Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-14 23:45:53
A J Hibbard
Listening to Daughter of Time yesterday (on BBC iPlayer) an exchange between Grant & Carradine caught my attention:

Oh, no. He was acknowledged Protector before he ever arrived in London.
How do you know that?
In the Patent Rolls he is called Protector on two occasionslet me seeApril 21st (that's less than a fortnight after Edward's death) and May the 2nd (that's two days before he arrived in London at all.)

I was able to track this back to Gairdner who wrote in his biography of Richard III

"...we may not unreasonably suspect that Richard was named protector even before he came to London. And that this was really the case is shown, I think, by two documents upon the Patent Roll, dated respectively 21st of April and 2nd of May, in which the Duke of Gloucester is styled Protector of England."

Checking the calendar of the patent rolls for the reign of Edward V, I do not find any patent dated May 2, and the entries describing patents dated April 21 do not mention Richard as Protector of England. John Gough Nichol's book Grants, &c., from the Crown during the Reign of Edward V, London, 1854; does not include the text of any patents pre-dating May 14th referring to Richard as Protector.

Can anyone shed any light on this issue? Or does anyone know if the full texts of the patents referenced have been printed anywhere?

A J

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 07:33:57
Paul Trevor Bale
Daughter of Time on radio. Richard saying « Oh those Woodvilles! » grrr. Dramatised bits outside hospital really bad, but Grant and Carradine and nurses parts not bad.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 févr. 2018 à 00:45, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> a écrit :

Listening to Daughter of Time yesterday (on BBC iPlayer) an exchange between Grant & Carradine caught my attention:

Oh, no. He was acknowledged Protector before he ever arrived in London.
How do you know that?
In the Patent Rolls he is called Protector on two occasionslet me seeApril 21st (that's less than a fortnight after Edward's death) and May the 2nd (that's two days before he arrived in London at all.)

I was able to track this back to Gairdner who wrote in his biography of Richard III

"...we may not unreasonably suspect that Richard was named protector even before he came to London. And that this was really the case is shown, I think, by two documents upon the Patent Roll, dated respectively 21st of April and 2nd of May, in which the Duke of Gloucester is styled Protector of England."

Checking the calendar of the patent rolls for the reign of Edward V, I do not find any patent dated May 2, and the entries describing patents dated April 21 do not mention Richard as Protector of England. John Gough Nichol's book Grants, &c., from the Crown during the Reign of Edward V, London, 1854; does not include the text of any patents pre-dating May 14th referring to Richard as Protector.

Can anyone shed any light on this issue? Or does anyone know if the full texts of the patents referenced have been printed anywhere?

A J

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 09:24:31
A J Hibbard
Paul, that sounds like a different production than the one I just heard (single reader).
Harl ms has one entry dated May 2 that mentions Richard as Protector. Still in search of the text of something from April.
A J 



On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:33 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
 

Daughter of Time on radio. Richard saying « Oh those Woodvilles! » grrr. Dramatised bits outside hospital really bad, but Grant and Carradine and nurses parts not bad.

Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 févr. 2018 à 00:45, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

 

Listening to Daughter of Time yesterday (on BBC iPlayer) an exchange between Grant & Carradine caught my attention:

Oh, no. He was acknowledged Protector before he ever arrived in London.
How do you know that?
In the Patent Rolls he is called Protector on two occasionslet me seeApril 21st (that's less than a fortnight after Edward's death) and May the 2nd (that's two days before he arrived in London at all.)

I was able to track this back to Gairdner who wrote in his biography of Richard III

"...we may not unreasonably suspect that Richard was named protector even before he came to London. And that this was really the case is shown, I think, by two documents upon the Patent Roll, dated respectively 21st of April and 2nd of May, in which the Duke of Gloucester is styled Protector of England."

Checking the calendar of the patent rolls for the reign of Edward V, I do not find any patent dated May 2, and the entries describing patents dated April 21 do not mention Richard as Protector of England. John Gough Nichol's book Grants, &c., from the Crown during the Reign of Edward V, London, 1854; does not include the text of any patents pre-dating May 14th referring to Richard as Protector.

