Re: Catesby

Sandra said.."they would be down in his little notebook for sure"..

Still on the topic of the potential Grafton Ambush do we know where Catesby was at this time? You see if you get your atlas out again (Doug), Ashby St Legers is a mile and a half off the A5, just before you get to Weedon.

Apart from Catesby this is deep old Lancastrian/Woodville country - Mr Empson is just up the road in Towcester, the Greenes of Green's Norton are not far from Towcester, the countryside across to Banbury is D'Oyly and Danvers territory to name but a few. Catesby (or those at his home) could well have got wind of something going on. He could just as easily have warned Richard, which would explain why he enjoyed Richard's favour later.

The Catesby/Hastings dynamic is also interesting. The Catesbys had primarily been players in Coventry and Warwickshire. I mentioned in another post that Edward played the magnates (George and Warwick) off against the pesky Warwickshire gentry, reduced the formers' power and then waded in himself. One of his tactics was to give more and more power in the area to Hastings. I wonder how this went down with the Catesbys. Yes they functioned mainly through their legal practice, but they were very ambitious in trying to obtain lucrative sheep lands in the Burton Dassett Hills and had had run-ins with the Earls of Warwick earlier in the century.

Nobody really explains how Catesby got so close to Richard, that's if he really did, but there must have been a good reason for HT to seek him out and dispatch him fast? H

Still on the topic of the potential Grafton Ambush do we know where Catesby was at this time? You see if you get your atlas out again (Doug), Ashby St Legers is a mile and a half off the A5, just before you get to Weedon.

Apart from Catesby this is deep old Lancastrian/Woodville country - Mr Empson is just up the road in Towcester, the Greenes of Green's Norton are not far from Towcester, the countryside across to Banbury is D'Oyly and Danvers territory to name but a few. Catesby (or those at his home) could well have got wind of something going on. He could just as easily have warned Richard, which would explain why he enjoyed Richard's favour later.

The Catesby/Hastings dynamic is also interesting. The Catesbys had primarily been players in Coventry and Warwickshire. I mentioned in another post that Edward played the magnates (George and Warwick) off against the pesky Warwickshire gentry, reduced the formers' power and then waded in himself. One of his tactics was to give more and more power in the area to Hastings. I wonder how this went down with the Catesbys. Yes they functioned mainly through their legal practice, but they were very ambitious in trying to obtain lucrative sheep lands in the Burton Dassett Hills and had had run-ins with the Earls of Warwick earlier in the century.

Nobody really explains how Catesby got so close to Richard, that's if he really did, but there must have been a good reason for HT to seek him out and dispatch him fast? H

Paul's right - Catesby's connection came mainly through his legal work. There's a good article on Catesby by Danny Williams (Trans. Leics. Arch. & Hist. Soc., vol. 51, 1975-6). He had been a legal advisor to Lady Latimer, and both Catesby and Hastings were amongst Lady Latimer's executors. His name appears in a lot in feoffments involving both Hastings and Buckingham. He was a JP for Northants, and appears on crown commissions for the county. He had been retained as a legal adviser by Cardinal Bourchier since 1480. He also gave legal advice to Launde Priory in Leicestershire. From 1481 he had been Apprentice-at-law to the Duchy of Lancaster.

Basically, he was well known in top circles and his legal talents were highly regarded.

It is More who tells us that he informed on Hastings, and he says he was in a position to do so because he was a member of Hastings' close circle. Although More is a very late and unreliable source, what we do know is that Catesby suddenly became a very influential member of Richard's council, and that after the arrests he put pressure on one of the men arrested, John Forster, to make over to him his post of Steward of St. Albans Abbey.

To return to the plot itself, and where the precontract fits in. The other possibility is that the Tower plot had nothing to do with the precontract, and that it was the plot which brought about the disclosure of the precontract, and not the other way about. The June plot would have brought home just how dangerous Richard's situation was long-term (i.e. once Edward V was ruling in his own right), and so provided a much greater impetus for anyone who knew of an impediment to his kingship to come forward.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that the Queen could have known of any challenge to Edward V's right to the crown when she handed over his younger brother to Richard on 16 June.

Marie

Paul's right - Catesby's connection came mainly through his legal work. There's a good article on Catesby by Danny Williams (Trans. Leics. Arch. & Hist. Soc., vol. 51, 1975-6). He had been a legal advisor to Lady Latimer, and both Catesby and Hastings were amongst Lady Latimer's executors. His name appears in a lot in feoffments involving both Hastings and Buckingham. He was a JP for Northants, and appears on crown commissions for the county. He had been retained as a legal adviser by Cardinal Bourchier since 1480. He also gave legal advice to Launde Priory in Leicestershire. From 1481 he had been Apprentice-at-law to the Duchy of Lancaster.

Basically, he was well known in top circles and his legal talents were highly regarded.

It is More who tells us that he informed on Hastings, and he says he was in a position to do so because he was a member of Hastings' close circle. Although More is a very late and unreliable source, what we do know is that Catesby suddenly became a very influential member of Richard's council, and that after the arrests he put pressure on one of the men arrested, John Forster, to make over to him his post of Steward of St. Albans Abbey.

To return to the plot itself, and where the precontract fits in. The other possibility is that the Tower plot had nothing to do with the precontract, and that it was the plot which brought about the disclosure of the precontract, and not the other way about. The June plot would have brought home just how dangerous Richard's situation was long-term (i.e. once Edward V was ruling in his own right), and so provided a much greater impetus for anyone who knew of an impediment to his kingship to come forward.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that the Queen could have known of any challenge to Edward V's right to the crown when she handed over his younger brother to Richard on 16 June.

Marie

Hilary,

Even if Catesby wasn't the one to alert Richard, he may very well have been feeding his findings to Hastings in London. If the motoring atlas is correct, London is about 25 miles from Stony Stratford, so a fast horse could make the trip in a day, I'd imagine.

I presume Catesby was considered to be "gentry," but was Hastings considered gentry or nobility? His father was a knight, and he himself had become a baron, so he was taking the approved road upwards, but would William, Lord Hastings have been viewed as someone moving up or as someone who'd arrived? Would it make any difference in how he, and Catesby, were viewed by Edward IV, among others?

I ask, because it very much looks to me as what Edward IV was doing when he "played the magnates off against the pesky Warwickshire gentry" was simply limiting the nobility's ability to build up their "affinity" by strengthening the gentry by strengthening his ties to the gentry, who'd then look to the king as their direct benefactor rather than any local magnate. You mentioned Clarence and Buckingham, but do we have evidence Edward did the same elsewhere with other nobles? If so, I sense a trend; and one not to the liking of Dr. Starkey, either!

Doug

Hilary wrote:

"Still on the topic of the potential Grafton Ambush do we know where Catesby was at this time? You see if you get your atlas out again (Doug), Ashby St Legers is a mile and a half off the A5, just before you get to Weedon.

Apart from Catesby this is deep old Lancastrian/Woodville country - Mr Empson is just up the road in Towcester, the Greenes of Green's Norton are not far from Towcester, the countryside across to Banbury is D'Oyly and Danvers territory to name but a few. Catesby (or those at his home) could well have got wind of something going on. He could just as easily have warned Richard, which would explain why he enjoyed Richard's favour later.

The Catesby/Hastings dynamic is also interesting. The Catesbys had primarily been players in Coventry and Warwickshire. I mentioned in another post that Edward played the magnates (George and Warwick) off against the pesky Warwickshire gentry, reduced the formers' power and then waded in himself. One of his tactics was to give more and more power in the area to Hastings. I wonder how this went down with the Catesbys. Yes they functioned mainly through their legal practice, but they were very ambitious in trying to obtain lucrative sheep lands in the Burton Dassett Hills and had had run-ins with the Earls of Warwick earlier in the century.

Nobody really explains how Catesby got so close to Richard, that's if he really did, but there must have been a good reason for HT to seek him out and dispatch him fast?"

Hilary,

Even if Catesby wasn't the one to alert Richard, he may very well have been feeding his findings to Hastings in London. If the motoring atlas is correct, London is about 25 miles from Stony Stratford, so a fast horse could make the trip in a day, I'd imagine.

I presume Catesby was considered to be "gentry," but was Hastings considered gentry or nobility? His father was a knight, and he himself had become a baron, so he was taking the approved road upwards, but would William, Lord Hastings have been viewed as someone moving up or as someone who'd arrived? Would it make any difference in how he, and Catesby, were viewed by Edward IV, among others?

I ask, because it very much looks to me as what Edward IV was doing when he "played the magnates off against the pesky Warwickshire gentry" was simply limiting the nobility's ability to build up their "affinity" by strengthening the gentry by strengthening his ties to the gentry, who'd then look to the king as their direct benefactor rather than any local magnate. You mentioned Clarence and Buckingham, but do we have evidence Edward did the same elsewhere with other nobles? If so, I sense a trend; and one not to the liking of Dr. Starkey, either!

Doug

Hilary wrote:

"Still on the topic of the potential Grafton Ambush do we know where Catesby was at this time? You see if you get your atlas out again (Doug), Ashby St Legers is a mile and a half off the A5, just before you get to Weedon.

Apart from Catesby this is deep old Lancastrian/Woodville country - Mr Empson is just up the road in Towcester, the Greenes of Green's Norton are not far from Towcester, the countryside across to Banbury is D'Oyly and Danvers territory to name but a few. Catesby (or those at his home) could well have got wind of something going on. He could just as easily have warned Richard, which would explain why he enjoyed Richard's favour later.

The Catesby/Hastings dynamic is also interesting. The Catesbys had primarily been players in Coventry and Warwickshire. I mentioned in another post that Edward played the magnates (George and Warwick) off against the pesky Warwickshire gentry, reduced the formers' power and then waded in himself. One of his tactics was to give more and more power in the area to Hastings. I wonder how this went down with the Catesbys. Yes they functioned mainly through their legal practice, but they were very ambitious in trying to obtain lucrative sheep lands in the Burton Dassett Hills and had had run-ins with the Earls of Warwick earlier in the century.

Nobody really explains how Catesby got so close to Richard, that's if he really did, but there must have been a good reason for HT to seek him out and dispatch him fast?"

Burton Dassett? Isn't that where Eleanor Talbot held lands that might have come from Edward or have I mistaken it for somewhere else?

Nico wrote that Catesby might have heard about the precontract through lady Latimer.
I would just plead for us to stop and consider that the June plot may not have had anything to do with the precontract and that Richard did not therefore ruthlessly execute Hastings for trying to protect the son of his former friend and master.
The precontract could not, surely, have been known to so many without the rumours surfacing abroad even if English writers were too scared to record it? If the rumours were around the Queen would have heard and dealt with Stillington before she dealt with Richard.
IMHO it doesn't add up. Clarence didn't need the precontract to challenge Edward and his line - he was using, and probably believed, the story of Edward's own bastardy.
We don't need the precontract to explain EW's involvement either. She surely hadn't stayed doggedly in sanctuary just to wring her hands and pull her pretty hair for ever more. Submitting to Richard wouldn't have got her brother and son out of their Yorkshire prisons, or restored her eldest son Dorset and her brother Edward. She had to gamble again. That plot had been inevitable since she lost the gamble in Stony Stratford.

