> that she will see my Lord's debts paid and his will executed, and in
> especial in such land as should be amortised to the house of Pleshey".
>
> Pleshey College was the Buckingham mausoleum in Essex. It sounds as
> though Catesby had held moneys on Buckingham's behalf, and also his
> will. Now, when did Buckingham write that? Apparently it was only
> thought proper to write a will when facing death or some enterprise
> which could bring it about - a long journey, battle, or for a woman
> childbirth. Did Buck make his will and lodge it with Catesby during
> the June 1483 crisis, or before his rebellion, or when facing
> execution? Wouldn't ya love to know?
>
> PPS. He didn't leave a penny to Hastings' widow.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 11:25:28
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Was the Cat your dad in a previous life? I really pushed your
buttons
> didn't I?:-)
> Paul
No, Paul, I just don't like inaccuracy.
I don't much go for gloating over deaths either. Call me squeamish, but
you even managed to push my buttons when you mentioned spitting on
Morton's tomb.
I was trying not to let this get personal. I don't much care for that
either. But what the hell!
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Was the Cat your dad in a previous life? I really pushed your
buttons
> didn't I?:-)
> Paul
No, Paul, I just don't like inaccuracy.
I don't much go for gloating over deaths either. Call me squeamish, but
you even managed to push my buttons when you mentioned spitting on
Morton's tomb.
I was trying not to let this get personal. I don't much care for that
either. But what the hell!
Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 11:29:56
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
>
> Much though I distrust lawyers, and doubtful though I am whether I
> would have liked the Cat had I had the opportunity to meet him (his
> will pretty baldly admits that he'd made unjust acquisitions of
> land), but some of the charges laid at his feet in recent posts
have
> been a tad unfair.
>
> 1) In dobbing on Hastings he was not being disloyal to his one
former
> client: he also had Buckingham, Stanley and even Richard on his
> books. So he had a difficult choice to make. He cannot have known
at
> that time which side was going to win.
>
> 2) He did not come to Henry looking for a job after Bosworth. The
> Croyland Chronicler, who was in Leicester at the time, tells us
that
> while Richard's body, followed by Henry Tudor, were entering
> Leicester:
> "many noblemen and others were captured. . . William Catesby, who
was
> pre-eminent among all the counsellers of the late king, was also
> captured; as a final reward for excellent service his head was cut
> off at Leicester. Two esquires from the western parts of the
kingdom,
> fathr and son, going under the name of Brecher, who had also fallen
> into the hands of the victors after the battle was over, were
hanged
> on the gallows. And since it was not heard nor read nor committed
to
> memory that any others who had withdrawn from the battle had
> afterwards been cut down by such punishments. . . the new prince
> began to receive praise from everyone. . . "
>
> In other words, Catesby was singled out for execution. Others on
his
> family tree were amongst the limited number of men attainted in
> December (ie Roger Wake & Lord Zouche). The explanation, I believe,
> lies in their close relationship to Margaret Beaufort (Catesby's
> wife, Margaret Zouche, was a daughter of Margaret Beaufort's half-
> sister Elizabeth St John). These, I suggest, were relatives of the
> Tudor who had spurned his mother's approaches during Richard's
reign.
> Perhaps Margaret Beaufort had approached her niece, William's wife,
> and she had tried to win her husband over but he told her to sod
off,
> as in his will he says to her "I heartily cry you mercy if I have
> dealt uncourteously with you". Or perhaps he'd just been a horrible
> husband. Yet he seemed to love her and cared how she fared, asked
her
> not to remarry and named her as his executor (or was it just her
> prayers for her soul he wanted?)
>
> As you might have gathered, the only other evidence for what was
> going on with Catesby before his death is his will, written on the
> day of his execution (25th), when he had given up hope of reprieve
> from execution but was still hoping to avoid attainder and so
secure
> his son's inheritance and his widow's livelihood. IN THAT CONTEXT,
> yes, he did claim to love Henry Tudor ("I doute not the king wilbe
> good and gracious lord to them, for he is callid a full gracious
> prince And I never offended hym by my good and Free will, for god I
> take to my Juge I haue euer lovid hym").
>
> Yes, he was grovelling and in a highly charged emotional state. Not
> being very brave about it at all. But I don't think it's for us to
> judge. He did address Stanley, a very longtime client as well as
> Henry's stepfather, who had evidently promised that he would plead
> with HT for his life, but hadn't ("My Lord Stanley, Strange, and
all
> that blood, pray for my soul, as ye have not for my body as I
trusted
> in you").
>
> Marie
>
> P.S. Interestingly, he also left money to the widow of his other
old
> client, Buckingham:-
> "Item that my lady of Buckinghaum have £100 to help her children,
and
> that she will see my Lord's debts paid and his will executed, and
in
> especial in such land as should be amortised to the house of
Pleshey".
>
> Pleshey College was the Buckingham mausoleum in Essex. It sounds as
> though Catesby had held moneys on Buckingham's behalf, and also his
> will. Now, when did Buckingham write that? Apparently it was only
> thought proper to write a will when facing death or some enterprise
> which could bring it about - a long journey, battle, or for a woman
> childbirth. Did Buck make his will and lodge it with Catesby during
> the June 1483 crisis, or before his rebellion, or when facing
> execution? Wouldn't ya love to know?
>
> PPS. He didn't leave a penny to Hastings' widow.
>
Just a little confusion here:
Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
<marie@...> wrote:
>
>
> Much though I distrust lawyers, and doubtful though I am whether I
> would have liked the Cat had I had the opportunity to meet him (his
> will pretty baldly admits that he'd made unjust acquisitions of
> land), but some of the charges laid at his feet in recent posts
have
> been a tad unfair.
>
> 1) In dobbing on Hastings he was not being disloyal to his one
former
> client: he also had Buckingham, Stanley and even Richard on his
> books. So he had a difficult choice to make. He cannot have known
at
> that time which side was going to win.
>
> 2) He did not come to Henry looking for a job after Bosworth. The
> Croyland Chronicler, who was in Leicester at the time, tells us
that
> while Richard's body, followed by Henry Tudor, were entering
> Leicester:
> "many noblemen and others were captured. . . William Catesby, who
was
> pre-eminent among all the counsellers of the late king, was also
> captured; as a final reward for excellent service his head was cut
> off at Leicester. Two esquires from the western parts of the
kingdom,
> fathr and son, going under the name of Brecher, who had also fallen
> into the hands of the victors after the battle was over, were
hanged
> on the gallows. And since it was not heard nor read nor committed
to
> memory that any others who had withdrawn from the battle had
> afterwards been cut down by such punishments. . . the new prince
> began to receive praise from everyone. . . "
>
> In other words, Catesby was singled out for execution. Others on
his
> family tree were amongst the limited number of men attainted in
> December (ie Roger Wake & Lord Zouche). The explanation, I believe,
> lies in their close relationship to Margaret Beaufort (Catesby's
> wife, Margaret Zouche, was a daughter of Margaret Beaufort's half-
> sister Elizabeth St John). These, I suggest, were relatives of the
> Tudor who had spurned his mother's approaches during Richard's
reign.
> Perhaps Margaret Beaufort had approached her niece, William's wife,
> and she had tried to win her husband over but he told her to sod
off,
> as in his will he says to her "I heartily cry you mercy if I have
> dealt uncourteously with you". Or perhaps he'd just been a horrible
> husband. Yet he seemed to love her and cared how she fared, asked
her
> not to remarry and named her as his executor (or was it just her
> prayers for her soul he wanted?)
>
> As you might have gathered, the only other evidence for what was
> going on with Catesby before his death is his will, written on the
> day of his execution (25th), when he had given up hope of reprieve
> from execution but was still hoping to avoid attainder and so
secure
> his son's inheritance and his widow's livelihood. IN THAT CONTEXT,
> yes, he did claim to love Henry Tudor ("I doute not the king wilbe
> good and gracious lord to them, for he is callid a full gracious
> prince And I never offended hym by my good and Free will, for god I
> take to my Juge I haue euer lovid hym").
>
> Yes, he was grovelling and in a highly charged emotional state. Not
> being very brave about it at all. But I don't think it's for us to
> judge. He did address Stanley, a very longtime client as well as
> Henry's stepfather, who had evidently promised that he would plead
> with HT for his life, but hadn't ("My Lord Stanley, Strange, and
all
> that blood, pray for my soul, as ye have not for my body as I
trusted
> in you").
>
> Marie
>
> P.S. Interestingly, he also left money to the widow of his other
old
> client, Buckingham:-
> "Item that my lady of Buckinghaum have £100 to help her children,
and
> that she will see my Lord's debts paid and his will executed, and
in
> especial in such land as should be amortised to the house of
Pleshey".
>
> Pleshey College was the Buckingham mausoleum in Essex. It sounds as
> though Catesby had held moneys on Buckingham's behalf, and also his
> will. Now, when did Buckingham write that? Apparently it was only
> thought proper to write a will when facing death or some enterprise
> which could bring it about - a long journey, battle, or for a woman
> childbirth. Did Buck make his will and lodge it with Catesby during
> the June 1483 crisis, or before his rebellion, or when facing
> execution? Wouldn't ya love to know?
