need references for Ross given abbreviations (ie, CC)

I don't have Ross's key to his abbreviations for his footnotes.
Could someone who owns the book possibly tell me waht the following
refer to:

CC
CP
RP
CPR

Thanks alot!

Yours,
Dora

CC = Crowland Chronicler
CPR = Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476 - 1485
RP = Rotuli Parliamentorum
CP = The Complete Peerage

Jane

--- In @y..., "Dora Smith" <tiggernut24@y...>
wrote:
> I don't have Ross's key to his abbreviations for his footnotes.
> Could someone who owns the book possibly tell me waht the following
> refer to:
>
> CC
> CP
> RP
> CPR
>
> Thanks alot!
>
> Yours,
> Dora

I am coming across all kinds of vague statements that
John Russell was reluctant to accept the chancelorship
and didn't get on real well with Richard III, may even
have split with him in summer of 1484.

I am not finding a single detail of this, and I can't
find much about John Russell on the web or in the
library, either. I tried Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Can someone please tell me more about it? It does
matter what was going on in his mind.

Yours,
Dora

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

-What are your sources for those statements? Kendall (1955) states
that Russell was a tried and trusted diplomat.Russell was "One of
the late king's most distinguished diplomats,had been Keeper of the
Privy Seal." More and Mancini spoke highly of him for what that is
worth! Kendall is not even sure that Richard dismissed him from
office in July 1485: "Richard probably received word from his agents
in France that Henry was about to sail, for on the 24th he wrote to
his Chancellor asking him to send the Great Seal at once by Thomas
Barowe Master of the Rolls. There is no reason to suppose that
Richard had lost confidence in John Russell. He needed the Seal
directly at hand; it was more fitting for the Bishop of Lincoln to
remain at the head of government in London than to be exposed to the
rigours of the field."

Bertram Fields (1998) says that Richard
" APPEARS to have dismissed John Russell from his office as Lord
chancellor, an act that may have had a significant impact on the
attitudes expressed in the Croyland Chronicle, since Russell, if he
was not the author, was a likely source of information about Richard
and his reign." We do not know for sure if he was dismissed or if he
was the writer of the Second Croyland Continuator.

Difficult to know anything. So I would be suspicious of sources that
suggest that he was reluctant to take up the job in the first place.
More anti-Richard smears? As for what was in his mind...what would
we give to know? --

In @y..., Dora Smith <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> I am coming across all kinds of vague statements that
> John Russell was reluctant to accept the chancelorship
> and didn't get on real well with Richard III, may even
> have split with him in summer of 1484.
>
> I am not finding a single detail of this, and I can't
> find much about John Russell on the web or in the
> library, either. I tried Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>
> Can someone please tell me more about it? It does
> matter what was going on in his mind.
>
> Yours,
> Dora
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

Richard did however Chancellors shortly before
Bosworth - IIRC it was John Alcock, ex-tutor to the
Princes who took over the role and continued on in it
after the battle.

Lorraine

--- willsneck <stewart_darlaston@...> wrote:
> -What are your sources for those statements?
> Kendall (1955) states
> that Russell was a tried and trusted
> diplomat.Russell was "One of
> the late king's most distinguished diplomats,had
> been Keeper of the
> Privy Seal." More and Mancini spoke highly of him
> for what that is
> worth! Kendall is not even sure that Richard
> dismissed him from
> office in July 1485: "Richard probably received word
> from his agents
> in France that Henry was about to sail, for on the
> 24th he wrote to
> his Chancellor asking him to send the Great Seal at
> once by Thomas
> Barowe Master of the Rolls. There is no reason to
> suppose that
> Richard had lost confidence in John Russell. He
> needed the Seal
> directly at hand; it was more fitting for the Bishop
> of Lincoln to
> remain at the head of government in London than to
> be exposed to the
> rigours of the field."
>
> Bertram Fields (1998) says that Richard
> " APPEARS to have dismissed John Russell from his
> office as Lord
> chancellor, an act that may have had a significant
> impact on the
> attitudes expressed in the Croyland Chronicle, since
> Russell, if he
> was not the author, was a likely source of
> information about Richard
> and his reign." We do not know for sure if he was
> dismissed or if he
> was the writer of the Second Croyland Continuator.
>
> Difficult to know anything. So I would be suspicious
> of sources that
> suggest that he was reluctant to take up the job in
> the first place.
> More anti-Richard smears? As for what was in his
> mind...what would
> we give to know? --
>
> In @y..., Dora Smith
> <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > I am coming across all kinds of vague statements
> that
> > John Russell was reluctant to accept the
> chancelorship
> > and didn't get on real well with Richard III, may
> even
> > have split with him in summer of 1484.
> >
> > I am not finding a single detail of this, and I
> can't
> > find much about John Russell on the web or in the
> > library, either. I tried Encyclopedia Brittanica.
> >
> > Can someone please tell me more about it? It does
> > matter what was going on in his mind.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Dora
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

I posted this yesterday, but for some reason exactly
half of my mail to this list posted to it, and the
rest bounced. And it was the earlier mail that
bounced.