But after Richard had narrowly escaped death a second time the stakes changed for him and those who had aligned themselves with him. These, I suggest, are the circumstances in which the precontract was most likely revealed, and there is nothing in the record to indicate a change of direction, or even a wobble, regarding EV's coronation until after 16 June.
Marie

Hi Hilary and Mary,
Exactly my thoughts Mary. If there was any plotting with MB - and it seems there may have been - then I think it would have to do with larger thoughts about the role Brittany could play. Anne of Brittany was, by treaty, to marry Edward V and become Queen of England. Sir Edward W had landed up in Brittany, and of course HT was an honoured guest/ prisoner there. Duke Francis knew Rivers well - he had once spent many months at his court. If it got messy and civil war broke out again, then HT could be sent over with Breton troops, with EoY's hand as a tempter. Otherwise how was Margaret to get him back? He'd ignored Edward IV's offers and assurances. He could only really be persuaded to come back as a saviour, so that he could trust he would not be tricked and imprisoned.

Who knows what Hastings could have been offered? An earldom. A little princess in the family. A happy stepdaughter, certainly >.

Hilary, yes I agree that having the precontract brought up at a late stage, when R and his supporters desperately needed a way out, does make its authenticity appear questionable. But IMO we need to be looking not to the period before it's disclosure for evidence of authenticity, but to the time when it was no longer politically desirable. What measures did Henry VII take to demonstrate that it had been invented? Well, none. On the contrary, he forbade any questioning of Stillington or any discussion at all of TR in parliament, and ordered all copies of the Act to be destroyed unread.

Marie

Hi Marie I agree entirely about the Precontract thing and as you well know some authors love to say that Richard invented it to get him out of a mess.
If attempts were made by the Council to discover more about it (or indeed to invent it, though with so many bishops about I doubt this) then I don't think Richard had a clue what was going on - that is until they'd got it sorted enough to put the evidence before him. They knew what manner of man Richard was i.e. very moral, very in tune with the Law. You would have to have your facts right before putting anything to him or it could backfire horribly.
The evidence of his 'innocence' in this is that he needed to ask for help. If he'd come expecting to undertake a coup (or even decided to do this later) he'd surely have made sure he had enough support on close standby? If the Council had been able to verify the Precontract's existence, which it appeared they were, they had a clear path forward and the guarantee of a commited and able king rather than the chaos that was already being created by the Woodvilles. I sometimes think we could do with a better knowledge of international politics (and I include myself very much in that). For example, from a surface glance we know that French ambitions in Europe as a whole were a constant threat. How safe did the Council think we were, or would we be a sitting duck with a boy king and a lot of warring relatives? Hastings was in a good position to know; I wonder what he said?
And yes HT's attitude to Stillington is mild to say the least. It would have been easier to dispatch him like Catesby and the Brechers or at least made sure that he was nicely confined? And although tearing up Titulus might legitimise someone as Edward's son, HT had taken the throne by conquest, job over. H

On Friday, 1 June 2018, 14:12:35 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Mary,
Exactly my thoughts Mary. If there was any plotting with MB - and it seems there may have been - then I think it would have to do with larger thoughts about the role Brittany could play. Anne of Brittany was, by treaty, to marry Edward V and become Queen of England. Sir Edward W had landed up in Brittany, and of course HT was an honoured guest/ prisoner there. Duke Francis knew Rivers well - he had once spent many months at his court. If it got messy and civil war broke out again, then HT could be sent over with Breton troops, with EoY's hand as a tempter. Otherwise how was Margaret to get him back? He'd ignored Edward IV's offers and assurances. He could only really be persuaded to come back as a saviour, so that he could trust he would not be tricked and imprisoned.

Who knows what Hastings could have been offered? An earldom. A little princess in the family. A happy stepdaughter, certainly >.

Hilary, yes I agree that having the precontract brought up at a late stage, when R and his supporters desperately needed a way out, does make its authenticity appear questionable. But IMO we need to be looking not to the period before it's disclosure for evidence of authenticity, but to the time when it was no longer politically desirable. What measures did Henry VII take to demonstrate that it had been invented? Well, none. On the contrary, he forbade any questioning of Stillington or any discussion at all of TR in parliament, and ordered all copies of the Act to be destroyed unread.

Marie

I agree Nico it would be great if there were records of the meeting on 8th June and also if possible a record of who actually attended. Reading the list I wonder why ( and I suppose have always wondered why) EW let them take her younger son from sanctuary. There are two possibilities a) as so many Tudor propagandists would have us believe, Richard forcibly took him or b) they knew about the pre-contract by then and Bourchier explained it and /or gave her evidence and she handed him over. She wouldn't have had much choice either way, her hope of military support from Hastings was gone, Anthony and Richard Grey were imprisoned and her other brother and son were in exile. Maybe that is how the other plotting started with MB. If you can help me to get rid of Richard and get my son back on the throne I'll give Henry E of Y's hand in marriage. I don't think EW was ever one to give up.

Hi,
Personally, I think that Hastings was desperate to hang on to power and had an offer from the Woodvilles that was too good to refuse, and the execution was a result of his plotting with them. Also, if Lady Latimer disclosed something about it to Catesby, I don't think he would have discussed it with Hastings - although he may have with Buckingham, because he was Eleanor's cousin. However, Hancock may be partially right and the precontract may have been the key to Catesby's rise.

Even if unrelated, the precontract and whatever conspiracy led to Hastings execution seem to have emerged around the same time. In an earlier post, Doug posted this timeline:

29/30 April - Richard arrests Rivers, Grey and Vaughan in Northampton/Stony Stratford. 4 May - Richard, accompanied by his nephew, enters London. 23 May - Richard and others swear an oath to Edward V. 8 June - There's a meeting at Westminster, attended by Richard and all other lords as well temporal as spiritual. 10 June - Richard writes to York for armed support from the city. 11 June - Richard writes to Lord Neville also requesting military support. 13 June - Hastings executed after an attempt on Richard's life is discovered and foiled.16 June - Richard of Shrewsbury joined Edward V in the Tower.17 June - Coronation (for 22 June) cancelled.
17-21June - Parliament (for 26 June) cancelled.
22 June - Originally scheduled date for coronation of Edward V/Shaa's speech about Edward IV's bastardy.
25 June - Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed/Edward V officially declared a bastard; the crown offered to Richard.
26 June - Richard proclaimed King.
6 July - Richard crowned king.
I have added a few more significant dates (in blue). There seems a lull of normality after Stony Stratford, then a pattern of unrest emerging after the lord's meeting at Westminster on June 8th, leading to Richard being proclaimed King just over two weeks later. Are there any records of what was discussed on June 8th that could give some indication of opposing factions or even a conspiracy have emerged from something that occurred on that date? Richard requests for help on June 10 and 11 would be consistent with that, so it appear that there was active Woodville opposition in early June. Hastings being executed for involvement with it fits in because all the other events that follow concern Edward V or the Woodvilles in some way. June 8 is sometimes associated with Stillington's revelations, but this isn't certain. However, if news of the precontract did come out on that date, then that it would make sense to prepare for trouble, but there there is an urgency about the forthcoming events that suggests a more serious and immediate threat.

If the precontract had not been revealed on the 8th, it must have come out between then and the 22nd, as it was clear by then that Edward V's bastardy made him ineligible for the throne. Shaa was probably repeating Warwick's old allegation because he misunderstood the illegitmacy argument. It was only Commynes who said Stillington revealed the precontract, so we can't be sure that it was him. Could Commynes have confused him with some other role he played (like giving advice about canon law?) Perhaps Catesby came forward with the Eleanor story which provided a solution to rule by a boy king that was already showing signs of being a catastrophic repetition of the disastrous reigns of Richard II or Henry VI that could ruin England for decades to come. If he discovered the skeleton in Edward IV's closet in the course of giving legal advice to members of Eleanor's family, he would have been justified in holding on to it, as discretion is expected of lawyers. However, if revealing bigamy involving two now dead people could potentially change the course of history for the better, then that would also have been justifiable (and desirable) reason to breach a confidence. Therefore, if he made his revelations around the second week of June, they could have been verified by members of Eleanor's family in a few days, so the relevant parties were aware by June 21 and ready to present the case to the Three Estates on the 25th.

If this is what happened, Catesby may have chosen Buckingham as the conduit for bringing the revelations to Richard. Also, being related to Eleanor, he may have been best placed to get her siblings to confirm what was most likely a closely guarded secret kept within the immediate family of Eleanor's mother and her sisters. Maybe Buckingham thought this was key to ample rewards from Richard, and when they didn't arrive, Buckingham became bitter.
Nico


On Friday, 1 June 2018, 15:46:32 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie I agree entirely about the Precontract thing and as you well know some authors love to say that Richard invented it to get him out of a mess.
If attempts were made by the Council to discover more about it (or indeed to invent it, though with so many bishops about I doubt this) then I don't think Richard had a clue what was going on - that is until they'd got it sorted enough to put the evidence before him. They knew what manner of man Richard was i.e. very moral, very in tune with the Law. You would have to have your facts right before putting anything to him or it could backfire horribly.
The evidence of his 'innocence' in this is that he needed to ask for help. If he'd come expecting to undertake a coup (or even decided to do this later) he'd surely have made sure he had enough support on close standby? If the Council had been able to verify the Precontract's existence, which it appeared they were, they had a clear path forward and the guarantee of a commited and able king rather than the chaos that was already being created by the Woodvilles. I sometimes think we could do with a better knowledge of international politics (and I include myself very much in that).. For example, from a surface glance we know that French ambitions in Europe as a whole were a constant threat. How safe did the Council think we were, or would we be a sitting duck with a boy king and a lot of warring relatives? Hastings was in a good position to know; I wonder what he said?
And yes HT's attitude to Stillington is mild to say the least. It would have been easier to dispatch him like Catesby and the Brechers or at least made sure that he was nicely confined? And although tearing up Titulus might legitimise someone as Edward's son, HT had taken the throne by conquest, job over. H

On Friday, 1 June 2018, 14:12:35 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary and Mary,
Exactly my thoughts Mary. If there was any plotting with MB - and it seems there may have been - then I think it would have to do with larger thoughts about the role Brittany could play. Anne of Brittany was, by treaty, to marry Edward V and become Queen of England. Sir Edward W had landed up in Brittany, and of course HT was an honoured guest/ prisoner there. Duke Francis knew Rivers well - he had once spent many months at his court. If it got messy and civil war broke out again, then HT could be sent over with Breton troops, with EoY's hand as a tempter. Otherwise how was Margaret to get him back? He'd ignored Edward IV's offers and assurances. He could only really be persuaded to come back as a saviour, so that he could trust he would not be tricked and imprisoned.