>
> PPS. He didn't leave a penny to Hastings' widow.
>
Just a little confusion here:
Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 20:00:23
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Was the Cat your dad in a previous life? I really pushed your
buttons
> didn't I?:-)
> Paul
What's with you, Paul? Marie cited her sources and backed up her
opinions with research.
You make silly provocative jibes without any supporting references.
I thought this forum was for sensible discussions, not childishness.
Katy
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Was the Cat your dad in a previous life? I really pushed your
buttons
> didn't I?:-)
> Paul
What's with you, Paul? Marie cited her sources and backed up her
opinions with research.
You make silly provocative jibes without any supporting references.
I thought this forum was for sensible discussions, not childishness.
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 20:06:34
Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have it
in two sources as hanging.
I have a further comment.
What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
Tudor?
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
>
> Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
in two sources as hanging.
I have a further comment.
What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
Tudor?
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
>
> Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 21:03:48
As did I Katy. Mention sources. Or didn't you read my post?
And please people can you get a sense of humour? :-) means I am
smiling which means a joke!
Which is not a jibe.
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 19:45, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> Was the Cat your dad in a previous life? I really pushed your
> buttons
>> didn't I?:-)
>> Paul
>
>
> What's with you, Paul? Marie cited her sources and backed up her
> opinions with research.
>
> You make silly provocative jibes without any supporting references.
>
> I thought this forum was for sensible discussions, not childishness.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email
> design.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
And please people can you get a sense of humour? :-) means I am
smiling which means a joke!
Which is not a jibe.
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 19:45, oregonkaty wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>> Was the Cat your dad in a previous life? I really pushed your
> buttons
>> didn't I?:-)
>> Paul
>
>
> What's with you, Paul? Marie cited her sources and backed up her
> opinions with research.
>
> You make silly provocative jibes without any supporting references.
>
> I thought this forum was for sensible discussions, not childishness.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email
> design.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-18 23:07:53
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have
it
> in two sources as hanging.
What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was quoting
Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't see
why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like to
give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby was 'hanged
in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I looked
up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best witness,
apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
months later.
There's been some discussion about William's status. He was certainly
an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb in
full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted late in
Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who were
did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded than
you would have thought.
But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth. Nor
do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted initially,
even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families to
protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
Marie
> I have a further comment.
> What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> Tudor?
> Paul
>
> On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> >
> > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have
it
> in two sources as hanging.
What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was quoting
Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't see
why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like to
give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby was 'hanged
in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I looked
up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best witness,
apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
months later.
There's been some discussion about William's status. He was certainly
an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb in
full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted late in
Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who were
did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded than
you would have thought.
But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth. Nor
do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted initially,
even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families to
protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
Marie
> I have a further comment.
> What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> Tudor?
> Paul
>
> On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> >
> > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-19 07:34:50
Simply out of curiousity, I pulled out my copy of Richard the Third,
by Kendall. On page 444, he writes...
"A few days after the battle, William Catesby, captured while fleeing,
was hanged in a sweat of fear, and with him were hanged the Brecher
father and son, West Country yeoman."
He does make a comment in his "notes" section in the back, but it is
more of a reference to Catesby's will and how he "foregoes all dignity".
Kendall refrences, Dugdale, Warwickshire,p.789.
I'm not familiar with Dugdale, but I guess the question is, is that
where Kendall got the idea Catesby was hanged?
I was just following the comments and got curioius. I'm not taking
sides either way. Someone along the way mentioned Kendall and I had
the book right here, so I looked it up.
Howard
-- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have
> it
> > in two sources as hanging.
>
> What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was quoting
> Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't see
> why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like to
> give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby was 'hanged
> in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I looked
> up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best witness,
> apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
> months later.
>
> There's been some discussion about William's status. He was certainly
> an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb in
> full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
> knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted late in
> Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who were
> did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
> Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded than
> you would have thought.
> But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
> I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth. Nor
> do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted initially,
> even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families to
> protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
> children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
> thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> > I have a further comment.
> > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> > Tudor?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > >
> > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> >
> > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> >
>
by Kendall. On page 444, he writes...
"A few days after the battle, William Catesby, captured while fleeing,
was hanged in a sweat of fear, and with him were hanged the Brecher
father and son, West Country yeoman."
He does make a comment in his "notes" section in the back, but it is
more of a reference to Catesby's will and how he "foregoes all dignity".
Kendall refrences, Dugdale, Warwickshire,p.789.
I'm not familiar with Dugdale, but I guess the question is, is that
where Kendall got the idea Catesby was hanged?
I was just following the comments and got curioius. I'm not taking
sides either way. Someone along the way mentioned Kendall and I had
the book right here, so I looked it up.
Howard
-- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have
> it
> > in two sources as hanging.
>
> What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was quoting
> Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't see
> why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like to
> give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby was 'hanged
> in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I looked
> up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best witness,
> apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
> months later.
>
> There's been some discussion about William's status. He was certainly
> an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb in
> full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
> knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted late in
> Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who were
> did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
> Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded than
> you would have thought.
> But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
> I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth. Nor
> do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted initially,
> even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families to
> protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
> children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
> thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> > I have a further comment.
> > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> > Tudor?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > >
> > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> >
> > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> >
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-19 10:00:19
--- In , "Howard Heller"
<howard_heller@...> wrote:
>
> Simply out of curiousity, I pulled out my copy of Richard the Third,
> by Kendall. On page 444, he writes...
>
> "A few days after the battle, William Catesby, captured while
fleeing,
> was hanged in a sweat of fear, and with him were hanged the Brecher
> father and son, West Country yeoman."
>
> He does make a comment in his "notes" section in the back, but it is
> more of a reference to Catesby's will and how he "foregoes all
dignity".
> Kendall refrences, Dugdale, Warwickshire,p.789.
>
> I'm not familiar with Dugdale, but I guess the question is, is that
> where Kendall got the idea Catesby was hanged?
>
> I was just following the comments and got curioius. I'm not taking
> sides either way. Someone along the way mentioned Kendall and I had
> the book right here, so I looked it up.
>
> Howard
I'm not familiar with Dugdale's 'Warwickshire' either but I think it
may be a published source for the will. It sounds to me from
Kendall's reference to the hanging of the Brechers that he was in
part at least relying on Croyland, as he did a lot. In which case
presumably he didn't read him carefully enough. There's no doubt what
Croyland meant - the Latin says "captus est etiam Willielmus
Catesby, . . . cujus caput apud Leicestriam. . . abscisum est"
(William Catesby was captured,. . . whose head at Leicester . . . was
cut off).
I've just checked Vergil on the American Branch site, although he's
obviously a much more distant source, and he just says Catesby was
executed.
I'm not arguing for one or the other means of despatch per se - it
seems to me it's neither here nor there, he ended up dead just the
same. I suspect it has been picked up in order to discredit
Croyland's testimony in general, but at the moment if the hanging
argument has any great foundation we don't know what it is.
Marie
>
>
>
>
> -- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
have
> > it
> > > in two sources as hanging.
> >
> > What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was
quoting
> > Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't
see
> > why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like
to
> > give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby
was 'hanged
> > in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I
looked
> > up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best
witness,
> > apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
> > months later.
> >
> > There's been some discussion about William's status. He was
certainly
> > an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb
in
> > full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
> > knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted
late in
> > Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who
were
> > did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
> > Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded
than
> > you would have thought.
> > But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
> > I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth.
Nor
> > do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted
initially,
> > even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families
to
> > protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
> > children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
> > thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > > I have a further comment.
> > > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three
days
> > > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and
Henry
> > > Tudor?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut
off".
> > > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > > >
> > > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> > >
> > > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> > >
> >
>
<howard_heller@...> wrote:
>
> Simply out of curiousity, I pulled out my copy of Richard the Third,
> by Kendall. On page 444, he writes...
>
> "A few days after the battle, William Catesby, captured while
fleeing,
> was hanged in a sweat of fear, and with him were hanged the Brecher
> father and son, West Country yeoman."
>
> He does make a comment in his "notes" section in the back, but it is
> more of a reference to Catesby's will and how he "foregoes all
dignity".
> Kendall refrences, Dugdale, Warwickshire,p.789.
>
> I'm not familiar with Dugdale, but I guess the question is, is that
> where Kendall got the idea Catesby was hanged?
>
> I was just following the comments and got curioius. I'm not taking
> sides either way. Someone along the way mentioned Kendall and I had
> the book right here, so I looked it up.
>
> Howard
I'm not familiar with Dugdale's 'Warwickshire' either but I think it
may be a published source for the will. It sounds to me from
Kendall's reference to the hanging of the Brechers that he was in
part at least relying on Croyland, as he did a lot. In which case
presumably he didn't read him carefully enough. There's no doubt what
Croyland meant - the Latin says "captus est etiam Willielmus
Catesby, . . . cujus caput apud Leicestriam. . . abscisum est"
(William Catesby was captured,. . . whose head at Leicester . . . was
cut off).
I've just checked Vergil on the American Branch site, although he's
obviously a much more distant source, and he just says Catesby was
executed.
I'm not arguing for one or the other means of despatch per se - it
seems to me it's neither here nor there, he ended up dead just the
same. I suspect it has been picked up in order to discredit
Croyland's testimony in general, but at the moment if the hanging
argument has any great foundation we don't know what it is.