It came from Ross. Ross is full of startling and
twisted statements, his work is nearly as amazing as
More's. Even so this one is startling enough to see if
there is something to it, especially since Ross gives
what without my being able to verify them look like
very good sources for this belief.

First statement, Ross, p 79, in "The Road to the
Throne". Paragraph the umpteenth on Richard planned
all along to usurp the throne. (There isn't any real
unique way to identify the paragraph.)

"Neither authority can be regarded as wholly
impartial, especially here the Croyland Chronicler.
If [the Croyland Chronicler] were Bishop Russell, we
have good contemporary evidence that he was somewhat
reluctant to accept office from Duke Richard, and
that, therefore, he felt himself especially deceived
when Richard went on to cliam the throne for himnself
and, in Croyland's view, to murder his nephew. "

From note 51; "Russell's unease about taking the
chancellorship is mentioned in Simon Stallworth's
letter of 21 June 1483 (Stonor Letters, II, 161.) The
fact that he was dismissed from his office on 29 July
1748 suggests that there was no great confidence
between the king and his servant. The general point
that contempararies, as well as Tudor historians,
regarded Richard as ruthless and calculating is well
made by Hanham, Richard III and his Early Historians,
126, 191-2."

If this was the reaction to this question, I hope
people aren't still silently wondering why I
complained that Ross is raving, and pleaded for any
actual balanced and intelligent argument that Richard
murdered the boys.

Nevertheless, Stallworth is a reliable source, and he
should be particularly reliable when it comes to
Russell's state of mind. Stallworth in June of 1483
was a servant of the Lord Chancellor. In June of
1483, the Lord Chancellor was Russell. He replaced
Rotherham or what was his name as chancellor on 9 or
10 May. So Stallworth was Russell's servant; he
should have known his state of mind. Further, this
letter was written at the time, and not under
circumstances such that Stallworth had any reason to
lie.

We really need for someone to contribute the entire
text of Stallworth's entire letter of June 21, and
that of June 9 would be helpful as well. These two
letters are among the most important sources for that
period of time. Kendall quotes a small part of it and
paraphrases the rest, and someone sent me a small
passage from it that I had asked for; I don't think
the chancellor's feelings about taking the position
are in either passage. If someone could please post
the entire text of these two letters, I would be
grateful. I can't remember if I found the Stonor
letters in the local university card catalogue or not;
if they are there I can check on them in a couple of
days.

I think the other passage in Ross on this is similar
but later, possibly when Russell really left the
chancellorship, and it may have said something like
it's really too bad we don't know why he was reluctant
to take the post in the first place.

Thanks for proving that we don't know if or why
Russell was dismissed; it really came across
differently in Ross.

I might post this more than once. Then maybe it'll
post! Not to mention sending myself a copy so if it
doesn't I'll not have to rewrite it this time!

Yours,
Dora Smith


> --- willsneck <stewart_darlaston@...>
> wrote:
> > -What are your sources for those statements?
> > Kendall (1955) states
> > that Russell was a tried and trusted
> > diplomat.Russell was "One of
> > the late king's most distinguished diplomats,had
> > been Keeper of the
> > Privy Seal." More and Mancini spoke highly of him
> > for what that is
> > worth! Kendall is not even sure that Richard
> > dismissed him from
> > office in July 1485: "Richard probably received
> word
> > from his agents
> > in France that Henry was about to sail, for on the
> > 24th he wrote to
> > his Chancellor asking him to send the Great Seal
> at
> > once by Thomas
> > Barowe Master of the Rolls. There is no reason to
> > suppose that
> > Richard had lost confidence in John Russell. He
> > needed the Seal
> > directly at hand; it was more fitting for the
> Bishop
> > of Lincoln to
> > remain at the head of government in London than to
> > be exposed to the
> > rigours of the field."
> >
> > Bertram Fields (1998) says that Richard
> > " APPEARS to have dismissed John Russell from his
> > office as Lord
> > chancellor, an act that may have had a significant
> > impact on the
> > attitudes expressed in the Croyland Chronicle,
> since
> > Russell, if he
> > was not the author, was a likely source of
> > information about Richard
> > and his reign." We do not know for sure if he was
> > dismissed or if he
> > was the writer of the Second Croyland Continuator.
> >
> > Difficult to know anything. So I would be
> suspicious
> > of sources that
> > suggest that he was reluctant to take up the job
> in
> > the first place.
> > More anti-Richard smears? As for what was in his
> > mind...what would
> > we give to know? --
> >
> > In @y..., Dora Smith
> > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > I am coming across all kinds of vague statements
> > that
> > > John Russell was reluctant to accept the
> > chancelorship
> > > and didn't get on real well with Richard III,
> may
> > even
> > > have split with him in summer of 1484.
> > >
> > > I am not finding a single detail of this, and I
> > can't
> > > find much about John Russell on the web or in
> the
> > > library, either. I tried Encyclopedia
> Brittanica.
> > >
> > > Can someone please tell me more about it? It
> does
> > > matter what was going on in his mind.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> > > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

I posted this yesterday, but for some reason exactly
half of my mail to this list posted to it, and the
rest bounced. And it was the earlier mail that
bounced.