Who knows what Hastings could have been offered? An earldom. A little princess in the family. A happy stepdaughter, certainly >.

Hilary, yes I agree that having the precontract brought up at a late stage, when R and his supporters desperately needed a way out, does make its authenticity appear questionable. But IMO we need to be looking not to the period before it's disclosure for evidence of authenticity, but to the time when it was no longer politically desirable. What measures did Henry VII take to demonstrate that it had been invented? Well, none. On the contrary, he forbade any questioning of Stillington or any discussion at all of TR in parliament, and ordered all copies of the Act to be destroyed unread.

Marie

Hi Nico,

I have a rather different interpretation of events, as you are obviously aware by now. I would argue that the 'lull of normality' during May and early June is just surface appearance, and that if the few other things we know are added to it then you start to glimpse under the surface Woodville preparations for a renewed attack. Plots for a political takeover can't be brought to fruition overnight, particularly when armed back up is likely to be necessary at some stage. It isn't credible to me that the plot of Friday 13th was not even envisaged until after 2 pm on the 8th, and that it had been both worked out and discovered in two days (i.e. before Richard wrote to York). Nor does it fit very well with what Richard told the city of York when he wrote on the 10th, i.e. that the Queen and her relations "have intended and daily doth intend to destroy us. . . ." I would read that as saying they've made one attempt already and have been plotting daily since then to try again.

We happen to know about the meeting of 8 June because we happen to have an extant newsletter written by an employee of Chancellor Russell on the 9th. There are no records of the meeting itself. There may have been many more such meetings which he don't get a mention because they weren't sufficiently recent news when Stallworthe wrote. I've added some more items to the timeline (in red) to try to show just how much more complicated the picture was (and it would no doubt be even more complicated if we knew more). I've put a couple of phrases in bold because I think they're deserving of careful attention.

9 April  Edward IV dies

14 April  News of Edward IV's death reaches his son at Ludlow

16 April  Edward V writes to King's Lynn

17/18 April  Richard, probably at Middleham, hears of Edward IV's death

20 April  Edward IV is buried at Windsor (obsequies involving many VIPs have been going on since the 16th, initially at Westminster)

24 April  The Council grant a large sum of money to Sir Edward Woodville and Marquis Dorset to keep the seas against the French with 3,000 men (2,000 for Sir Ed. and 1,000 for Dorset)

26 April  Richard reaches Nottingham

29/30 April  Richard arrests Rivers, Grey and Vaughan in Northampton/ Stony Stratford

Night 30 April (plus 1 May?)  The Queen learns about the arrests.

1 May? - The Queen and the marquess, who held the royal treasure, began collecting an army, to defend themselves, and set free the young king from the clutches of the two dukes. But, when they had exhorted certain nobles, who had come to the city, and others, to take up arms, they perceived that men's minds were not only irresolute, but altogether hostile to themselves.' (Mancini) So they betook themselves to Westminster Sanctuary (quite when is not certain, More et al notwithstanding)., whilst Sir Edward Woodville sailed off with his fleet

2 May  Edward V writes from Northampton to Cardinal Bourchier, commanding him to take charge of the Great Seal and the Tower Treasure.

4 May  Richard, accompanied by nephew, enters London

7 May  Richard and other lords attended a meeting at Baynards Castle chaired by Cardinal Bourchier, at which arrangements were decided for placing Edward IV's goods in safe keeping until circumstances allowed for his will to be executed

by 10 May  Richard has been recognised by the Council as Protector

10 May  Richard appoints Bishop Russell as the new chancellor

By mid May?  Dorset has slipped out of sanctuary and disappeared

By 13 May  The Council has decided that a parliament should be held immediately after the coronation to legislate for Richard to continue as Protector until Edward V come of age. Calling a parliament required 40 days' notice (and coronations were always held on a Sunday), so the coronation is scheduled for 22 June.

14 May  Edward Brampton was commissioned to go to sea to take Sir Edward Woodville. Dorset may have been believed to be with him because Richard's officers were instructed to offer pardons to all whom would surrender except Sir Edward, Dorset and Robert Radclyff.

Many new appointments made that day and the next, including Catesby as Chancellor of the Earldom of March.

Before 23 May  Richard and others swear an oath to Edward V (probably well before the 23rd)

22 May  Richard places Dorset's lands in receivership.

23 May  Either at a meeting of the London common council or a meeting of the Privy Council attended by the Mayor and his fellows: ". . . was read out the oath lately made to our lord King by Richard Duke of Gloucester, Protector of England, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Archbishop of York, Henry Duke of Buckingham and the lords. Also an oath that the said lords would make to the Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England, now being in the Sanctuary of St. Peter, Westminster, if that lady would relinquish that place." She evidently refused the offer.

By end May?  Sir Edward Woodville has arrived in Brittany

5 June  Anne arrives in London

8 June  There's a meeting at Westminster, attended by Richard and all other lords as well temporal as spiritual were at Westminster in the Council Chamber from 10am to 2pm , but there was none that spoke with the Queen

9 June  Chancellor Russell's man Simon Stallworthe (relative of Rivers' London tailor William Stallworthe??) wrote to Sir William Stonor telling him the latest news, including the council meeting the day before (he had last written to Stonor on 19 May). He also told Stonor the following:-

1. The Queen keeps still at Westminster my Lord of York, my Lord of Salisbury, with others more, which will not depart as yet.'

2. Wheresoever can be found any goods of my Lord Marquis, it is taken.The Prior of Westminster was, and yet is, in a great trouble for certain goods delivered to him by my Lord Marquis'

3. There is great busyness against the coronation, which shall be this day fortnight, as we say, when I trust you will be in London; then shall ye know all the world.'

10 June  Richard writes to York for armed support from the city to aid and assist us against the Queen, her blood adherents and affinity, which have intended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly destroy us and our cousyn the duc of Bukkyngham

11 June  Richard writes to Lord Neville also requesting military support

13 June  Hastings executed after an attempt on Richard's life is discovered and foiled

16 June  Richard of Shrewsbury joined Edward V in the Tower

17 June  Coronation (for 22 June) postponed until 9 November

17-21 June  Some writs sent out overturning the summonses to Parliament

22 June  Originally scheduled for coronation of Edward V/

Shaa's speech about Edward IV's bastardy (probably)

25 June  Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed/

Edward V officially declared a bastard; the crown offered to Richard

26 June  Richard proclaimed king

6 July  Richard crowned king.

The question that doesn't get asked by historians, but needs to be, is why Dorset and Sir Edward continued to defy Richard, and why the Queen refused assurances of safety and stayed in sanctuary. The Woodvilles were still in opposition to Richard as a group, and were even refusing to participate in Edward's coronation. They must have had some plan - the Queen must have been holding out for something.

The timeline suggests that the precontract was revealed just after Richard Duke of York had been delivered out of sanctuary. If QE knew her children were likely to be declared bastards and set aside, she'd have wanted to get Edward back pretty badly (as per the July plot) and would definitely not have entrusted her younger son to Richard in those circumstances. Of course it's possible that the precontract had been revealed to Richard and one or two others in confidence a day or two before 16th, and it was decided not to let it be more widely known until after the younger brother had been secured. The reason for the postponement of Edward's coronation on 17th (not yet a cancellation) would presumably have been to give the lords time to decide what to do about the succession. In practice, of course, such things cannot be left in mid air for very long with two mutually hostile factions.

I would concede the possibility that Hastings, given his closeness to Edward, knew about the precontract and that it in some way influenced his behaviour without being made public. There's no evidence for that, but a scenario which would work quite well (if I were writing aa novel) is if Stillington and Hastings were the only two people who knew about it, and Stillington whispered to Hastings in private that a good solution to the dangers posed by Edward V's maternal blood might be to reveal the precontract so that Gloucester could become king. Hastings makes it clear that he would not be prepared to back Stillington up, but he now believes that Edward V will not keep his throne long unless his mother's family are restored to power. . . .

Mary wrote:

I wonder why ( and I suppose have always wondered why) EW let them take her younger son from sanctuary. There are two possibilities a) as so many Tudor propagandists would have us believe, Richard forcibly took him or b) they knew about the pre-contract by then and Bourchier explained it and /or gave her evidence and she handed him over. She wouldn't have had much choice either way, her hope of military support from Hastings was gone, Anthony and Richard Grey were imprisoned and her other brother and son were in exile. Maybe that is how the other plotting started with MB. If you can help me to get rid of Richard and get my son back on the throne I'll give Henry E of Y's hand in marriage. I don't think EW was ever one to give up.

Marie replies:

The way I see her handing York over, she did it because her recent plot had been uncovered and she was now cooperating in the hope of limiting the damage (she would have been particularly worried about Rivers and Grey). If she knew about the precontract, and that Edward's entire future was now under threat from Richard, she would not have given up her younger son as well. There's always been a problem for traditionalists with Elizabeth handing over her younger son to a man who was a threat to her family - that is why they transposed the order of the two events, having her deliver York before the incident in the Tower. If we suppose that Richard's side were talking openly about the precontract before 16 June we have given ourselves the same problem.

Hi Nico,

I think the Woodvilles probably weren't quite as desperate as we like to think. Dorset had a lot of estates and contacts in the South West; Rivers also had a wide base. Sir Edward Woodville was in Brittany by the end of May, renewing the relationship with its ruler which had been forged by his brother Rivers ten years earlier. They were a large family, and probably felt they had a big support network. Richard seems to have felt so too, to judge from his letter to York seeking soldiers to withstand the Queen's 'blood, adherents and affinity'.

My feeling about the precontract is that Eleanor simply hadn't talked. It would have been more than her life was worth to spread that story, and the same goes for any close family member she might have confided in. The revelation came as such a surprise that no writer suggested that it had been known of, or rumoured, in the past. Warwick had evidently had no inkling so was forced to try to get the Woodville marriage annulled on grounds of witchcraft; Mancini thought the lady was a foreign princess; and Henry VII seems to have believed he had a good chance of consigning Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR.

Marie

"I wonder why ( and I suppose have always wondered why) EW let them take her younger son from sanctuary. There are two possibilities a) as so many Tudor propagandists would have us believe, Richard forcibly took him or b) they knew about the pre-contract by then and Bourchier explained it and /or gave her evidence and she handed him over."