Marie
>
>
>
>
> -- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
have
> > it
> > > in two sources as hanging.
> >
> > What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was
quoting
> > Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't
see
> > why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like
to
> > give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby
was 'hanged
> > in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I
looked
> > up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best
witness,
> > apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
> > months later.
> >
> > There's been some discussion about William's status. He was
certainly
> > an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb
in
> > full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
> > knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted
late in
> > Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who
were
> > did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
> > Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded
than
> > you would have thought.
> > But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
> > I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth.
Nor
> > do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted
initially,
> > even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families
to
> > protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
> > children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
> > thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > > I have a further comment.
> > > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three
days
> > > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and
Henry
> > > Tudor?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut
off".
> > > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > > >
> > > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> > >
> > > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-19 13:31:04
On 19 Jul 2006, at 08:29, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
I'm sorry Marie but you can't have it both ways. According to you I
don't know what Catesby and Stanley talked about, which of course I
never claimed I did, but you KNOW Kendall didn't read his sources
properly.
In all things to do with the Middle Ages what Geoffrey Richardson
called a 'leap of faith' must at times be taken. Conjecture has to
take its part when sources are missing, like the 3 days you seem to
just put down to a period in which Catesby was simply writing his will.
Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey, and
Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try to
reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach such
an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
wasted his time.
Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or hanging
doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would suggest
that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one of
Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
Paul
>
> I'm not familiar with Dugdale's 'Warwickshire' either but I think it
> may be a published source for the will. It sounds to me from
> Kendall's reference to the hanging of the Brechers that he was in
> part at least relying on Croyland, as he did a lot. In which case
> presumably he didn't read him carefully enough. There's no doubt what
> Croyland meant - the Latin says "captus est etiam Willielmus
> Catesby, . . . cujus caput apud Leicestriam. . . abscisum est"
> (William Catesby was captured,. . . whose head at Leicester . . . was
> cut off).
> I've just checked Vergil on the American Branch site, although he's
> obviously a much more distant source, and he just says Catesby was
> executed.
> I'm not arguing for one or the other means of despatch per se - it
> seems to me it's neither here nor there, he ended up dead just the
> same. I suspect it has been picked up in order to discredit
> Croyland's testimony in general, but at the moment if the hanging
> argument has any great foundation we don't know what it is.
>
> Marie
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- In , "mariewalsh2003"
>> <marie@> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
> have
>>> it
>>>> in two sources as hanging.
>>>
>>> What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was
> quoting
>>> Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't
> see
>>> why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like
> to
>>> give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby
> was 'hanged
>>> in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I
> looked
>>> up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best
> witness,
>>> apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
>>> months later.
>>>
>>> There's been some discussion about William's status. He was
> certainly
>>> an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb
> in
>>> full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
>>> knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted
> late in
>>> Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who
> were
>>> did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
>>> Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded
> than
>>> you would have thought.
>>> But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
>>> I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth.
> Nor
>>> do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted
> initially,
>>> even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families
> to
>>> protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
>>> children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
>>> thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have a further comment.
>>>> What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three
> days
>>>> between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and
> Henry
>>>> Tudor?
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut
> off".
>>>>> Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
>>>>
>>>> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
I'm sorry Marie but you can't have it both ways. According to you I
don't know what Catesby and Stanley talked about, which of course I
never claimed I did, but you KNOW Kendall didn't read his sources
properly.
In all things to do with the Middle Ages what Geoffrey Richardson
called a 'leap of faith' must at times be taken. Conjecture has to
take its part when sources are missing, like the 3 days you seem to
just put down to a period in which Catesby was simply writing his will.
Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey, and
Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try to
reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach such
an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
wasted his time.
Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or hanging
doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would suggest
that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one of
Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
Paul
>
> I'm not familiar with Dugdale's 'Warwickshire' either but I think it
> may be a published source for the will. It sounds to me from
> Kendall's reference to the hanging of the Brechers that he was in
> part at least relying on Croyland, as he did a lot. In which case
> presumably he didn't read him carefully enough. There's no doubt what
> Croyland meant - the Latin says "captus est etiam Willielmus
> Catesby, . . . cujus caput apud Leicestriam. . . abscisum est"
> (William Catesby was captured,. . . whose head at Leicester . . . was
> cut off).
> I've just checked Vergil on the American Branch site, although he's
> obviously a much more distant source, and he just says Catesby was
> executed.
> I'm not arguing for one or the other means of despatch per se - it
> seems to me it's neither here nor there, he ended up dead just the
> same. I suspect it has been picked up in order to discredit
> Croyland's testimony in general, but at the moment if the hanging
> argument has any great foundation we don't know what it is.
>
> Marie
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- In , "mariewalsh2003"
>> <marie@> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paultrevor@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
> have
>>> it
>>>> in two sources as hanging.
>>>
>>> What are they, please? Primary or secondary? You know I was
> quoting
>>> Croyland (the Pronay/Cox translation, to be precise) - I don't
> see
>>> why anybody should take my word for anything which is why I like
> to
>>> give my sources. I also recall that Kendall says Catesby
> was 'hanged
>>> in a sweat of fear', but Kendall is not the horse's mouth. I
> looked
>>> up Croyland because I thought he would have been the best
> witness,
>>> apparently being in Leicester at the time and writing only a few
>>> months later.
>>>
>>> There's been some discussion about William's status. He was
> certainly
>>> an 'esquire', ie entitled to bear arms, and is shown on his tomb
> in
>>> full armour. Some documents of Henry's reign refer to him as a
>>> knight. There is now a feeling that he may have been knighted
> late in
>>> Richard's reign, perhaps just prior to the battle. Those men who
> were
>>> did not flaunt, or claim, these knighthoods afterwards.
>>> Actually, I've discovered that a lot more people were beheaded
> than
>>> you would have thought.
>>> But it wasn't the point of my post anyway.
>>> I don't know what Stanley & Catesby talked about after Bosworth.
> Nor
>>> do you. But Richard was dead, and most people submitted
> initially,
>>> even those who joined later rebellions. Most people had families
> to
>>> protect, and were naturally more concerned for their (living)
>>> children than for their dead employer, no matter how well they'd
>>> thought of him. Catesby had a wife and a lot of kids.
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have a further comment.
>>>> What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three
> days
>>>> between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and
> Henry
>>>> Tudor?
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut
> off".
>>>>> Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
>>>>
>>>> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-19 21:42:35
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Jul 2006, at 08:29, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry Marie but you can't have it both ways. According to you
I
> don't know what Catesby and Stanley talked about, which of course
I
> never claimed I did, but you KNOW Kendall didn't read his sources
> properly.
Paul, that is a total misrepresentation of my position, in aid of
what I can only guess. I didn't use the word 'know'. I
said 'presumably'. And I said it advisedly, because Kendall's
reference to the Brechers shows he was using Croyland. I'm not aware
of any other writer mentioning these particular executions. If you
know of any PRIMARY source which says Catesby was hanged, then tell
us, and stop trying to change the subject (Catesby's hanging was a
subject-change in itself, of course).
>
> In all things to do with the Middle Ages what Geoffrey Richardson
> called a 'leap of faith' must at times be taken. Conjecture has to
> take its part when sources are missing, like the 3 days you seem
to
> just put down to a period in which Catesby was simply writing his
will.
Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email you a
copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is dated
right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all written
on the day of his execution. What do you think condemned prisoners do
all day? Maybe they get dragged out for a quick trial if they're
lucky. He appears to have had a visit from Stanley which left him
thinking TS would speak for him. Other than that he probably sat
behind a locked door sweating, possibly in chains, you know, like
prisoners do. Do you imagine Stanley had nothing better to do during
those frenzied first few days of his stepson's reign than to hang
around in 3rd class chatting to Catesby?
Anyway, what has that got to do with anything? This all started with
you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
Can I assume from all this subject-changing that the file on
Catesby's job-search is now closed?
>
> Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
> things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
>
> All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
> Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey,
and
> Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try
to
> reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
> Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach
such
> an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
> deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
> surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
> wasted his time.
>
> Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or
hanging
> doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would
suggest
> that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one
of
> Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
>
> Paul
Yes, Paul, but can you tell me of a single contemporary source which
says that is the way he went? If you can, fine. If you can't then
what is this all about?
I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have been
accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice versa).
Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
Staney obtained for him?
Marie
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Jul 2006, at 08:29, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry Marie but you can't have it both ways. According to you
I
> don't know what Catesby and Stanley talked about, which of course
I
> never claimed I did, but you KNOW Kendall didn't read his sources
> properly.
Paul, that is a total misrepresentation of my position, in aid of
what I can only guess. I didn't use the word 'know'. I
said 'presumably'. And I said it advisedly, because Kendall's
reference to the Brechers shows he was using Croyland. I'm not aware
of any other writer mentioning these particular executions. If you
know of any PRIMARY source which says Catesby was hanged, then tell
us, and stop trying to change the subject (Catesby's hanging was a
subject-change in itself, of course).
>
> In all things to do with the Middle Ages what Geoffrey Richardson
> called a 'leap of faith' must at times be taken. Conjecture has to
> take its part when sources are missing, like the 3 days you seem
to
> just put down to a period in which Catesby was simply writing his
will.
Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email you a
copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is dated
right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all written
on the day of his execution. What do you think condemned prisoners do
all day? Maybe they get dragged out for a quick trial if they're
lucky. He appears to have had a visit from Stanley which left him
thinking TS would speak for him. Other than that he probably sat
behind a locked door sweating, possibly in chains, you know, like
prisoners do. Do you imagine Stanley had nothing better to do during
those frenzied first few days of his stepson's reign than to hang
around in 3rd class chatting to Catesby?
Anyway, what has that got to do with anything? This all started with
you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
Can I assume from all this subject-changing that the file on
Catesby's job-search is now closed?
>
> Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
> things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
>
> All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
> Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey,
and
> Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try
to
> reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
> Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach
such
> an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
> deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
> surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
> wasted his time.
>
> Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or
hanging
> doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would
suggest
> that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one
of
> Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
>
> Paul
Yes, Paul, but can you tell me of a single contemporary source which
says that is the way he went? If you can, fine. If you can't then
what is this all about?
I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have been
accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice versa).
Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
Staney obtained for him?
Marie
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-19 22:18:41
--- In , "mariewalsh2003" <marie@...> wrote:
>
>> >
> > >
> Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email you a
> copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is dated
> right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all written
> on the day of his execution.
Marie could I trouble you to send me an email of this will. I would love to see it. I hope
we can still go on to discuss Catesby because up until now I never looked into Catesby too
much - but now after doing some google searches I see Catesby in another light - really
very interesting particulary Geoffrey Richardson's article on him 'the Henchmen'. There
was certainly more to him than meets the eye. He had his finger in plenty of pies and
according to Richardson was heartily disliked if not hated some of which may have rubbed
off onto his master. To quote Richardson maybe 'Richard trusted not wisely but too well'
which does seem to have been one of Richard's weaknesses. Another thing I also gleaned
from this article Catesby did not play an active role at Bosworth - obviously not a warrior
then!
Eileen
What do you think condemned prisoners do
> all day? Maybe they get dragged out for a quick trial if they're
> lucky. He appears to have had a visit from Stanley which left him
> thinking TS would speak for him. Other than that he probably sat
> behind a locked door sweating, possibly in chains, you know, like
> prisoners do. Do you imagine Stanley had nothing better to do during
> those frenzied first few days of his stepson's reign than to hang
> around in 3rd class chatting to Catesby?
> Anyway, what has that got to do with anything? This all started with
> you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
> as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
> thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
> Can I assume from all this subject-changing that the file on
> Catesby's job-search is now closed?
>
> >
> > Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
> > things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
> >
> > All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
> > Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey,
> and
> > Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try
> to
> > reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
> > Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach
> such
> > an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
> > deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
> > surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
> > wasted his time.
> >
> > Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or
> hanging
> > doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would
> suggest
> > that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one
> of
> > Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Yes, Paul, but can you tell me of a single contemporary source which
> says that is the way he went? If you can, fine. If you can't then
> what is this all about?
> I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have been
> accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice versa).
> Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
> Staney obtained for him?
>
> Marie
>
>
>> >
> > >
> Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email you a
> copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is dated
> right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all written
> on the day of his execution.
Marie could I trouble you to send me an email of this will. I would love to see it. I hope
we can still go on to discuss Catesby because up until now I never looked into Catesby too
much - but now after doing some google searches I see Catesby in another light - really
very interesting particulary Geoffrey Richardson's article on him 'the Henchmen'. There
was certainly more to him than meets the eye. He had his finger in plenty of pies and
according to Richardson was heartily disliked if not hated some of which may have rubbed
off onto his master. To quote Richardson maybe 'Richard trusted not wisely but too well'
which does seem to have been one of Richard's weaknesses. Another thing I also gleaned
from this article Catesby did not play an active role at Bosworth - obviously not a warrior
then!
Eileen
What do you think condemned prisoners do
> all day? Maybe they get dragged out for a quick trial if they're
> lucky. He appears to have had a visit from Stanley which left him
> thinking TS would speak for him. Other than that he probably sat
> behind a locked door sweating, possibly in chains, you know, like
> prisoners do. Do you imagine Stanley had nothing better to do during
> those frenzied first few days of his stepson's reign than to hang
> around in 3rd class chatting to Catesby?
> Anyway, what has that got to do with anything? This all started with
> you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
> as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
> thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
> Can I assume from all this subject-changing that the file on
> Catesby's job-search is now closed?
>
> >
> > Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
> > things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
> >
> > All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
> > Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey,
> and
> > Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try
> to
> > reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
> > Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach
> such
> > an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
> > deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
> > surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
> > wasted his time.
> >
> > Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or
> hanging
> > doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would
> suggest
> > that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one
> of
> > Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Yes, Paul, but can you tell me of a single contemporary source which
> says that is the way he went? If you can, fine. If you can't then
> what is this all about?
> I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have been
> accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice versa).
> Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
> Staney obtained for him?
>
> Marie
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-19 22:41:04
Marie
Clearly we do not speak the same language, and if I have not read
your posts correctly, then neither have you read mine.
And I have written nothing worthy of the vitriol you poured at me in
the private post you sent.
I have no agenda, which you seem to think i do, only wishing a lively
debate, peppered occasionally with some humour... but that clearly
doesn't travel well.
I don't have all my Ricardian books open at source and it can take a
while for me to get to them. I just remember I have read things. Not
necessarily where.
> This all started with
> you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
> as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
> thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
"Announce" is rather a big word for an aside inside a sentence. Of
all Richard's servants he was the lawyer which I put into a post I
sent earlier which may not have reached you, or which you deleted
unread, making him the one to probably try to talk himself out of it.
Especially with his close family ties to Stanley and Margaret
Beaufort. As all the other leaders from the defeated side, Lovell
being the notable exception, came in and made a peace of sorts with
Tudor, I think it more than likely, certainly not as you say " a
nutty thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do." Lincoln, Surrey,
Northumberland, also nutty?
Why? Everyone else did. Why should he? More than likely when backed
up by what he says of Tudor in his will, which I have read thank you.
Thank you for sending it to me again.
And Stanley was not only a member of the council with Catesby, but
was related to his wife, who was related to Margaret Beaufort. Bet
you the lawyer and the man was thinking of what advantage he could
make of such connections.
OK maybe he wasn't writing his will for 3 days, but he would have
been thinking about it!
and I am sorry but this line from the will makes me think his loyalty
to Richard and the House of York flew fast out the window.
I doute not the king' wilbe good and gracious Lord to them (his
family) for he is callid' a full gracious prince And I never offended
hym by my good and Free will for god I take to my Juge I haue euer
lovid' hym
oh what's the point. Tone does not come across in e-mails, and some
people take every word literally. If I said anything you took as an
attack on you personally I apologise as it was not meant.
It's over. As far as I'm concerned at least.
Let's discuss something else people. Please.
Paul
On 19 Jul 2006, at 14:26, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 Jul 2006, at 08:29, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry Marie but you can't have it both ways. According to you
> I
>> don't know what Catesby and Stanley talked about, which of course
> I
>> never claimed I did, but you KNOW Kendall didn't read his sources
>> properly.
>
> Paul, that is a total misrepresentation of my position, in aid of
> what I can only guess. I didn't use the word 'know'. I
> said 'presumably'. And I said it advisedly, because Kendall's
> reference to the Brechers shows he was using Croyland. I'm not aware
> of any other writer mentioning these particular executions. If you
> know of any PRIMARY source which says Catesby was hanged, then tell
> us, and stop trying to change the subject (Catesby's hanging was a
> subject-change in itself, of course).
>
>
>>
>> In all things to do with the Middle Ages what Geoffrey Richardson
>> called a 'leap of faith' must at times be taken. Conjecture has to
>> take its part when sources are missing, like the 3 days you seem
> to
>> just put down to a period in which Catesby was simply writing his
> will.
>
> Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email you a
> copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is dated
> right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all written
> on the day of his execution. What do you think condemned prisoners do
> all day? Maybe they get dragged out for a quick trial if they're
> lucky. He appears to have had a visit from Stanley which left him
> thinking TS would speak for him. Other than that he probably sat
> behind a locked door sweating, possibly in chains, you know, like
> prisoners do. Do you imagine Stanley had nothing better to do during
> those frenzied first few days of his stepson's reign than to hang
> around in 3rd class chatting to Catesby?
> Anyway, what has that got to do with anything? This all started with
> you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
> as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
> thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
> Can I assume from all this subject-changing that the file on
> Catesby's job-search is now closed?
>
>>
>> Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
>> things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
>>
>> All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
>> Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey,
> and
>> Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try
> to
>> reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
>> Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach
> such
>> an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
>> deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
>> surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
>> wasted his time.
>>
>> Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or
> hanging
>> doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would
> suggest
>> that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one
> of
>> Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Yes, Paul, but can you tell me of a single contemporary source which
> says that is the way he went? If you can, fine. If you can't then
> what is this all about?
> I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have been
> accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice versa).
> Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
> Staney obtained for him?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Clearly we do not speak the same language, and if I have not read
your posts correctly, then neither have you read mine.