Can anyone shed any light on this issue? Or does anyone know if the full texts of the patents referenced have been printed anywhere?

A J


Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 10:16:09
mariewalsh2003

AJ wrote:

Harl ms has one entry dated May 2 that mentions Richard as Protector. Still in search of the text of something from April.


Marie:

I'd be interested in the volume and page ref, please, if you could, as that's earlier than the date quoted by Annette Carson in her booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.


I know Annette looked hard for an April reference and couldn't find one. Not surprising when you consider that the Woodvilles dominated the Council in April, but also there is almost nothing in the way of government docs surviving from April 1483.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 13:13:04
A J Hibbard
Volume 3 p 10

Edward etc To the fermors tenauntes & occupiers of al suche landes & tenementes As Anthony Erle Ryvers late had of the yeft & graunt of the most famouse prince of noble memorie my lord & fader whome god assoile in Wodham Martyne in our Counte of Essex and to al other oure officers true liegemene & subgettes hering or seeng these oure lettres greting / We lat you wit that for diverse causes & consideracions us moving and by thadvise of oure most entirely beoved Uncle the duc of Gloucestre protector & defensor of this oure Royaulme during oure yong Age / We have yeven & graunted unto oure welbeloved servaunt Robert Belle al the said landes & tenements with al maner Rentes Revenues & avauntages to the same belonging for terme of his liff Wherfore we wolle & charge you alle & every of you that ye permitte & suffre oure said servaunt to occupie & enioye the same landes & tenementes without let or interrupcione as ye & eery of you entende to advoide oure grevouse displeasure and answere unto us at youre perilles Yoven etc the ijde day of Maij



There were several grants in the Calendar of the Patent Rolls with the date of April 21, but I haven't found the full texts. Perhaps Gairdner was looking at the roll itself.

A J

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:11 AM, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

AJ wrote:

Harl ms has one entry dated May 2 that mentions Richard as Protector. Still in search of the text of something from April.


Marie:

I'd be interested in the volume and page ref, please, if you could, as that's earlier than the date quoted by Annette Carson in her booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.


I know Annette looked hard for an April reference and couldn't find one. Not surprising when you consider that the Woodvilles dominated the Council in April, but also there is almost nothing in the way of government docs surviving from April 1483.


Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 19:09:22
Paul Trevor bale
Most entirely beloved uncle.....

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 févr. 2018 à 14:12, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> a écrit :

Volume 3 p 10

Edward etc To the fermors tenauntes & occupiers of al suche landes & tenementes As Anthony Erle Ryvers late had of the yeft & graunt of the most famouse prince of noble memorie my lord & fader whome god assoile in Wodham Martyne in our Counte of Essex and to al other oure officers true liegemene & subgettes hering or seeng these oure lettres greting / We lat you wit that for diverse causes & consideracions us moving and by thadvise of oure most entirely beoved Uncle the duc of Gloucestre protector & defensor of this oure Royaulme during oure yong Age / We have yeven & graunted unto oure welbeloved servaunt Robert Belle al the said landes & tenements with al maner Rentes Revenues & avauntages to the same belonging for terme of his liff Wherfore we wolle & charge you alle & every of you that ye permitte & suffre oure said servaunt to occupie & enioye the same landes & tenementes without let or interrupcione as ye & eery of you entende to advoide oure grevouse displeasure and answere unto us at youre perilles Yoven etc the ijde day of Maij



There were several grants in the Calendar of the Patent Rolls with the date of April 21, but I haven't found the full texts. Perhaps Gairdner was looking at the roll itself.

A J

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:11 AM, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

AJ wrote:

Harl ms has one entry dated May 2 that mentions Richard as Protector. Still in search of the text of something from April.


Marie:

I'd be interested in the volume and page ref, please, if you could, as that's earlier than the date quoted by Annette Carson in her booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.


I know Annette looked hard for an April reference and couldn't find one. Not surprising when you consider that the Woodvilles dominated the Council in April, but also there is almost nothing in the way of government docs surviving from April 1483.


Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 19:10:13
mariewalsh2003

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.



Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 22:10:40
mariewalsh2003

It would be lovely, Paul, if 'most entirely beloved uncle' could be relied on as an expression of Edward V's feelings. The language is, unfortunately, entirely formulaic, the medieval royal equivalent of 'Dear Sir'. Edward V was not yet ruling in his own right, and the reference to the advice of his uncle is also a formula to acknowledge that fact. In other words, the letter is really Richard's.


Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-15 23:24:47
A J Hibbard
I share your doubts about the dating, but until someone gets a look at the actual patent roll, I'm not ready to discredit Gairdner's comments.

 These dates have been used to argue that there was acceptance of Richard as Protector even before the council meeting Annette believes confirmed Richard as protector, although you may be right that Richard assumed that the office was his either based on knowledge of Edward's codicil or on communications to that effect from his supporters on the King's Council. I hate this interminable speculation. There are so many records that have gone missing when it comes to King Richard's life & reign, I feel I must give him the benefit of the doubt.

A J

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:10 PM, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

It would be lovely, Paul, if 'most entirely beloved uncle' could be relied on as an expression of Edward V's feelings. The language is, unfortunately, entirely formulaic, the medieval royal equivalent of 'Dear Sir'. Edward V was not yet ruling in his own right, and the reference to the advice of his uncle is also a formula to acknowledge that fact. In other words, the letter is really Richard's.



Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-16 10:15:08
Hilary Jones
That's interesting because Ross (or Croyland or Mancini) has Bourchier as one of those not present at the meeting of the Council called by the Woodvilles before Richard and Edward got there.
Quite honestly I think we can start arguing against ourselves on this. If the Council had approved of Woodville-led rule and disapproved of Richard's actions en route then they would have declared appropriately - after all as you say they were led by the most senior bishop and Hastings was the captain of the Calais garrison - and they had the power to withdraw Richard's post as Constable via disappointment.
Although we have no piece of paper confirming Richard's protectorship, the Council's action or rather lack of action, actually says it all. If we say Richard needed that to have acted with the written agreement of the Council then we stray into the territory so beloved of Horspool and others - that they were forced to agree this under military duress. I think I prefer the former. H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 19:34:59 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.



Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-16 11:45:08
mariewalsh2003

To Hilary and A. J.


I'm not sure I'm following, to be honest. I'm simply trying to tease out the facts - what I or anyone else would like to be the case isn't relevant.


Annette's book explains the background. The office of Protector had been invented by Henry V on his deathbed, but the parliament held after his death ruled that a king had no right to dictate what happened after is own death and promptly modified his wishes. In 1453 York was installed as Protector by Parliament. This is the precedent.


Also, bear in mind that the Council couldn't put Richard's name to any of the documents which they issued before he reached London because they couldn't ask him for his approval. It's a simple practicality. I don't know about the of 21 April which Gairdner cites, but he says that this and the one dated 2 May are in the Patent Roll, but the 2 May one doesn't seem to be - it is only in Harley 433. Gairdner remarks that John Gough Nichols believed these items were misdated, but all Nichols says ('Grants from the Crown during the reign of Edward V') is:-

"I have now ascertained, from the Patent Roll of Edward V, that the office of Protector was assumed by the Duke of Gloucester at least so early as the 14th of May; for it was on that day that new commissions of the peace were directed into several counties, and in these commissions his name was inserted as 'carissimo avunculo nostril Ricardo duci Gloucestrie protector Anglie.'"

He makes no mention of these supposed entries of 21 April and 2 May.

It would seem to me, given the error over the provenance of the 2 May document, that Gairdner was writing from memory and he may have been wrong about the 21 April item as well.


Richard couldn't very well have issued a patent on 21 April where he was, because patents went out under the Great Seal (this is why the patent rolls are Chancery rolls) and Richard did not have access to the Great Seal at that time. He would have had to have issued a warrant about a week before that and sent it down to London - but he did not have either the Privy Seal or Signet with him with which to validate such a warrant. It's a non-starter.