Carol responds:

If EW didn't know that the council had learned about the precontract (or they didn't yet know about it), she would have had no reason to worry about her son. E 5's coronation was still being planned, and Bourchier would have told her that little Richard was needed for the ceremony. ("If you won't come out yourself and won't let your daughters out, at least let his Grace or York attend. His absence will cast a pall on the ceremony" or something like that.) Also, they would have argued that E 5 needed companionship.

Another point that's seldom considered is that young Richard himself would have been willing, even eager, to escape the confines of sanctuary with so many women. (I'll bet his sisters, especially the younger ones, were jealous!) I think it's Stallworth who reports him and his uncle Richard exchanging many friendly words. Anyway, his mother may have considered it better for her sons to be together--or even relieved to be rid of the burden of an active nine-year-old boy clamoring for attention and pining for active play. His antics could well have interfered with her plotting.

At any rate, she certainly had no cause to fear that Richard would harm an innocent child and therefore no reason to deny the boy his release from sanctuary. He had safely escorted Edward to London and placed him where he belonged, in the royal chambers in the Tower where his younger brother would now join him. If I were EW, I would have agreed with barely a second thought. On the other hand, if I had suspected that Richard and the council knew about the precontract and that Edward might not be crowned, I would certainly not have yielded Richard of York no matter how convenient his absence would have been or how much he wanted to go. Not that I would have feared for his safety in Richard's custody: I would merely have retained him as a bargaining chip.

Carol

"My feeling about the precontract is that Eleanor simply hadn't talked. It would have been more than her life was worth to spread that story, and the same goes for any close family member she might have confided in. The revelation came as such a surprise that no writer suggested that it had been known of, or rumoured, in the past. Warwick had evidently had no inkling so was forced to try to get the Woodville marriage annulled on grounds of witchcraft; Mancini thought the lady was a foreign princess; and Henry VII seems to have believed he had a good chance of consigning Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR."

Carol responds:

I agree. As for Henry thinking he had consigned Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR, he very nearly succeeded. If it weren't for the Croyland continuator preserving the Three Estates' petition to Richard and Buck recording it, no one would have had any idea of the legitimacy of Richard's claim and we might all believe the Tudor version of events (or at least it would be much more difficult to refute it).

Carol

"My feeling about the precontract is that Eleanor simply hadn't talked. It would have been more than her life was worth to spread that story, and the same goes for any close family member she might have confided in. The revelation came as such a surprise that no writer suggested that it had been known of, or rumoured, in the past. Warwick had evidently had no inkling so was forced to try to get the Woodville marriage annulled on grounds of witchcraft; Mancini thought the lady was a foreign princess; and Henry VII seems to have believed he had a good chance of consigning Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR."

Carol responds:

I agree. As for Henry thinking he had consigned Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR, he very nearly succeeded. If it weren't for the Croyland continuator preserving the Three Estates' petition to Richard and Buck recording it, no one would have had any idea of the legitimacy of Richard's claim and we might all believe the Tudor version of events (or at least it would be much more difficult to refute it).

Carol

24 April  The Council grant a large sum of money to Sir Edward Woodville and Marquis Dorset to keep the seas against the French with 3,000 men (2,000 for Sir Ed. and 1,000 for Dorset)

1 May? - The Queen and the marquess, who held the royal treasure, began collecting an army, to defend themselves, and set free the young king from the clutches of the two dukes. But, when they had exhorted certain nobles, who had come to the city, and others, to take up arms, they perceived that men's minds were not only irresolute, but altogether hostile to themselves.' (Mancini) So they betook themselves to Westminster Sanctuary (quite when is not certain, More et al notwithstanding)., whilst Sir Edward Woodville sailed off with his fleet

2 May  Edward V writes from Northampton to Cardinal Bourchier, commanding him to take charge of the Great Seal and the Tower Treasure.

By mid May?  Dorset has slipped out of sanctuary and disappeared

14 May  Edward Brampton was commissioned to go to sea to take Sir Edward Woodville. Dorset may have been believed to be with him because Richard's officers were instructed to offer pardons to all whom would surrender except Sir Edward, Dorset and Robert Radclyff.

Hi,
Thanks Marie for the additions to the timetable. Eventually, it would be really helpful if we could put a we completed version of the timeline from April 9th to July 6 in the files for reference. It is difficult to find a comprehensive listing of all the events, and looking at a well organized timeline can give a better perspective. You are absolutely right that the crisis that emerged in June couldn't have happened overnight; Woodville scheming must have been bubbling under the surface all along, but it intensified or something drew attention to it in June.

I liked your idea about Hastings. I think he would have resisted any attempts to thwart EIV's wish that EV succeed him as King, even if that meant an alliance with the Woodvilles. Actually, didn't one of the chroniclers mention that on his deathbed EIV asked Hastings and Dorset to put aside their differences? If they did make peace out respect for EIV, and focused on protecting his legacy through EV then that does fit in with what happened to Hastings.

Hilary wrote: In Doug's timetable it took nearly two months to execute Rivers. Wouldn't you have thought that his sister would have been doing something to rescue him, or did she just know he was guilty (and of course so was she) so she just kept quiet. Did Hastings somehow get involved in that?
If Hastings was willing to join the Woodvilles for the benefit of EV, then EW would have had to rely on him to help Rivers and Grey as he was her best contact in England. They were in prison, Dorset in the sanctuary (and then fled), while Edward Woodville had escaped to Brittany. I have always thought that Hastings immediate execution resulted from an overt act of aggression against Richard. Possibly, Hastings was advocating leniency for Rivers and Grey and a more prominent role for EW during EV's minority. Richard disagreed and the argument became heated, and Hastings drew his sword to attack Richard. Perhaps other incriminating evidence emerged during the fracas that finally condemned Rivers and Grey.
Nico
On Tuesday, 5 June 2018, 16:06:43 GMT+1, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

"My feeling about the precontract is that Eleanor simply hadn't talked. It would have been more than her life was worth to spread that story, and the same goes for any close family member she might have confided in. The revelation came as such a surprise that no writer suggested that it had been known of, or rumoured, in the past. Warwick had evidently had no inkling so was forced to try to get the Woodville marriage annulled on grounds of witchcraft; Mancini thought the lady was a foreign princess; and Henry VII seems to have believed he had a good chance of consigning Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR."

Carol responds:

I agree. As for Henry thinking he had consigned Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR, he very nearly succeeded. If it weren't for the Croyland continuator preserving the Three Estates' petition to Richard and Buck recording it, no one would have had any idea of the legitimacy of Richard's claim and we might all believe the Tudor version of events (or at least it would be much more difficult to refute it).

Carol

Marie replies:

It doesn't read like that to me. The word 'against' here is used in an old-fashioned sense, I think, and means 'in preparation for' rather than 'in opposition to'. So it just meant the coronation was getting nearer and everybody was very busy with the arrangements.

Hi Nico

I think you have it spot on about the Woodville fleet. They refused to come back and so were classed as rebels. The Tower treasure is not clear. Perhaps there just wasn't much left. There was a report made in early May detailing what cash Edward had left and how much of that had been spent since. It suggests there hadn't been a lot to start with. But the amount that Sir Edward and Dorset had awarded themselves for their fleets was a sizeable proportion of that. They'd allowed for a higher than usual daily wage for the sailors, and for kitting them all out in uniform, which the report noted was not usual either, so they were probably out ton make a profit on the venture. Sir Edward also commandeered another ship on the south coast,along wiith some cash, after he'd gone to sea, and told the captain to report to the council with an iou. All in all, Sir EW iseems to have reached Brittany well supplied with English government money.

I don't think anything had necessarily happened to bring the Woodville plot to the surface in mid June other than perhaps someone having been included who decided to inform. That's the usual way with these things. The coup, if successful, would of course have enabled the Queen to free Rivers, Vaughan and Grey.

I don't think any armed incident in the Tower can have been spontaneous because I don't think it was allowed to carry swords in the king's Household. I'll check, but I seem to remember that Mancini's story is that weapons had been hidden in readiness.

Nicholas wrote:Another point of interest is Simon Stallworth's letter after the June 8th meeting:
There is great busyness against the coronation, which shall be this day fortnight...That sounds like the coronation was becoming controversial, so perhaps something about the precontract had already been mentioned, but was not publicly known. However, it may have been a factor in Hastings actions a few days later.

Marie replies:

It doesn't read like that to me. The word 'against' here is used in an old-fashioned sense, I think, and means 'in preparation for' rather than 'in opposition to'. So it just meant the coronation was getting nearer and everybody was very busy with the arrangements.

BTW do we know who the Council were? Ross has a stab based on precedents. For example was it all the bishops (quite a lot) and, as I've said before surely Percy should have taken his place as a senior earl albeit not at once? H
On Wednesday, 6 June 2018, 21:02:30 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nicholas wrote:Another point of interest is Simon Stallworth's letter after the June 8th meeting:
There is great busyness against the coronation, which shall be this day fortnight...That sounds like the coronation was becoming controversial, so perhaps something about the precontract had already been mentioned, but was not publicly known. However, it may have been a factor in Hastings actions a few days later.

Marie replies:

It doesn't read like that to me. The word 'against' here is used in an old-fashioned sense, I think, and means 'in preparation for' rather than 'in opposition to'. So it just meant the coronation was getting nearer and everybody was very busy with the arrangements.

Marie wrote:

To return to the plot itself, and where the precontract fits in. The other possibility is that the Tower plot had nothing to do with the precontract, and that it was the plot which brought about the disclosure of the precontract, and not the other way about. The June plot would have brought home just how dangerous Richard's situation was long-term (i.e. once Edward V was ruling in his own right), and so provided a much greater impetus for anyone who knew of an impediment to his kingship to come forward.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that the Queen could have known of any challenge to Edward V's right to the crown when she handed over his younger br other to Richard on 16 June.

Doug here:

First off, my apologies for snipping so much of your post and taking so long to comment! The delay was due to the shock of the idea that whatever happened at the Council meeting on 13 June wasn't because of the Pre-Contract, but rather that it was a separate plot that, upon it being foiled, led to the revealing of the Pre-Contract. To be honest, while I'd never considered that possibility, it most certainly fits with what not only what we actually know happened, but also the known actions of those involved  especially Elizabeth Woodville.

I'm now again wondering if the delay(?) in revealing the Pre-Contract wasn't to do with the fact that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was obtained via the confessional or perhaps a deathbed confession? The only reason I bring this subject up again is that two months passed between the death of Edward IV and the Pre-Contract was revealed, so there must have been some reason for that delay. Otherwise, why wouldn't it have been brought before the Council immediately after Richard arrived in London in early May? Do we know when Bishop Stillington arrived in London? Perhaps there's a clue there?

Doug

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

Hilary wrote:

"There are enormous gaps in the timeline aren't there? So much for the story that Rivers et al were executed quickly without trial. And young Edward seems to have put in only a couple of appearances - once when he entered London and getting on for three weeks' later when they swore oaths of fealty to him? What was he doing the rest of the time? You would have thought people would have written about seeing him?