And I have written nothing worthy of the vitriol you poured at me in
the private post you sent.
I have no agenda, which you seem to think i do, only wishing a lively
debate, peppered occasionally with some humour... but that clearly
doesn't travel well.
I don't have all my Ricardian books open at source and it can take a
while for me to get to them. I just remember I have read things. Not
necessarily where.
> This all started with
> you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
> as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
> thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
"Announce" is rather a big word for an aside inside a sentence. Of
all Richard's servants he was the lawyer which I put into a post I
sent earlier which may not have reached you, or which you deleted
unread, making him the one to probably try to talk himself out of it.
Especially with his close family ties to Stanley and Margaret
Beaufort. As all the other leaders from the defeated side, Lovell
being the notable exception, came in and made a peace of sorts with
Tudor, I think it more than likely, certainly not as you say " a
nutty thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do." Lincoln, Surrey,
Northumberland, also nutty?
Why? Everyone else did. Why should he? More than likely when backed
up by what he says of Tudor in his will, which I have read thank you.
Thank you for sending it to me again.
And Stanley was not only a member of the council with Catesby, but
was related to his wife, who was related to Margaret Beaufort. Bet
you the lawyer and the man was thinking of what advantage he could
make of such connections.
OK maybe he wasn't writing his will for 3 days, but he would have
been thinking about it!
and I am sorry but this line from the will makes me think his loyalty
to Richard and the House of York flew fast out the window.
I doute not the king' wilbe good and gracious Lord to them (his
family) for he is callid' a full gracious prince And I never offended
hym by my good and Free will for god I take to my Juge I haue euer
lovid' hym
oh what's the point. Tone does not come across in e-mails, and some
people take every word literally. If I said anything you took as an
attack on you personally I apologise as it was not meant.
It's over. As far as I'm concerned at least.
Let's discuss something else people. Please.
Paul
On 19 Jul 2006, at 14:26, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 Jul 2006, at 08:29, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry Marie but you can't have it both ways. According to you
> I
>> don't know what Catesby and Stanley talked about, which of course
> I
>> never claimed I did, but you KNOW Kendall didn't read his sources
>> properly.
>
> Paul, that is a total misrepresentation of my position, in aid of
> what I can only guess. I didn't use the word 'know'. I
> said 'presumably'. And I said it advisedly, because Kendall's
> reference to the Brechers shows he was using Croyland. I'm not aware
> of any other writer mentioning these particular executions. If you
> know of any PRIMARY source which says Catesby was hanged, then tell
> us, and stop trying to change the subject (Catesby's hanging was a
> subject-change in itself, of course).
>
>
>>
>> In all things to do with the Middle Ages what Geoffrey Richardson
>> called a 'leap of faith' must at times be taken. Conjecture has to
>> take its part when sources are missing, like the 3 days you seem
> to
>> just put down to a period in which Catesby was simply writing his
> will.
>
> Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email you a
> copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is dated
> right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all written
> on the day of his execution. What do you think condemned prisoners do
> all day? Maybe they get dragged out for a quick trial if they're
> lucky. He appears to have had a visit from Stanley which left him
> thinking TS would speak for him. Other than that he probably sat
> behind a locked door sweating, possibly in chains, you know, like
> prisoners do. Do you imagine Stanley had nothing better to do during
> those frenzied first few days of his stepson's reign than to hang
> around in 3rd class chatting to Catesby?
> Anyway, what has that got to do with anything? This all started with
> you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get taken on
> as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a nutty
> thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
> Can I assume from all this subject-changing that the file on
> Catesby's job-search is now closed?
>
>>
>> Croyland is ambiguous at the best of times and clearly can make
>> things up as he goes along, not to mention his hostility to Richard.
>>
>> All men were after a way of coming to terms with Tudor after
>> Richard's death. Northumberland was second in line after Surrey,
> and
>> Lincoln came to terms shortly after. So why would Catesby not try
> to
>> reach an accommodation? Only Lovell, the richest and closest to
>> Richard, refused to come in. Having bent over backwards to reach
> such
>> an understanding with Tudor, only to have the weasel renege on the
>> deal, or finding Catesby's information in adequate, I would not be
>> surprised if Catesby was in a panic writing his will seeing he had
>> wasted his time.
>>
>> Oh and for once I agree with something you say, beheading or
> hanging
>> doesn't really matter, dead is still dead, although I would
> suggest
>> that hanging, the commoner's way, would be a final insult to one
> of
>> Richard's closest associates by Stanley and his stepson.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Yes, Paul, but can you tell me of a single contemporary source which
> says that is the way he went? If you can, fine. If you can't then
> what is this all about?
> I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have been
> accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice versa).
> Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
> Staney obtained for him?
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~-->
> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/1WMplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-19 23:09:35
Just my two penn'orth, but what evidence is there that Catesby had any sort of meeting at all with either Stanley or Tudor between his trial and execution? I am going on the excerpt Marie quotes from Croyland here. Leaps of faith are all very well, but what Croyland says and the words of Catesby's will seem rather non-specific to me.
Ann
Ann
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-20 00:24:38
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
[Regarding the discussion re whether Catesby was executed via
beheading or hanging...]
> I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have
been
> accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice
versa).
> Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
> Staney obtained for him?
This may be adding nothing to the discussion, but might the choice
of beheading vs hanging sometimes be a matter of the availability of
a suitable tree? Or might a scaffold be constructed during the
several days between the end of the battle and the ebd of the
condemned prisoners?
(I grew up in Southwestern America, site of Old West
vigilante "necktie parties" where there might be miles of prairie
and scrub oak without a tree usable for a hanging. A good hang-tree
was prized. In the 1970s one still stood on the bank of Mission
Creek near Islay Street in Santa Barbara, California. It was a big
oak whose ever-useful horizonal branch still bore rope scars a
century after it was last used for a hanging.)
Katy
<marie@...> wrote:
[Regarding the discussion re whether Catesby was executed via
beheading or hanging...]
> I can cite executions of lowlier men than him who appear to have
been
> accorded the headsman's axe rather than the noose (and vice
versa).
> Has it occurred to you that beheeading might have been the grace
> Staney obtained for him?
This may be adding nothing to the discussion, but might the choice
of beheading vs hanging sometimes be a matter of the availability of
a suitable tree? Or might a scaffold be constructed during the
several days between the end of the battle and the ebd of the
condemned prisoners?
(I grew up in Southwestern America, site of Old West
vigilante "necktie parties" where there might be miles of prairie
and scrub oak without a tree usable for a hanging. A good hang-tree
was prized. In the 1970s one still stood on the bank of Mission
Creek near Islay Street in Santa Barbara, California. It was a big
oak whose ever-useful horizonal branch still bore rope scars a
century after it was last used for a hanging.)
Katy
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-20 10:26:51
Paul
You cite Kendall as one of your sources for saying that Catesby was hanged rather than beheaded. I've no axe to grind on this point, but Kendall is not a primary source. And speaking as a typical nit-picking academic, his footnoting is not all that good and he is apt to embroider. If, as is the impression I've gained from following this correspondence, the different primary sources say different things, then fine, that's far from untypical of the type of material we're dealing with.
Ann
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
Recent Activity
1
New Members
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii
United kingdom
United kingdom flower delivery
United kingdom phone
United kingdom phone card
United kingdom travel
.
You cite Kendall as one of your sources for saying that Catesby was hanged rather than beheaded. I've no axe to grind on this point, but Kendall is not a primary source. And speaking as a typical nit-picking academic, his footnoting is not all that good and he is apt to embroider. If, as is the impression I've gained from following this correspondence, the different primary sources say different things, then fine, that's far from untypical of the type of material we're dealing with.
Ann
New Message Search
Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out the improved message search.
Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
Recent Activity
1
New Members
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
Richard iii
United kingdom
United kingdom flower delivery
United kingdom phone
United kingdom phone card
United kingdom travel
.
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-20 20:47:28
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Just my two penn'orth, but what evidence is there that Catesby had
any sort of meeting at all with either Stanley or Tudor between his
trial and execution? I am going on the excerpt Marie quotes from
Croyland here. Leaps of faith are all very well, but what Croyland says
and the words of Catesby's will seem rather non-specific to me.
>
> Ann
You're right. It is non-specific: "... pray for my soul, for you have
not for my body as I trusted in you."
It suggests some sort of an understanding, perhaps, beyond the ties of
past professional relationship, but it does not specifically mention
any meeting or any promise.
I suppose I was trying to give Paul something, but I was aware (as he
knows) that the understanding in question may have pre-dated the
battle. I do believe, under the circumstances, that Catesby would
surely have sought to see Stanley. But Stanley may not necessarily have
obliged, if for instance he did not wish to plead for Catesby, or felt
he would not be able to talk Henry round (his influence with the Tudor
may not actually have been that great).
Catesby's remark may just as well refer to Stanley's refusal to see him.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
wrote:
>
> Just my two penn'orth, but what evidence is there that Catesby had
any sort of meeting at all with either Stanley or Tudor between his
trial and execution? I am going on the excerpt Marie quotes from
Croyland here. Leaps of faith are all very well, but what Croyland says
and the words of Catesby's will seem rather non-specific to me.