It came from Ross. Ross is full of startling and
twisted statements, his work is nearly as amazing as
More's. Even so this one is startling enough to see if
there is something to it, especially since Ross gives
what without my being able to verify them look like
very good sources for this belief.

First statement, Ross, p 79, in "The Road to the
Throne". Paragraph the umpteenth on Richard planned
all along to usurp the throne. (There isn't any real
unique way to identify the paragraph.)

"Neither authority can be regarded as wholly
impartial, especially here the Croyland Chronicler.
If [the Croyland Chronicler] were Bishop Russell, we
have good contemporary evidence that he was somewhat
reluctant to accept office from Duke Richard, and
that, therefore, he felt himself especially deceived
when Richard went on to cliam the throne for himnself
and, in Croyland's view, to murder his nephew. "

From note 51; "Russell's unease about taking the
chancellorship is mentioned in Simon Stallworth's
letter of 21 June 1483 (Stonor Letters, II, 161.) The
fact that he was dismissed from his office on 29 July
1748 suggests that there was no great confidence
between the king and his servant. The general point
that contempararies, as well as Tudor historians,
regarded Richard as ruthless and calculating is well
made by Hanham, Richard III and his Early Historians,
126, 191-2."

If this was the reaction to this question, I hope
people aren't still silently wondering why I
complained that Ross is raving, and pleaded for any
actual balanced and intelligent argument that Richard
murdered the boys.

Nevertheless, Stallworth is a reliable source, and he
should be particularly reliable when it comes to
Russell's state of mind. Stallworth in June of 1483
was a servant of the Lord Chancellor. In June of
1483, the Lord Chancellor was Russell. He replaced
Rotherham or what was his name as chancellor on 9 or
10 May. So Stallworth was Russell's servant; he
should have known his state of mind. Further, this
letter was written at the time, and not under
circumstances such that Stallworth had any reason to
lie.

We really need for someone to contribute the entire
text of Stallworth's entire letter of June 21, and
that of June 9 would be helpful as well. These two
letters are among the most important sources for that
period of time. Kendall quotes a small part of it and
paraphrases the rest, and someone sent me a small
passage from it that I had asked for; I don't think
the chancellor's feelings about taking the position
are in either passage. If someone could please post
the entire text of these two letters, I would be
grateful. I can't remember if I found the Stonor
letters in the local university card catalogue or not;
if they are there I can check on them in a couple of
days.

I think the other passage in Ross on this is similar
but later, possibly when Russell really left the
chancellorship, and it may have said something like
it's really too bad we don't know why he was reluctant
to take the post in the first place.

Thanks for proving that we don't know if or why
Russell was dismissed; it really came across
differently in Ross.

I might post this more than once. Then maybe it'll
post! Not to mention sending myself a copy so if it
doesn't I'll not have to rewrite it this time!

Yours,
Dora Smith


> --- willsneck <stewart_darlaston@...>
> wrote:
> > -What are your sources for those statements?
> > Kendall (1955) states
> > that Russell was a tried and trusted
> > diplomat.Russell was "One of
> > the late king's most distinguished diplomats,had
> > been Keeper of the
> > Privy Seal." More and Mancini spoke highly of him
> > for what that is
> > worth! Kendall is not even sure that Richard
> > dismissed him from
> > office in July 1485: "Richard probably received
> word
> > from his agents
> > in France that Henry was about to sail, for on the
> > 24th he wrote to
> > his Chancellor asking him to send the Great Seal
> at
> > once by Thomas
> > Barowe Master of the Rolls. There is no reason to
> > suppose that
> > Richard had lost confidence in John Russell. He
> > needed the Seal
> > directly at hand; it was more fitting for the
> Bishop
> > of Lincoln to
> > remain at the head of government in London than to
> > be exposed to the
> > rigours of the field."
> >
> > Bertram Fields (1998) says that Richard
> > " APPEARS to have dismissed John Russell from his
> > office as Lord
> > chancellor, an act that may have had a significant
> > impact on the
> > attitudes expressed in the Croyland Chronicle,
> since
> > Russell, if he
> > was not the author, was a likely source of
> > information about Richard
> > and his reign." We do not know for sure if he was
> > dismissed or if he
> > was the writer of the Second Croyland Continuator.
> >
> > Difficult to know anything. So I would be
> suspicious
> > of sources that
> > suggest that he was reluctant to take up the job
> in
> > the first place.
> > More anti-Richard smears? As for what was in his
> > mind...what would
> > we give to know? --
> >
> > In @y..., Dora Smith
> > <tiggernut24@y...> wrote:
> > > I am coming across all kinds of vague statements
> > that
> > > John Russell was reluctant to accept the
> > chancelorship
> > > and didn't get on real well with Richard III,
> may
> > even
> > > have split with him in summer of 1484.
> > >
> > > I am not finding a single detail of this, and I
> > can't
> > > find much about John Russell on the web or in
> the
> > > library, either. I tried Encyclopedia
> Brittanica.
> > >
> > > Can someone please tell me more about it? It
> does
> > > matter what was going on in his mind.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Dora
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
> > > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com