I agree with what you say about the Precontract. I sometimes wonder whether it was a machination on the part of the Council to get a 'better king'; apart from Edward III, minority rules had always been disastrous and the Woodvilles hadn't done much to enhance the prospects of what was to come. There was after all at this point no legal framework for the succession and, as we've said before, the wishes of a previous ruler died with him. In the previous couple of hundred years the succession had been broken as many times as it had been adhered to."

Doug here:

Rather than Council machinations, perhaps the delay was due to assembling either the papers or the people necessary to provide confirmation of the Pre-Contract? I suggest that as a possibility because there isn't, as far as I know, any evidence that the Pre-Contract was "made up" by members of the Council. After all, HT made no effort to refute the contents of Titulus Regius, he simply quashed it. Unread, to boot! Then there'd be the problem of trying to keep all those involved in the secret quiet! Nor, to the best of my knowledge, when plotting rebellion neither Buckingham or Morton ever claim Titulus Regius was a "put up" job.

Hilary continued:
"As to whether the Precontract existed, given Edward's other behaviour, I'm becoming more convinced that it did, but whether some of the Council picked up a hint and pursued it more rigorously I'm not sure. We know Stillington was in prime spy territory, both at St Martins and with his connections in the South West and he could have become aware of the rumour. I have Stillington as a Yorkshireman, whose relations moved in Richard's affinity. It would certainly not do him or them any harm if Richard became king.

As Doug says, so many questions - and so many networks."

Doug here:

If I understand the position of the Roman Catholic Church, the seal of confession is never to be broken. To do so brings an automatic excommunication, reversible only by the Pope. I know I wondered about the possibility of Stillington receiving the information about the Pre-Contract via a deathbed confession, but is there a difference between that and a deathbed admission? Breaking the former would involve imperiling one's soul, but the latter? Would a failure to denounce Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville as bigamous be a sin?

Doug

On Thursday, June 7, 2018, 2:40 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

If Richard and Buckingham had been killed, other council members could not have continued to hold out against the Woodvilles whatever their personal preference. On what basis could they then oppose them? If we assume the Queen's plans would have included eliminating Richard, Buckingham and possibly others with Plantagenet blood,, freeing Rivers, Vaughan and Grey and bringing troops up to London, then we would have a situation where the king was reunited with his former, trusted, guardians an d no one else left except the elderly cardinal with any natural claim to exercise power for the under-aged king - that was the critical part of the plan. The old royal blood of this realm' was on the hit list for precisely this reason.

The coronation would by then have been all prepared. The king gets crowned and Bob's your uncle. He gets who he wants running things for him , and the support of his remaining relatives - the maternal ones. If anyone else, such as Hastings, could have got the upper hand against the young king's wishes in those circumstances, it would have been without any constitutional excuse and in the full knowledge that they would be doomed in 3 or 4 years when Ed took hold of the reins of government for himself.

Marie

Marie

On Thursday, June 7, 2018, 2:40 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

If Richard and Buckingham had been killed, other council members could not have continued to hold out against the Woodvilles whatever their personal preference. On what basis could they then oppose them? If we assume the Queen's plans would have included eliminating Richard, Buckingham and possibly others with Plantagenet blood,, freeing Rivers, Vaughan and Grey and bringing troops up to London, then we would have a situation where the king was reunited with his former, trusted, guardians an d no one else left except the elderly cardinal with any natural claim to exercise power for the under-aged king - that was the critical part of the plan. The old royal blood of this realm' was on the hit list for precisely this reason.

The coronation would by then have been all prepared. The king gets crowned and Bob's your uncle. He gets who he wants running things for him , and the support of his remaining relatives - the maternal ones. If anyone else, such as Hastings, could have got the upper hand against the young king's wishes in those circumstances, it would have been without any constitutional excuse and in the full knowledge that they would be doomed in 3 or 4 years when Ed took hold of the reins of government for himself.

Marie

Marie

I agree this stacks up if young Ed liked Rivers or his mother. But the only precedent we have for this is Isabella and Mortimer and look what that young Ed thought!

On Thursday, June 7, 2018, 2:40 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

If Richard and Buckingham had been killed, other council members could not have continued to hold out against the Woodvilles whatever their personal preference. On what basis could they then oppose them? If we assume the Queen's plans would have included eliminating Richard, Buckingham and possibly others with Plantagenet blood,, freeing Rivers, Vaughan and Grey and bringing troops up to London, then we would have a situation where the king was reunited with his former, trusted, guardians an d no one else left except the elderly cardinal with any natural claim to exercise power for the under-aged king - that was the critical part of the plan. The old royal blood of this realm' was on the hit list for precisely this reason.

The coronation would by then have been all prepared. The king gets crowned and Bob's your uncle. He gets who he wants running things for him , and the support of his remaining relatives - the maternal ones. If anyone else, such as Hastings, could have got the upper hand against the young king's wishes in those circumstances, it would have been without any constitutional excuse and in the full knowledge that they would be doomed in 3 or 4 years when Ed took hold of the reins of government for himself.

Marie

Marie

I agree this stacks up if young Ed liked Rivers or his mother. But the only precedent we have for this is Isabella and Mortimer and look what that young Ed thought!

On Thursday, June 7, 2018, 2:40 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

If Richard and Buckingham had been killed, other council members could not have continued to hold out against the Woodvilles whatever their personal preference. On what basis could they then oppose them? If we assume the Queen's plans would have included eliminating Richard, Buckingham and possibly others with Plantagenet blood,, freeing Rivers, Vaughan and Grey and bringing troops up to London, then we would have a situation where the king was reunited with his former, trusted, guardians an d no one else left except the elderly cardinal with any natural claim to exercise power for the under-aged king - that was the critical part of the plan. The old royal blood of this realm' was on the hit list for precisely this reason.

The coronation would by then have been all prepared. The king gets crowned and Bob's your uncle. He gets who he wants running things for him , and the support of his remaining relatives - the maternal ones. If anyone else, such as Hastings, could have got the upper hand against the young king's wishes in those circumstances, it would have been without any constitutional excuse and in the full knowledge that they would be doomed in 3 or 4 years when Ed took hold of the reins of government for himself.

Marie

Marie

Rivers, Vaughan and Grey were held in different castles - sheriff Hutton, pontefract and Middleham respectively.
They would have been handed over after Richard's death just like Warwick and EoY from Sheriff Hutton snd John of Gloucester from Calais in 1485. R. would have been attainted and his castles confiscated.
Marie

Hilary wrote:

"There are enormous gaps in the timeline aren't there? So much for the story that Rivers et al were executed quickly without trial. And young Edward seems to have put in only a couple of appearances - once when he entered London and getting on for three weeks' later when they swore oaths of fealty to him? What was he doing the rest of the time? You would have thought people would have written about seeing him?

I agree with what you say about the Precontract. I sometimes wonder whether it was a machination on the part of the Council to get a 'better king'; apart from Edward III, minority rules had always been disastrous and the Woodvilles hadn't done much to enhance the prospects of what was to come. There was after all at this point no legal framework for the succession and, as we've said before, the wishes of a previous ruler died with him. In the previous couple of hundred years the succession had been broken as many times as it had been adhered to."

Doug here:

Rather than Council machinations, perhaps the delay was due to assembling either the papers or the people necessary to provide confirmation of the Pre-Contract? I suggest that as a possibility because there isn't, as far as I know, any evidence that the Pre-Contract was "made up" by members of the Council. After all, HT made no effort to refute the contents of Titulus Regius, he simply quashed it. Unread, to boot! Then there'd be the problem of trying to keep all those involved in the secret quiet! Nor, to the best of my knowledge, when plotting rebellion neither Buckingham or Morton ever claim Titulus Regius was a "put up" job.

Hilary continued:
"As to whether the Precontract existed, given Edward's other behaviour, I'm becoming more convinced that it did, but whether some of the Council picked up a hint and pursued it more rigorously I'm not sure. We know Stillington was in prime spy territory, both at St Martins and with his connections in the South West and he could have become aware of the rumour. I have Stillington as a Yorkshireman, whose relations moved in Richard's affinity. It would certainly not do him or them any harm if Richard became king.

As Doug says, so many questions - and so many networks."

Doug here:

If I understand the position of the Roman Catholic Church, the seal of confession is never to be broken. To do so brings an automatic excommunication, reversible only by the Pope. I know I wondered about the possibility of Stillington receiving the information about the Pre-Contract via a deathbed confession, but is there a difference between that and a deathbed admission? Breaking the former would involve imperiling one's soul, but the latter? Would a failure to denounce Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville as bigamous be a sin?

Doug

Marie wrote:

To return to the plot itself, and where the precontract fits in.. The other possibility is that the Tower plot had nothing to do with the precontract, and that it was the plot which brought about the disclosure of the precontract, and not the other way about. The June plot would have brought home just how dangerous Richard's situation was long-term (i.e. once Edward V was ruling in his own right), and so provided a much greater impetus for anyone who knew of an impediment to his kingship to come forward.

I personally find it very difficult to believe that the Queen could have known of any challenge to Edward V's right to the crown when she handed over his younger br other to Richard on 16 June.

Doug here:

First off, my apologies for snipping so much of your post and taking so long to comment! The delay was due to the shock of the idea that whatever happened at the Council meeting on 13 June wasn't because of the Pre-Contract, but rather that it was a separate plot that, upon it being foiled, led to the revealing of the Pre-Contract. To be honest, while I'd never considered that possibility, it most certainly fits with what not only what we actually know happened, but also the known actions of those involved  especially Elizabeth Woodville.

I'm now again wondering if the delay(?) in revealing the Pre-Contract wasn't to do with the fact that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was obtained via the confessional or perhaps a deathbed confession? The only reason I bring this subject up again is that two months passed between the death of Edward IV and the Pre-Contract was revealed, so there must have been some reason for that delay. Otherwise, why wouldn't it have been brought before the Council immediately after Richard arrived in London in early May? Do we know when Bishop Stillington arrived in London? Perhaps there's a clue there?

Doug

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

Hi Hilary,
I don't think Edward III's a particularly useful comparison because Isabella and Mortimer had murdered his father.
Mancini and More both indicate that EV objected strongly to the arrests of Rivers and Vaughan. And we have no reason to suppose he would dislike his mother. These were the people, along with his dead father, who had brought him up and given him whatever love he had received. That had surely been the whole point of the Queen putting him under Rivers' control. Richard would surely have had his work cut out if he was to replace them in the boy's affections in any short space of time after such an unpromising start at Stony Stratford.