>
> Ann
You're right. It is non-specific: "... pray for my soul, for you have
not for my body as I trusted in you."
It suggests some sort of an understanding, perhaps, beyond the ties of
past professional relationship, but it does not specifically mention
any meeting or any promise.
I suppose I was trying to give Paul something, but I was aware (as he
knows) that the understanding in question may have pre-dated the
battle. I do believe, under the circumstances, that Catesby would
surely have sought to see Stanley. But Stanley may not necessarily have
obliged, if for instance he did not wish to plead for Catesby, or felt
he would not be able to talk Henry round (his influence with the Tudor
may not actually have been that great).
Catesby's remark may just as well refer to Stanley's refusal to see him.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-20 21:27:59
--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> > > >
> > Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email
you a
> > copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is
dated
> > right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all
written
> > on the day of his execution.
>
> Marie could I trouble you to send me an email of this will. I
would love to see it. I hope
> we can still go on to discuss Catesby because up until now I never
looked into Catesby too
> much - but now after doing some google searches I see Catesby in
another light - really
> very interesting particulary Geoffrey Richardson's article on
him 'the Henchmen'. There
> was certainly more to him than meets the eye. He had his finger in
plenty of pies and
> according to Richardson was heartily disliked if not hated some of
which may have rubbed
> off onto his master. To quote Richardson maybe 'Richard trusted
not wisely but too well'
> which does seem to have been one of Richard's weaknesses. Another
thing I also gleaned
> from this article Catesby did not play an active role at Bosworth -
obviously not a warrior
> then!
>
> Eileen
Sure, Eileen, although if I don't get it off to you tonight it
probably won't be till sunday. I hadn't read Geoffrey Richard's
article till now, so I won't comment till I've had time to peruse it.
I'll also scan in and send you an article on Catesby and his will by
Daniel Williams from an old issue of the Leicestershire Archeological
& Historial Soc. Just glancing at Richardson, I think this may have
been his main source too.
I know there's been good stuff in back Ricardians too, which I'll
perhaps look up if I get a minute.
Greedy lawyer though he was, it seems to me that Catesby's reputation
has suffered unfairly from Sir Thomas More (who, strangely, even
Ricardian historians seem to accept quite uncritically as regards
Catesby), and also from a rather uncritical approach to his will.
Perhaps via extrapolation from the fear shown in his will (and his
survival of the battle), there's been a tendency for modern
historians even to question whether he fought for Richard at Bosworth
at all. It seems to me he must have done, simply because:-
1) Croyland (and possibly others) tell us he was there;
2) His attainder says it again;
3) This could be the only grounds Henry could have had for executing
him.
I notice Richardson compromises and asserts that "he did not play any
active part in the fighting". I'd love to know his source for this.
Perhaps I'll do some more digging into Catesby, but I really can't
afford to get sidetracked on to him at present. Could I persuade you
to get stuck in, Eileen?
Marie
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> > > >
> > Did I ever day that? Nope. In fact, I took the trouble to email
you a
> > copy of the will, which you seem not to have read because it is
dated
> > right at the top with 25th August. In other words, it was all
written
> > on the day of his execution.
>
> Marie could I trouble you to send me an email of this will. I
would love to see it. I hope
> we can still go on to discuss Catesby because up until now I never
looked into Catesby too
> much - but now after doing some google searches I see Catesby in
another light - really
> very interesting particulary Geoffrey Richardson's article on
him 'the Henchmen'. There
> was certainly more to him than meets the eye. He had his finger in
plenty of pies and
> according to Richardson was heartily disliked if not hated some of
which may have rubbed
> off onto his master. To quote Richardson maybe 'Richard trusted
not wisely but too well'
> which does seem to have been one of Richard's weaknesses. Another
thing I also gleaned
> from this article Catesby did not play an active role at Bosworth -
obviously not a warrior
> then!
>
> Eileen
Sure, Eileen, although if I don't get it off to you tonight it
probably won't be till sunday. I hadn't read Geoffrey Richard's
article till now, so I won't comment till I've had time to peruse it.
I'll also scan in and send you an article on Catesby and his will by
Daniel Williams from an old issue of the Leicestershire Archeological
& Historial Soc. Just glancing at Richardson, I think this may have
been his main source too.
I know there's been good stuff in back Ricardians too, which I'll
perhaps look up if I get a minute.
Greedy lawyer though he was, it seems to me that Catesby's reputation
has suffered unfairly from Sir Thomas More (who, strangely, even
Ricardian historians seem to accept quite uncritically as regards
Catesby), and also from a rather uncritical approach to his will.
Perhaps via extrapolation from the fear shown in his will (and his
survival of the battle), there's been a tendency for modern
historians even to question whether he fought for Richard at Bosworth
at all. It seems to me he must have done, simply because:-
1) Croyland (and possibly others) tell us he was there;
2) His attainder says it again;
3) This could be the only grounds Henry could have had for executing
him.
I notice Richardson compromises and asserts that "he did not play any
active part in the fighting". I'd love to know his source for this.
Perhaps I'll do some more digging into Catesby, but I really can't
afford to get sidetracked on to him at present. Could I persuade you
to get stuck in, Eileen?
Marie
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-20 22:20:23
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
> Clearly we do not speak the same language, and if I have not read
> your posts correctly, then neither have you read mine.
> And I have written nothing worthy of the vitriol you poured at me
in
> the private post you sent.
Private, indeed, and intended merely to stop unwanted emails. I
apologise most sincerely if I went over the top, and if I upset you,
but I removed my email address from public view on the forum after
similar difficulties a year or two back which got totally out of
hand.
As I recall, you said Catesby came to Tudor looking to be taken on as
his servant, and that Stanley took charge of his hanging and it was
the best thing Stanley ever did.
I corrected the claim that Catesby came in to Tudor without so much
as referring to you, and, well, you know the response. In support of
Catesby's capture I had quoted Croyland, which happened to include
reference to his having his head cut off, since I haave have been
held personally responsible for the beheading theory too. The method
of execution was embedded in my source, and was never part of my
argument. But, yes, I don't intend to ditch Croyland, who was
probably an eye-witness, until I have good reason. The idea that only
titled people ever got the benefit of the axe is a bit of a legend,
I'm afraid.
> I have no agenda, which you seem to think i do, only wishing a
lively
> debate, peppered occasionally with some humour... but that clearly
> doesn't travel well.
> I don't have all my Ricardian books open at source and it can take
a
> while for me to get to them. I just remember I have read things.
Not
> necessarily where.
>
> > This all started with
> > you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get
taken on
> > as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a
nutty
> > thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
>
> "Announce" is rather a big word for an aside inside a sentence. Of
> all Richard's servants he was the lawyer which I put into a post I
> sent earlier which may not have reached you, or which you deleted
> unread, making him the one to probably try to talk himself out of
it.
> Especially with his close family ties to Stanley and Margaret
> Beaufort. As all the other leaders from the defeated side, Lovell
> being the notable exception, came in and made a peace of sorts
with
> Tudor, I think it more than likely, certainly not as you say " a
> nutty thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do." Lincoln,
Surrey,
> Northumberland, also nutty?
Er, no, Paul. They were also captured.
Fortunately for them, Henry didn't want their heads (he made a policy
of making an example of just the lucky few). None of them came to
Henry voluntarily. I sugggest that if someone had evaded capture and
then wanted to get taken into Henry's favour, he would have sounded
out his chances at arm's length first, not come trotting into
Leicester brandishing his CV.
This is just the sort of thing I mean by misrepresentation. I feel I
have to keep making my position clear over and over again for anyone
just coming in, and so we just go round in circles. And I get more
and more frustrated.
After tonight's posts I think everyone must understand what I have
and haven't said, and though I'm happy to discuss Catesby in general
I'm really finished with his last three days.
Marie
>
>
> oh what's the point. Tone does not come across in e-mails, and
some
> people take every word literally. If I said anything you took as
an
> attack on you personally I apologise as it was not meant.
> It's over. As far as I'm concerned at least.
> Let's discuss something else people. Please.
>
> Paul
Oh, I so agree. I'd really like to bury the hatchet. It all seems so
silly anyway, because it seems to me that at the end of the day you
probably accept that Catesby was captured, and I have never denied
that he would have been very keen to come to terms after Bosworth,
nor that he was a greedy lawyer (though maybe not as greedy as he's
been painted). Which is where we were a week ago, surely!
I do think we can probably rely on Croyland for the mode of
execution, but that is neither here nor there.
And I do feel that Catesby's refusal of Tudor advances before
Bosworth is also implicit in his execution (taken together with the
attainders of other close relatives). Margaret Beaufort, having no
full siblings, was very proprietorial about her half-siblings,
especially the St john ones with whom she'd grown up. Catesby's
mother-in-law was one of these, so that would have put her offspring
under a lot of pressure to conform.
Marie
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Marie
> Clearly we do not speak the same language, and if I have not read
> your posts correctly, then neither have you read mine.
> And I have written nothing worthy of the vitriol you poured at me
in
> the private post you sent.
Private, indeed, and intended merely to stop unwanted emails. I
apologise most sincerely if I went over the top, and if I upset you,
but I removed my email address from public view on the forum after
similar difficulties a year or two back which got totally out of
hand.