"My feeling about the precontract is that Eleanor simply hadn't talked. It would have been more than her life was worth to spread that story, and the same goes for any close family member she might have confided in. The revelation came as such a surprise that no writer suggested that it had been known of, or rumoured, in the past. Warwick had evidently had no inkling so was forced to try to get the Woodville marriage annulled on grounds of witchcraft; Mancini thought the lady was a foreign princess; and Henry VII seems to have believed he had a good chance of consigning Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR."

Carol responds:

I agree. As for Henry thinking he had consigned Eleanor to oblivion by destroying TR, he very nearly succeeded. If it weren't for the Croyland continuator preserving the Three Estates' petition to Richard and Buck recording it, no one would have had any idea of the legitimacy of Richard's claim and we might all believe the Tudor version of events (or at least it would be much more difficult to refute it).

Carol

Hi Hilary,
It would have been 1485 with knobs on. The coup would have preceded any revelation of the precontract, any claim being put forward by Richard. In those circumstances the game was solely about who had control of Edward V. No one in the North could hold out against the king's current ministers. No one without royal blood could have wrested the young king from his relatives and hoped to survive into old age.
Richard's son, just turning 7, wouldn't be able to investigate his cousin's credentials and put forward his own claim. In 1485 there were clear alternatives with Warwick and Lincoln, but HVII got hold of Warwick very easily. Take Richard out of the picture and there was no leadership in the North other than Northumberland and the Stanleys; that proved a fatal problem in Henry VII's reign when there was actually a dynastic alternative. Continued resistance after Richard and Buckingham were eliminated would not have been possible. I'm sure the queen would have got hold of the Duchess of Gloucester and her young ward the Earl of Warwick as well.

Doug maybe the events of 13th June spurred someone, no idea who, into telling what they knew about the

Doug asked:

"Do we know when Bishop Stillington arrived in London? Perhaps there's a clue there?"

Carol responds:

Interesting question. Maybe he was in York and got word of the (second) plot against Richard and Buckingham after Richard sent his messages? If so, he probably would have arrived in London after the execution of Hastings, just about the time when Richard's younger nephew was taken (willingly) from sanctuary. But I have another question.

Marie, do you know who Edward's confessor was and whether he was among the signers of the petition of the Three Estates and/or Richard's only Parliament, which passed the Titulus Regius? He need not have violated the sanctity of confession by speaking up, but he surely would have supported the petition/TR if he knew the precontract story to be true and opposed it if he didn't. (Unless Edward had imperiled his soul by not confessing and the evidence was incontrovertible, in which case, again, he would surely have supported Richard's kingship.)

Carol

Hi Hilary,
I agree about the Shaa sermon.

As regards the handover of Rivers et al, i'm afraid I'm not really following. The Woodvilles had effectively controlled king and council before Richard and Buckingham arrived, with only some opposition led by Hastings. Had they succeeded in getting rid of Richard and Buck ( so that Richard was actually dead, not dead'), and getting Hastings on side, they would have been in completes control of king and government, particularly if the newly crowned Edward chose them for his advisors, as they seem to have believed he would. There was no one else who would have been able to oppose them.
They would not be short of men because they could do everything in the king's name, including raising troops. They would be the king to all intents and purposes. They would have control of the Great Seal and could simply send men north with royal warrants demanding the handover of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey. No one would oppose such warrants in 1483 any more than they did in 1485. Few people are prepared to die for a dead man, no matter how much they liked him, except the odd close friend. People have to protect their own families first. This is how regime changes at that period always managed to take root.

And if the whole thing could have been done before word of the coup reached the North then the constables of the castles might even have believed they were acting on Richard's orders.

But since the situation is hypothetical we can't prove what would have happened. The Woodvilles would not have been stupid, however, to imagine that the coup would do the intended job. Not that I think they were terribly bright, mind.

Marie

Doug, I think he spent most of his time in London at St Martin's where he was still Dean? He also bought property there from William Benstede at about this time. I doubt he travelled much to York or indeed to Bath and Wells, though the assumption that he didn't go there seems to be based on one minute in the Wells Register which actually said he was absent because he was 'in the far part of his diocese'.
Carol, Marie can probably help more but one confessor, and that of EW was Father John Ingleby, brother of William Ingleby, one of Richard's Squires of the Body. William was nephew by marriage to Stillington. Ingleby later became Bishop of Llandaff under HT.
BTW the Wiki article on him is wrong. He was the son of John Ingleby and Margery Strangeways. We know this because his father presented him as a 'clericus' Freeman of York. The older John did not desert his family and move to a monastery. He died. Yet more myth. H
On Saturday, 9 June 2018, 17:17:25 BST, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Doug asked:

"Do we know when Bishop Stillington arrived in London? Perhaps there's a clue there?"

Carol responds:

Interesting question. Maybe he was in York and got word of the (second) plot against Richard and Buckingham after Richard sent his messages? If so, he probably would have arrived in London after the execution of Hastings, just about the time when Richard's younger nephew was taken (willingly) from sanctuary. But I have another question.

Marie, do you know who Edward's confessor was and whether he was among the signers of the petition of the Three Estates and/or Richard's only Parliament, which passed the Titulus Regius? He need not have violated the sanctity of confession by speaking up, but he surely would have supported the petition/TR if he knew the precontract story to be true and opposed it if he didn't. (Unless Edward had imperiled his soul by not confessing and the evidence was incontrovertible, in which case, again, he would surely have supported Richard's kingship.)

Carol

Hilary,

Presuming general knowledge of the Pre-Contract didn't surface until after 13 June, your scenario makes a great deal of sense. Whether we go on the presumption that it was Stillington who brought the matter to the attention of the Council or someone else, the subject surely wouldn't be raised until/unless the person who brought the matter up had something to support his claim, would it?

Which would also allow for the delay between when everyone began gathering in London in late April, early May and bringing the matter up. If the supporting evidence was from a person, it would take time to get that person to London. The person might take a bit of convincing to tell what they knew. After all, just by making the claim that Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legitimate made every Woodville that person's enemy! The same would apply if the evidence consisted of a sworn statement, or even statements from members of Eleanor's family. She may have been dead, but they weren't and, if the statements weren't accepted by the Council, they'd just made mortal enemies of the new King and his family!

As you say, going through the coronation ceremony and coming up against the phrase "your undoubted king" might very well have been the tipping point - for someone.

Doug

Hilary wrote:
"Just a bit more about the Precontract and why it possibly happened when it did.
My recollection (if correct) is that on the day of the Hastings incident in the Tower, the Council was split. Part of it was back at Westminster planning the Coronation? That was why I assumed it was a planned assassination of Richard, not a coup, because a coup would surely have got them all at once.
However to move on; we can take a guess at who would be at Westminster. Howard and Bourchier definitely, one was organising it, the other performing it. Probably Suffolk and Arundel, as senior important participants would be there, and perhaps Rotherham and one or two other senior bishops with particular expertise, like Stillington?
Now tucked away in our ancient rituals is often an important legal element. In a wedding it's the 'Mr Rochester' legal impediment bit, which most people have a bit of a laugh about but it's extremely serious. And it struck me that there's a similar moment in the coronation. That is when the so-far uncrowned sovereign is presented to all sides of the congregation in turn and goes something like 'Behold Queen Elizabeth, your undoubted Queen' and the congregation acknowledge their assent.
Now if there was someone at that planning meeting who knew that young Edward was not the undoubted king (because that person knew of the Precontract or the possible existence of it) then it would be an enormous matter of conscience to let him be presented in this way in the House of God at the most sacred ceremony. I do just wonder whether that, coupled also later with the events happening at the Tower which might have sparked at least an investigation.
Just a thought."

Carol,

Although I agree that Shaa was referring to Edward IV's children, it's also possible to make a case that he was referring to Edward IV depending on how one interprets "taking root." If you view Edward IV's reign as being irregular because of his illegitimacy, then allowing his children, even if legitimate, to inherit would be allowing him, through them, to "take root."

Rather a tortuous bit of reasoning, in my opinion, but a lot of people seem to have fallen for it. Can't disparage the Tudors, now can we?

Doug

Hilary wrote:

One small thing, Archbishop Bourchier had more than an ecclesiastical interest in these events, didn't he? He was great grandson of Edward III through Thomas of Woodstock. And no I don't think at 67 he was out to take the throne :) But I do think he'd have a view on the Blood Royal.

Marie replies:

Hi Hilary. Not sure whether you were talking here about (a) deciding what to do about the precontract, or (b) how to proceed in the event of the Woodvilles and their allies taking Richard out.

Even when the Archbishop of C. was not a member of the blood royal, he took precedence over all the nobles except those of the Blood. He also had the right - it was not just a tradition - to crown the king, which meant that (in theory at least) he could decide the succession. Cardinal Bourchier was, as you say, even better placed than most archbishops in that he was of the blood royal himself.

His position meant that, constitutionally speaking, he had a better claim than the Woodvilles to oversee the government until such time as the young king and his paternal uncle arrived in the capital, and that is why Richard wrote to him from Northampton asking him to take charge of the Great Seal, and why he seems to have chaired the council meetings when Richard first arrived in the capital, before he was formally recognised as Protector.

But he was an elderly man - noted in 1470 as aged 60, so 72/73 in Edward V's reign - and he does not seem to have stood up to the Woodvilles until that point.

He could in theory have simply refused to crown Edward after the precontract was revealed, and forced his deposition in that way, or refused to crown Richard and thereby safeguarded Edward's position, but in reality he seems to have meekly crowned whoever he was asked to.

Had Richard and Buckingham been eliminated, it would almost certainly have been either just before the coronation or between the coronation and the opening of parliament (the parliament that was set to extend the protectorate until Edward came of age). So at that point the Woodvilles would have been able to fall back on the constitutional precedent that they had been planning to use all along, that is, to invoke the statutes of the 1420s which had ruled that the protectorate should continue only until such time as the King was crowned on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the dignity of a crowned king to be ruled over in that way. Had they got their timing right, then all that would have been necessary for them to retain power would be for young Edward to surround himself with them and follow their advice.

We know that Richard became aware of the Woodville plot, whatever it was, on 10th June; at that point he may have believed that the date planned for the coup was still some way off as he sent all the way to Yorkshire for armed back-up; and it certainly would surely have been easier for the Woodvilles to attack Richard and Buckingham, and seize/ rescue the young king, at Westminster when they transferred there for the coronation, rather than trying to organise a coup inside the Tower, and with over a week to go before Edward was safely crowned.

But by the morning of 11 June at the latest I'm sure the Woodvilles knew their cover was blown. That would explain the botched coup in the Tower fully eight days before the scheduled date for the start of the coronation proceedings.

Marie

Doug wrote:

Your sentence:
"In a nutshell, probably no priest, and certainly no point in any witness
coming forward to challenge the king if Eleanor was not prepared to back
them up."
sums up the problem very nicely, doesn't it?
My first thoughts on reading that sentence was that "probably no priest"
meant that the only ones who knew of the marriage would have been Edward,
Eleanor and anyone they might have told.