As I recall, you said Catesby came to Tudor looking to be taken on as
his servant, and that Stanley took charge of his hanging and it was
the best thing Stanley ever did.
I corrected the claim that Catesby came in to Tudor without so much
as referring to you, and, well, you know the response. In support of
Catesby's capture I had quoted Croyland, which happened to include
reference to his having his head cut off, since I haave have been
held personally responsible for the beheading theory too. The method
of execution was embedded in my source, and was never part of my
argument. But, yes, I don't intend to ditch Croyland, who was
probably an eye-witness, until I have good reason. The idea that only
titled people ever got the benefit of the axe is a bit of a legend,
I'm afraid.
> I have no agenda, which you seem to think i do, only wishing a
lively
> debate, peppered occasionally with some humour... but that clearly
> doesn't travel well.
> I don't have all my Ricardian books open at source and it can take
a
> while for me to get to them. I just remember I have read things.
Not
> necessarily where.
>
> > This all started with
> > you announcing that Catesby had gone to Tudor looking to get
taken on
> > as his servant. Not only is this untrue, it would have been a
nutty
> > thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do.
>
> "Announce" is rather a big word for an aside inside a sentence. Of
> all Richard's servants he was the lawyer which I put into a post I
> sent earlier which may not have reached you, or which you deleted
> unread, making him the one to probably try to talk himself out of
it.
> Especially with his close family ties to Stanley and Margaret
> Beaufort. As all the other leaders from the defeated side, Lovell
> being the notable exception, came in and made a peace of sorts
with
> Tudor, I think it more than likely, certainly not as you say " a
> nutty thing for anyone in Catesby's position to do." Lincoln,
Surrey,
> Northumberland, also nutty?
Er, no, Paul. They were also captured.
Fortunately for them, Henry didn't want their heads (he made a policy
of making an example of just the lucky few). None of them came to
Henry voluntarily. I sugggest that if someone had evaded capture and
then wanted to get taken into Henry's favour, he would have sounded
out his chances at arm's length first, not come trotting into
Leicester brandishing his CV.
This is just the sort of thing I mean by misrepresentation. I feel I
have to keep making my position clear over and over again for anyone
just coming in, and so we just go round in circles. And I get more
and more frustrated.
After tonight's posts I think everyone must understand what I have
and haven't said, and though I'm happy to discuss Catesby in general
I'm really finished with his last three days.
Marie
>
>
> oh what's the point. Tone does not come across in e-mails, and
some
> people take every word literally. If I said anything you took as
an
> attack on you personally I apologise as it was not meant.
> It's over. As far as I'm concerned at least.
> Let's discuss something else people. Please.
>
> Paul
Oh, I so agree. I'd really like to bury the hatchet. It all seems so
silly anyway, because it seems to me that at the end of the day you
probably accept that Catesby was captured, and I have never denied
that he would have been very keen to come to terms after Bosworth,
nor that he was a greedy lawyer (though maybe not as greedy as he's
been painted). Which is where we were a week ago, surely!
I do think we can probably rely on Croyland for the mode of
execution, but that is neither here nor there.
And I do feel that Catesby's refusal of Tudor advances before
Bosworth is also implicit in his execution (taken together with the
attainders of other close relatives). Margaret Beaufort, having no
full siblings, was very proprietorial about her half-siblings,
especially the St john ones with whom she'd grown up. Catesby's
mother-in-law was one of these, so that would have put her offspring
under a lot of pressure to conform.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-21 09:54:45
All this makes sense. I should imagine that Thomas Stanley had plenty of other things to get on with in those three days and Catesby may not have been very high on his priority list.
Ann
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Just my two penn'orth, but what evidence is there that Catesby had
any sort of meeting at all with either Stanley or Tudor between his
trial and execution? I am going on the excerpt Marie quotes from
Croyland here. Leaps of faith are all very well, but what Croyland says
and the words of Catesby's will seem rather non-specific to me.
>
> Ann
You're right. It is non-specific: "... pray for my soul, for you have
not for my body as I trusted in you."
It suggests some sort of an understanding, perhaps, beyond the ties of
past professional relationship, but it does not specifically mention
any meeting or any promise.
I suppose I was trying to give Paul something, but I was aware (as he
knows) that the understanding in question may have pre-dated the
battle. I do believe, under the circumstances, that Catesby would
surely have sought to see Stanley. But Stanley may not necessarily have
obliged, if for instance he did not wish to plead for Catesby, or felt
he would not be able to talk Henry round (his influence with the Tudor
may not actually have been that great).
Catesby's remark may just as well refer to Stanley's refusal to see him.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ann
mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>
> Just my two penn'orth, but what evidence is there that Catesby had
any sort of meeting at all with either Stanley or Tudor between his
trial and execution? I am going on the excerpt Marie quotes from
Croyland here. Leaps of faith are all very well, but what Croyland says
and the words of Catesby's will seem rather non-specific to me.
>
> Ann
You're right. It is non-specific: "... pray for my soul, for you have
not for my body as I trusted in you."
It suggests some sort of an understanding, perhaps, beyond the ties of
past professional relationship, but it does not specifically mention
any meeting or any promise.
I suppose I was trying to give Paul something, but I was aware (as he
knows) that the understanding in question may have pre-dated the
battle. I do believe, under the circumstances, that Catesby would
surely have sought to see Stanley. But Stanley may not necessarily have
obliged, if for instance he did not wish to plead for Catesby, or felt
he would not be able to talk Henry round (his influence with the Tudor
may not actually have been that great).
Catesby's remark may just as well refer to Stanley's refusal to see him.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-21 11:44:12
This is the general principle, of course.
Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still be executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced to the ranks but still offered a chair.
There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is dictated by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting with than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege of Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged and quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a few of his descendants were in the next century.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have it
in two sources as hanging.
I have a further comment.
What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
Tudor?
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
>
> Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still be executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced to the ranks but still offered a chair.
There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is dictated by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting with than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege of Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged and quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a few of his descendants were in the next century.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have it
in two sources as hanging.
I have a further comment.
What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
Tudor?
Paul
On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
>
> Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
"a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-21 18:40:50
I've been quite interested in the discussion centred on Catesby. Sorry I
haven't been able to be of much help in the research.
I'm busy wending my way through the morass that is the Ontario health
care system. It's much like other public heath care systems around the
world, I would suspect.
Anyway, it would be interesting to know how Catesby was viewed by his
contemporaries in general. The extent of his 'interpersonal skills'
would certainly play out in any decision concerning method of execution.
A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in which
a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If there
were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that Catesby
could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> This is the general principle, of course.
>
> Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still be
> executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced to the
> ranks but still offered a chair.
>
> There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is dictated
> by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting with
> than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege of
> Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
> Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged and
> quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our
> Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
>
> There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a few
> of his descendants were in the next century.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
>
> Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have it
> in two sources as hanging.
> I have a further comment.
> What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> Tudor?
> Paul
>
> On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> >
> > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>
>
>
>
haven't been able to be of much help in the research.
I'm busy wending my way through the morass that is the Ontario health
care system. It's much like other public heath care systems around the
world, I would suspect.
Anyway, it would be interesting to know how Catesby was viewed by his
contemporaries in general. The extent of his 'interpersonal skills'
would certainly play out in any decision concerning method of execution.
A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in which
a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If there
were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that Catesby
could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> This is the general principle, of course.
>
> Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still be
> executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced to the
> ranks but still offered a chair.
>
> There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is dictated
> by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting with
> than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege of
> Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
> Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged and
> quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our
> Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
>
> There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a few
> of his descendants were in the next century.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
>
> Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I have it
> in two sources as hanging.
> I have a further comment.
> What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> Tudor?
> Paul
>
> On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> >
> > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
>
> "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
>
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-21 19:07:26
--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> I've been quite interested in the discussion centred on Catesby.
Sorry I
> haven't been able to be of much help in the research.
> I'm busy wending my way through the morass that is the Ontario
health
> care system. It's much like other public heath care systems around
the
> world, I would suspect.
>
> Anyway, it would be interesting to know how Catesby was viewed by
his
> contemporaries in general. The extent of his 'interpersonal
skills'
> would certainly play out in any decision concerning method of
execution.
>
> A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in
which
> a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If
there
> were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that
Catesby
> could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
>
Apart from Wallace, try "Perkin Warbeck", of course, who could well
have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Later on, try any of those who
plotted with the Earl of Essex, whom he knighted in Ireland. Try
anyone ennobled by Charles I after 1640 - the Comonwealth didn't
recognise their titles either.
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > This is the general principle, of course.
> >
> > Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still
be
> > executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced
to the
> > ranks but still offered a chair.
> >
> > There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is
dictated
> > by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting
with
> > than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege
of
> > Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
> > Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged
and
> > quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our
> > Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
> >
> > There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a
few
> > of his descendants were in the next century.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
> >
> > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
have it
> > in two sources as hanging.
> > I have a further comment.
> > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> > Tudor?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > >
> > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> >
> > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> I've been quite interested in the discussion centred on Catesby.
Sorry I
> haven't been able to be of much help in the research.
> I'm busy wending my way through the morass that is the Ontario
health
> care system. It's much like other public heath care systems around
the
> world, I would suspect.