Marie replies:

No priest doesn't necessarily mean no witness. In fact, people seem to have been extremely well aware of the fact that a clandestine marriage could only be successfully claimed and enforced in a church court if there were at least two witnesses (which is presumably the origin of the current arrangement of having the register signed by two lay witnesses). The marriage would be valid without the witnesses, but unenforceable if one party later chose to deny it.

Hilary wrote:

One small thing, Archbishop Bourchier had more than an ecclesiastical interest in these events, didn't he? He was great grandson of Edward III through Thomas of Woodstock. And no I don't think at 67 he was out to take the throne :) But I do think he'd have a view on the Blood Royal.

Marie replies:

Hi Hilary. Not sure whether you were talking here about (a) deciding what to do about the precontract, or (b) how to proceed in the event of the Woodvilles and their allies taking Richard out.

Even when the Archbishop of C. was not a member of the blood royal, he took precedence over all the nobles except those of the Blood. He also had the right - it was not just a tradition - to crown the king, which meant that (in theory at least) he could decide the succession. Cardinal Bourchier was, as you say, even better placed than most archbishops in that he was of the blood royal himself.

His position meant that, constitutionally speaking, he had a better claim than the Woodvilles to oversee the government until such time as the young king and his paternal uncle arrived in the capital, and that is why Richard wrote to him from Northampton asking him to take charge of the Great Seal, and why he seems to have chaired the council meetings when Richard first arrived in the capital, before he was formally recognised as Protector.

But he was an elderly man - noted in 1470 as aged 60, so 72/73 in Edward V's reign - and he does not seem to have stood up to the Woodvilles until that point.

He could in theory have simply refused to crown Edward after the precontract was revealed, and forced his deposition in that way, or refused to crown Richard and thereby safeguarded Edward's position, but in reality he seems to have meekly crowned whoever he was asked to.

Had Richard and Buckingham been eliminated, it would almost certainly have been either just before the coronation or between the coronation and the opening of parliament (the parliament that was set to extend the protectorate until Edward came of age). So at that point the Woodvilles would have been able to fall back on the constitutional precedent that they had been planning to use all along, that is, to invoke the statutes of the 1420s which had ruled that the protectorate should continue only until such time as the King was crowned on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the dignity of a crowned king to be ruled over in that way. Had they got their timing right, then all that would have been necessary for them to retain power would be for young Edward to surround himself with them and follow their advice.

We know that Richard became aware of the Woodville plot, whatever it was, on 10th June; at that point he may have believed that the date planned for the coup was still some way off as he sent all the way to Yorkshire for armed back-up; and it certainly would surely have been easier for the Woodvilles to attack Richard and Buckingham, and seize/ rescue the young king, at Westminster when they transferred there for the coronation, rather than trying to organise a coup inside the Tower, and with over a week to go before Edward was safely crowned.

But by the morning of 11 June at the latest I'm sure the Woodvilles knew their cover was blown. That would explain the botched coup in the Tower fully eight days before the scheduled date for the start of the coronation proceedings.

Marie

Hilary wrote:I agree it's difficult to hypothosise and I do think there was a plot. Who do you think they used to organise it? EW was in sanctuary, 3 were in prison miles away. Dorset was somewhere but hardly a heavyweight or a military man. And Richard must surely have had spies watching EW. It has a ring of Mary Queen of Scots - messages going out in barrels. Richard Haute's name is sometimes confused with that of Vaughan as one of those executed. Do you think he was involved?What I should have said was that I was trying to illustrate that the plot has the same botched features and outcome as the Grafton ambush - it must have been botched, it was discovered. This tells me two things. Firstly EW and her family were not over-bright and secondly, by October we see the interjection of much better strategists - MB and Morton?
Marie reflects:I think they had quite a lot of support. Dorset may not have been a heavyweight but he probably had a lot of contacts in the South-west. Sir Edward was in Brittany, and might have been angling for Breton support. Richard Haute may have been involved, but more importantly there were Woodville allies in the heart of the council. Clever Morton was involved in this one - that is why he was arrested on 13 June. So was the former Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham. EW's former Treasurer, John Forster, was also involved although apparently not present in the Tower that morning, and was arrested at his Hertfordshire home the next day. Mistress Shore was carrying messages, and there is a likelihood that MB was also involved even though she was probably playing a double game at this point. The original plan may very well have involved an armed rising, or at least large numbers of soldiers, as this would make sense of Richard's letters north asked for men defensibly arrayed.I suspect the thing went wrong because someone informed and the coup had to be brought forward in a hurry.Marie

Hilary wrote:I agree it's difficult to hypothosise and I do think there was a plot. Who do you think they used to organise it? EW was in sanctuary, 3 were in prison miles away. Dorset was somewhere but hardly a heavyweight or a military man. And Richard must surely have had spies watching EW. It has a ring of Mary Queen of Scots - messages going out in barrels. Richard Haute's name is sometimes confused with that of Vaughan as one of those executed. Do you think he was involved?What I should have said was that I was trying to illustrate that the plot has the same botched features and outcome as the Grafton ambush - it must have been botched, it was discovered. This tells me two things. Firstly EW and her family were not over-bright and secondly, by October we see the interjection of much better strategists - MB and Morton?
Marie reflects:I think they had quite a lot of support. Dorset may not have been a heavyweight but he probably had a lot of contacts in the South-west. Sir Edward was in Brittany, and might have been angling for Breton support. Richard Haute may have been involved, but more importantly there were Woodville allies in the heart of the council. Clever Morton was involved in this one - that is why he was arrested on 13 June. So was the former Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham. EW's former Treasurer, John Forster, was also involved although apparently not present in the Tower that morning, and was arrested at his Hertfordshire home the next day. Mistress Shore was carrying messages, and there is a likelihood that MB was also involved even though she was probably playing a double game at this point. The original plan may very well have involved an armed rising, or at least large numbers of soldiers, as this would make sense of Richard's letters north asked for men defensibly arrayed.I suspect the thing went wrong because someone informed and the coup had to be brought forward in a hurry.Marie

Doug wrote:

Your sentence:
"In a nutshell, probably no priest, and certainly no point in any witness
coming forward to challenge the king if Eleanor was not prepared to back
them up."
sums up the problem very nicely, doesn't it?
My first thoughts on reading that sentence was that "probably no priest"
meant that the only ones who knew of the marriage would have been Edward,
Eleanor and anyone they might have told.

Marie replies:

No priest doesn't necessarily mean no witness. In fact, people seem to have been extremely well aware of the fact that a clandestine marriage could only be successfully claimed and enforced in a church court if there were at least two witnesses (which is presumably the origin of the current arrangement of having the register signed by two lay witnesses). The marriage would be valid without the witnesses, but unenforceable if one party later chose to deny it.

Marie wrote:

No priest doesn't necessarily mean no witness. In fact, people seem to have been extremely well aware of the fact that a clandestine marriage could only be successfully claimed and enforced in a church court if there were at least two witnesses (which is presumably the origin of the current arrangement of having the register signed by two lay witnesses). The marriage would be valid without the witnesses, but unenforceable if one party later chose to deny it.

Doug here:

So either one, or even both, of those two likely witnesses might have been the source of the rumors of the marriage? And then, after Edward's death made it a matter of even greater importance (and safer), one or both of those witnesses confirmed that they had indeed participated in a marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor?

And we don't know whether the witnesses were confidantes of Edward and Eleanor or servants. I make a differentiation because I don't doubt the word of a member of the nobility, or even the gentry, would have been taken at greater value than that of a servant. And, while I seriously doubt Edward ever told anyone, there'd be no reason for Eleanor not to confide in a close friend or relative. Possibly even providing the names or positions of the witnesses as a means of verifying that she wasn't just spinning a tale.

Which would mean, or so it seems to me, that once anyone started digging into the matter there might be quite a bit of confirming evidence. Nor would there be the same amount of danger in now talking about what one knew.

Doug

Marie wrote:

No priest doesn't necessarily mean no witness. In fact, people seem to have been extremely well aware of the fact that a clandestine marriage could only be successfully claimed and enforced in a church court if there were at least two witnesses (which is presumably the origin of the current arrangement of having the register signed by two lay witnesses). The marriage would be valid without the witnesses, but unenforceable if one party later chose to deny it.

Doug here:

So either one, or even both, of those two likely witnesses might have been the source of the rumors of the marriage? And then, after Edward's death made it a matter of even greater importance (and safer), one or both of those witnesses confirmed that they had indeed participated in a marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor?

And we don't know whether the witnesses were confidantes of Edward and Eleanor or servants. I make a differentiation because I don't doubt the word of a member of the nobility, or even the gentry, would have been taken at greater value than that of a servant. And, while I seriously doubt Edward ever told anyone, there'd be no reason for Eleanor not to confide in a close friend or relative. Possibly even providing the names or positions of the witnesses as a means of verifying that she wasn't just spinning a tale.

Which would mean, or so it seems to me, that once anyone started digging into the matter there might be quite a bit of confirming evidence. Nor would there be the same amount of danger in now talking about what one knew.

Doug

It sounds quite possible to me Hilary. I wonder how long it would take Anne travel from Middleham? Obviously she wouldn't have travelled as quickly as Richard and his men.Presumably a messenger had been sent to tell her to come to London and I don't suppose that she would have left immediately after hearing the message but maybe she was already on her way when Richard discovered a plot on the 10th or 11th of June.

I seem to recall that Marie said that Richard Haute was arrested the next day - and Thomas Stanley? Was this the bit where he was told to 'look to his wife'? I'll have a look about attendees at the Tower meeting -presumably they come from More and Croyland?
Incidentally, Stanley's interesting isn't he because he seems to have remained close to Richard in a post where firstly he must have known all about the evidence given to the Council on the Precontract and secondly on the eventual whereabouts of the boys (that's if Richard himself knew). I agree with Marie who said we should perhaps pay attention to people's actions after Bosworth because you can be sure that if Stanley knew so did MB.
BTW on the 'Strawberry' thing which is so improbable it's probably true, where would Morton get them from? I didn't know he had a house in London (though Stillington did)? Would he be nipping off to Lambeth Palace gardens which would mean going up the river and crossing it; quite a journey? Or, is it just possible that he had a house in the vicinity of the Tower, which is why the meeting was held there? H
On Saturday, 23 June 2018, 18:29:24 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It sounds quite possible to me Hilary. I wonder how long it would take Anne travel from Middleham? Obviously she wouldn't have travelled as quickly as Richard and his men.Presumably a messenger had been sent to tell her to come to London and I don't suppose that she would have left immediately after hearing the message but maybe she was already on her way when Richard discovered a plot on the 10th or 11th of June.

Just really quickly, flying off tomorrow,

Anne arrived in London on 5 June.

Marie

On Sunday, June 24, 2018, 7:05 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Just really quickly, flying off tomorrow,

Anne arrived in London on 5 June.

Marie

Wasn't there something about St Etheldreda's being nearby and that Morton had a house there? I may have not have remembered this correctly but I think that there is some connection. The strawberry story could well be just that, especially when you think of Amy Licence's theory that Richard was allergic to strawberries!

Tom Chivers

St Etheldreda's Roman Catholic Church is located in Ely Place, London

Thanks Mary I will have a look If he did it would surely be in his Will. There was a big fuss about Stillington's London property so I'm sure someone would have wanted to acquire it. H
On Sunday, 24 June 2018, 15:23:42 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Wasn't there something about St Etheldreda's being nearby and that Morton had a house there? I may have not have remembered this correctly but I think that there is some connection. The strawberry story could well be just that, especially when you think of Amy Licence's theory that Richard was allergic to strawberries!

Hilary wrote:

"BTW on the 'Strawberry' thing which is so improbable it's probably true, where would Morton get them from? I didn't know he had a house in London (though Stillington did)? Would he be nipping off to Lambeth Palace gardens which would mean going up the river and crossing it; quite a journey? Or, is it just possible that he had a house in the vicinity of the Tower, which is why the meeting was held there?"

Carol responds:

Unless the strawberries were mentioned by Morton (I almost typed "Moron") to More, somehow vividly remembered all those years later, they're almost certainly fictional as no other writer mentions them--a seemingly trivial detail that had some symbolic significance immediately comprehensible to the late medieval mind--and completely lost on us.

It does seem, though, that he had a house nearby as, according to Mancini, he and the other conspirators were meeting in each other's houses--and yet, somehow, there was no conspiracy and Hastings, Morton, et al. were innocent victims of Richard's ambition?

BTW, the reference to Stanley as one of those involved in the skirmish is a late addition. It's possible--I never thought of it before--that he helped arrest those who tried to attack Richard, an action turned around by later chroniclers who wanted to portray him as a Tudor loyalist even before Tudor entered the picture. He did support Richard in the so-called Buckingham's Rebellion and was later made Lord High Constable, which seems highly improbable if he had been one of the plotters or even suspected of being one. (Being Stanley, he might have nursed a grudge at the unfairness of the suspicion.) Nor would Richard have placed MB in her husband's custody if he (Richard) didn't trust him (Stanley) completely. But, then, he also trusted Buckingham. I do think, though, that at this point, Richard seemed to be the likely winner in any conflict and therefore the man Stanley would support.

Carol

Hi,
Just picking up an old post which suggested I might have said Stanley and Haute were arrested the day after the Tower meeting. Wasn't me. We have discussed the evidence for Stanley's arrest before and my view is that it is far from clear. There is no earlier source for it than Rous, and Stanley and his wife were both in high favour with Richard in late June and early July. I think, from memory, that Rous might also mention Haute having been arrested, but if so I'm pretty sure this was at Stony Stratford.
The only person we know was arrested the day after the Tower meeting was Sir John Forster.

Also, just regarding the split council - I think the common non-conspiracy interpretation is that the meetings at Westminster under Chancellor Russell were for day-today business, particularly preps for the coronation, and that such splitting into separate committees was probably quite normal. I can't really comment other than to say that such splitting of busy committees into sub-committees to concentrate on different things is pretty normal today, indeed almost inevitable.
Also, Edward V is unlikely to have attended many council meetings at Westminster for the same reason that he was not residing there, ie because his mother's presence in the sanctuary created a security problem.
Certainly, with the Chancery offices and storage being close to Westminster Palace, it might have been awkward, not to say risky, for the not-terribly-mobile John Russell and his team to keep hopping in boats every day to go backwards and forwards from to the Tower (on the other side of the Bridge) with the Great Seal and all their papers.

Marie

Hi Hilary,
The reason for lack of edicts from the Tower in the CPR is that the patents were issued under the Great Seal, I.e. actually by the Chancellor. You get a different picture if you look at the Privy Seal and Signet warrants on which the letters patent were based - these are the C81 series in TNA and were used by JAH and Rhoda Edwards for Edward's and Richard's itineraries as king, so if you look out the c81 refs in those itineraries you will see where the King actually authorised these edicts from. There are several from the Tower during Edward iv's reign, though not a huge number.
Marie

Marie
Concerning Lord Thomas; might the idea of his being "arrested" have come
from his simply being questioned the nest day? Perhaps about a person, or
even people, he had interactions with who were connected to Hastings or
Morton? Of course, if the first source is Rous, it's possible Rous was
trying to fix any opposition to Richard that Stanley may have had as early
as possible so as to explain away the participation of Lord Stanley and his
wife in the coronation ceremonies.
Concerning your post to Hilary about edicts; it can't be that all this time
I've been mistaken about the processes involved when a king "signed"
something? Say it isn't so!
So whenever we see a document marked as being signed at, say Westminster,
that doesn't mean the monarch is necessarily even in London; all it means is
that the person holding the Seal under which the document is issued was?
Would it be safe to say that a document issued under either the Great Seal
or the Privy Seal would indicate that the Lord Chancellor was wherever a
document was issued under the Great Seal, with the same applying to a
document issued by the Keeper of the Privy Seal? Would trying to trace where
the Keeper of the Privy Seal was be a good way to also trace wherever a
particular monarch was? Or wouldn't the Keeper of the Privy Seal be with the
monarch almost continuously?
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Hi,
Just picking up an old post which suggested I might have said Stanley and
Haute were arrested the day after the Tower meeting. Wasn't me. We have
discussed the evidence for Stanley's arrest before and my view is that it is
far from clear. There is no earlier source for it than Rous, and Stanley and
his wife were both in high favour with Richard in late June and early July.
I think, from memory, that Rous might also mention Haute having been
arrested, but if so I'm pretty sure this was at Stony Stratford.
The only person we know was arrested the day after the Tower meeting was Sir
John Forster.
Also, just regarding the split council - I think the common non-conspiracy
interpretation is that the meetings at Westminster under Chancellor Russell
were for day-today business, particularly preps for the coronation, and that
such splitting into separate committees was probably quite normal. I can't
really comment other than to say that such splitting of busy committees into
sub-committees to concentrate on different things is pretty normal today,
indeed almost inevitable.
Also, Edward V is unlikely to have attended many council meetings at
Westminster for the same reason that he was not residing there, ie because
his mother's presence in the sanctuary created a security problem.
Certainly, with the Chancery offices and storage being close to Westminster
Palace, it might have been awkward, not to say risky, for the
not-terribly-mobile John Russell and his team to keep hopping in boats every
day to go backwards and forwards from to the Tower (on the other side of the
Bridge) with the Great Seal and all their papers."

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

Hi Doug,
I don't think Rous said the arrest was the next day. He specifically states that Stanley was slightly hurt and arrested at the meeting. I think there are two possibilities. One, as you say, is that he may have picked up a yarn that Stanley was putting about after Bosworth to place hinself on the right' side. The other is that he was arrested but his arrest was viewed as a mistake and he was very quickly released. There is a source - can't remember which- that names the men who carried out the arrests and identifies one of them as a Harrington. So if this is accurate then the arrest could have been made by Harrington for his own reasons. But if it's correct it's surprising it's not mentioned in any earlier source- Crowland, Mancini or Stallworthe's letter to Stonor, so I'm very sceptical.
Marie

Re the edicts' I don't totally follow. There was a system for letters patent - the king sent a dated warrant to the chancellor commanding him to issue a letter under the Great Seal saying (and then gave the wording- usually starting with the latin for The king to all to whom....') and had it sent to the Chancellor. The Chancellor marked it up as received, issued the patent as instructed, dated with the date of issue (not the date of the warrant) and sealed it. There was no pretence that the king was present at the sealing.

There are, however, some documents where such pretence did occur and the Chancellor was standing in for the king, ie a very few instances of royal warrants issued in very different places on the same date, one of which places was where the king was and the other was where the Chancellor was (either Westminster or one of his episcopal palaces). Also a lot of diplomatic edicts evidently agreed by the King at long distance because we know he was far from the capital at the time, but stated as having been signed by him at Westminster.

I guess the King just couldn't do everything and had to rely on his top ministers. King's Bench records are another pretence of course - all cases are stated to have been heard Coram rege' -before the king- but the king almost never attended the court in real life but relied on his justices to act on his behalf.

If you check out JAH's itinerary of EIV you can see these discrepancies- he has highlighted them but without comment.

Marie

It would be good if you could get the quotation. The warrants in the C81s are mostly sealed with the Privy Seal, which I assume is the P.S. in the CPR, and I agree that since they were mostly very routine the King probably left it to the keeper of the seal to decide and didn't waste his own time with it. This, I imagine, accounts for the few warrants issued away from where the King actually was. There are very few of these, however, so possibly Edward even took an interest in day to day PS office business.
The remaining c81s are sealed with the Signet. I would imagine these are the ones marked K in the CPR but I don't know. If they are, then even though personally authorised by the king it was not over the Chancellor's shoulder - I.e. there was still a warrant. A very, very, very occasional patent is marked in the rolls as having been authorised by the King verbally. This is quite unusual and tends to be in times of crisis.
Remember the King and Chancellor were by no means always tog.

Hilary,

Was there any construction going on at Windsor that might have made the place, if not uninhabitable, then certainly less desirable?

According to my trusty atlas, Reading is about 16 miles from Windsor, so are we certain it was Edward who was at Reading and not, say, his Lord Chancellor?

Doug

Do you mean the quotation about the warrants Marie? H
On Sunday, 15 July 2018, 10:54:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

It would be good if you could get the quotation. The warrants in the C81s are mostly sealed with the Privy Seal, which I assume is the P.S. in the CPR, and I agree that since they were mostly very routine the King probably left it to the keeper of the seal to decide and didn't waste his own time with it. This, I imagine, accounts for the few warrants issued away from where the King actually was. There are very few of these, however, so possibly Edward even took an interest in day to day PS office business.
The remaining c81s are sealed with the Signet. I would imagine these are the ones marked K in the CPR but I don't know. If they are, then even though personally authorised by the king it was not over the Chancellor's shoulder - I.e. there was still a warrant. A very, very, very occasional patent is marked in the rolls as having been authorised by the King verbally. This is quite unusual and tends to be in times of crisis.
Remember the King and Chancellor were by no means always tog.

Yes, I mean did Ross suggest the king was standing over the Chancellor or just that he personally authorised these?
I may be writing quite a lot of rubbish here because under diff circs with toddlers running around and no internet, and no access to anything. But the King had to get his message to the Chancellor, that's the point,I think.
M