>
> Anyway, it would be interesting to know how Catesby was viewed by
his
> contemporaries in general. The extent of his 'interpersonal
skills'
> would certainly play out in any decision concerning method of
execution.
>
> A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in
which
> a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If
there
> were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that
Catesby
> could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
>
Apart from Wallace, try "Perkin Warbeck", of course, who could well
have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Later on, try any of those who
plotted with the Earl of Essex, whom he knighted in Ireland. Try
anyone ennobled by Charles I after 1640 - the Comonwealth didn't
recognise their titles either.
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > This is the general principle, of course.
> >
> > Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still
be
> > executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced
to the
> > ranks but still offered a chair.
> >
> > There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is
dictated
> > by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting
with
> > than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege
of
> > Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
> > Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged
and
> > quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our
> > Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
> >
> > There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a
few
> > of his descendants were in the next century.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
> >
> > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
have it
> > in two sources as hanging.
> > I have a further comment.
> > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> > Tudor?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > >
> > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> >
> > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-21 19:21:11
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barber
To:
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
>A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in which
>a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If there
>were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that Catesby
>could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
Hugh Despenser the Younger. And his father too, I think. Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March.
Technically the penalty for treason was death by hanging, drawing and quartering; the Crown almost invariably reduced this to beheading for nobles, and often - yes, often - for knights and lesser men.
Who was hanged after Tewkesbury, for example? There was a long list of executions, all done by beheading. Somerset was the only peer, and arguably even he wasn't one because Edward IV would not have recognised his succession to the title as valid. The rest were knights, esquires and gentlemen. Oh, sorry, just remembered I have an idea the Prior of St John qualified as a peer as well. Not that it made much difference. Unless his precedence got him to the axe while it was still sharp.
Brian W
.
From: Bill Barber
To:
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
>A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in which
>a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If there
>were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that Catesby
>could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
Hugh Despenser the Younger. And his father too, I think. Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March.
Technically the penalty for treason was death by hanging, drawing and quartering; the Crown almost invariably reduced this to beheading for nobles, and often - yes, often - for knights and lesser men.
Who was hanged after Tewkesbury, for example? There was a long list of executions, all done by beheading. Somerset was the only peer, and arguably even he wasn't one because Edward IV would not have recognised his succession to the title as valid. The rest were knights, esquires and gentlemen. Oh, sorry, just remembered I have an idea the Prior of St John qualified as a peer as well. Not that it made much difference. Unless his precedence got him to the axe while it was still sharp.
Brian W
.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-21 21:07:48
Thanks, Stephen
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've been quite interested in the discussion centred on Catesby.
> Sorry I
> > haven't been able to be of much help in the research.
> > I'm busy wending my way through the morass that is the Ontario
> health
> > care system. It's much like other public heath care systems around
> the
> > world, I would suspect.
> >
> > Anyway, it would be interesting to know how Catesby was viewed by
> his
> > contemporaries in general. The extent of his 'interpersonal
> skills'
> > would certainly play out in any decision concerning method of
> execution.
> >
> > A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in
> which
> > a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If
> there
> > were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that
> Catesby
> > could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
> >
> Apart from Wallace, try "Perkin Warbeck", of course, who could well
> have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Later on, try any of those who
> plotted with the Earl of Essex, whom he knighted in Ireland. Try
> anyone ennobled by Charles I after 1640 - the Comonwealth didn't
> recognise their titles either.
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the general principle, of course.
> > >
> > > Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still
> be
> > > executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced
> to the
> > > ranks but still offered a chair.
> > >
> > > There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is
> dictated
> > > by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting
> with
> > > than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege
> of
> > > Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
> > > Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged
> and
> > > quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our
> > > Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
> > >
> > > There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a
> few
> > > of his descendants were in the next century.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
> > >
> > > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
> have it
> > > in two sources as hanging.
> > > I have a further comment.
> > > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> > > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> > > Tudor?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > > >
> > > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> > >
> > > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've been quite interested in the discussion centred on Catesby.
> Sorry I
> > haven't been able to be of much help in the research.
> > I'm busy wending my way through the morass that is the Ontario
> health
> > care system. It's much like other public heath care systems around
> the
> > world, I would suspect.
> >
> > Anyway, it would be interesting to know how Catesby was viewed by
> his
> > contemporaries in general. The extent of his 'interpersonal
> skills'
> > would certainly play out in any decision concerning method of
> execution.
> >
> > A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in
> which
> > a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If
> there
> > were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that
> Catesby
> > could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
> >
> Apart from Wallace, try "Perkin Warbeck", of course, who could well
> have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Later on, try any of those who
> plotted with the Earl of Essex, whom he knighted in Ireland. Try
> anyone ennobled by Charles I after 1640 - the Comonwealth didn't
> recognise their titles either.
>
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the general principle, of course.
> > >
> > > Almost all nobles were attainted before execution but would still
> be
> > > executed as nobles, comparable with a WW1 officer being reduced
> to the
> > > ranks but still offered a chair.
> > >
> > > There are some exceptions - summary justice after a battle is
> dictated
> > > by the tools you have to hand - more probably an axe for fighting
> with
> > > than a noose (e.g. Owen Tudor); in later centuries cannon (Siege
> of
> > > Colchester 1648, Lucas and Lisle) or rifles.
> > > Wallace was a knight, albeit a Scottish one, but was drawn hanged
> and
> > > quartered. Lady Margaret Bulmer (1537, Pilgrimage of Grace, our
> > > Buckingham's granddaughter) was burned.
> > >
> > > There are rumours that Catesby was knighted before the battle - a
> few
> > > of his descendants were in the next century.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:23 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
> > >
> > > Catesby was still a commoner, so he would have been hanged. I
> have it
> > > in two sources as hanging.
> > > I have a further comment.
> > > What I wonder did Catesby the lawyer talk about for the three days
> > > between the battle and his execution with Thomas Stanley and Henry
> > > Tudor?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 18 Jul 2006, at 11:28, Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marie's source quite clearly states that "his head was cut off".
> > > > Last week, someone claimed that he was hanged.
> > > >
> > > > Short-sighted witnesses? Twins?
> > >
> > > "a winner is a dreamer who just won't quit"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: A Word for Catesby
2006-07-21 21:20:43
Immediately after I posted, I remembered that Hugh the Younger had been
hanged hanged . So was Roger Mortimer, I believe. I think they were both
drawn and quartered as well Was it not common practice to hang, draw
and quarter anyone, regardless of rank, who was deemed to be a traitor?
Or was this punishment reserved only for those who were deemed to be
ringleaders in treasonous activity? Or was method of punishment subject
to the whims of whomever was doling out the punishment?
Seems to me there was often a fine line between treasonous and
non-treasonous activity, even though treason was defined by statute in
1352(?). The definition went through several iterations, I think.
Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Barber
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
>
> >A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in which
> >a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If there
> >were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that Catesby
> >could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
>
> Hugh Despenser the Younger. And his father too, I think. Roger
> Mortimer, 1st Earl of March.
>
> Technically the penalty for treason was death by hanging, drawing and
> quartering; the Crown almost invariably reduced this to beheading for
> nobles, and often - yes, often - for knights and lesser men.
>
> Who was hanged after Tewkesbury, for example? There was a long list of
> executions, all done by beheading. Somerset was the only peer, and
> arguably even he wasn't one because Edward IV would not have
> recognised his succession to the title as valid. The rest were
> knights, esquires and gentlemen. Oh, sorry, just remembered I have an
> idea the Prior of St John qualified as a peer as well. Not that it
> made much difference. Unless his precedence got him to the axe while
> it was still sharp.
>
> Brian W
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
hanged hanged . So was Roger Mortimer, I believe. I think they were both
drawn and quartered as well Was it not common practice to hang, draw
and quarter anyone, regardless of rank, who was deemed to be a traitor?
Or was this punishment reserved only for those who were deemed to be
ringleaders in treasonous activity? Or was method of punishment subject
to the whims of whomever was doling out the punishment?
Seems to me there was often a fine line between treasonous and
non-treasonous activity, even though treason was defined by statute in
1352(?). The definition went through several iterations, I think.
Brian Wainwright wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Barber
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: A Word for Catesby
>
> >A question: does anyone know of an incident in medieval history in which
> >a noble may have been hanged in order to add insult to injury. If there
> >were a precedent for such practice, one might well believe that Catesby
> >could have been hanged. He was, at best, nouveau gentry.
>
> Hugh Despenser the Younger. And his father too, I think. Roger
> Mortimer, 1st Earl of March.
>
> Technically the penalty for treason was death by hanging, drawing and
> quartering; the Crown almost invariably reduced this to beheading for
> nobles, and often - yes, often - for knights and lesser men.
>
> Who was hanged after Tewkesbury, for example? There was a long list of
> executions, all done by beheading. Somerset was the only peer, and
> arguably even he wasn't one because Edward IV would not have
> recognised his succession to the title as valid. The rest were
> knights, esquires and gentlemen. Oh, sorry, just remembered I have an
> idea the Prior of St John qualified as a peer as well. Not that it
> made much difference. Unless his precedence got him to the axe while
> it was still sharp.
>
> Brian W
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.