AJ, what I was suggesting is not that Richard took the office of protector to himself on the way to London without council approval (that would be the inference if one accepts the date on it, but I don't), but that the copy of this letter in Harley 433 must have been wrongly dated. And if there is a reference to Richard as protector in the Patent Rolls dated 21 April, Nichols evidently didn't find it.


The record of the Baynards council meeting of 8 May in the Archbishop's register doesn't name Richard as Protector, by the way.


Incidentally I think we can assume Richard was accepted as Protector by 13 May when the writs were issued for parliament, as the main reason that parliament was being called was to ratify Richard's continuing as Protector after the coronation.

.


Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-16 14:02:05
Paul Trevor Bale
Sorry Hilary but where did you get the idea the council could remove the Constableship from Richard? Between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable carried all the powers of the monarch as if he were in fact king. Nobody could take those powers away. Any attempt would be an act of high treason, as Rivers discovered to his cost!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 16 févr. 2018 à 11:13, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

That's interesting because Ross (or Croyland or Mancini) has Bourchier as one of those not present at the meeting of the Council called by the Woodvilles before Richard and Edward got there.
Quite honestly I think we can start arguing against ourselves on this. If the Council had approved of Woodville-led rule and disapproved of Richard's actions en route then they would have declared appropriately - after all as you say they were led by the most senior bishop and Hastings was the captain of the Calais garrison - and they had the power to withdraw Richard's post as Constable via disappointment.
Although we have no piece of paper confirming Richard's protectorship, the Council's action or rather lack of action, actually says it all. If we say Richard needed that to have acted with the written agreement of the Council then we stray into the territory so beloved of Horspool and others - that they were forced to agree this under military duress. I think I prefer the former. H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 19:34:59 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.



Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-16 15:32:14
Stephen
Paul is correct  as Carson makes clear.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 16 February 2018 14:37
To:
Subject: Re: Following up on Gairdner

 
Sorry Hilary but where did you get the idea the council could remove the Constableship from Richard? Between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable carried all the powers of the monarch as if he were in fact king. Nobody could take those powers away. Any attempt would be an act of high treason, as Rivers discovered to his cost!
Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 16 févr. 2018 à 11:13, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
 
That's interesting because Ross (or Croyland or Mancini) has Bourchier as one of those not present at the meeting of the Council called by the Woodvilles before Richard and Edward got there.

Quite honestly I think we can start arguing against ourselves on this. If the Council had approved of Woodville-led rule and disapproved of Richard's actions en route then they would have declared appropriately - after all as you say they were led by the most senior bishop and Hastings was the captain of the Calais garrison - and they had the power to withdraw Richard's post as Constable via disappointment.

Although we have no piece of paper confirming Richard's protectorship, the Council's action or rather lack of action, actually says it all. If we say Richard needed that to have acted with the written agreement of the Council then we stray into the territory so beloved of Horspool and others - that they were forced to agree this under military duress. I think I prefer the former..  H


On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 19:34:59 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Thanks very much for this, AJ.
It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.
The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".
This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.
I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?
If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.
So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.
I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.






Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-17 13:11:14
Hilary Jones
I have now read Carson.
As discussed in previous postings, the government of the realm after the death of Edward was with the Council until they affirmed the appointment of a Regent or Protector and the limitations of the powers of that individual. The wishes of a previous King did not prevail. So, for example, the Council of 1483 enacted certain things before Richard or the King got to London which included directing the defence of the realm against the French.
Both Carson and Ross cite Roskell and his interpretations of what went on in 1422 on the accession of Henry VI and the appointment of Humphrey of Gloucester as Protector. There the decision was made to clip Gloucester's wings by reducing his power to being the senior person on the Council and putting the upbringing of the young King with others. The point is that this decision had no precedent in Law because there hadn't been a protector before - it was probably because John of Bedford, who was out of the country, wanted to limit the powers of his younger brother and used his influence with the Council to achieve this. The protectorates of ROY in the 1450s were different because the sands had shifted again.
And that's the problem. There is at this point no constitutional law to measure who has acted legally or to restrain the sands from shifting. In the US a ruler can violate the Articles of the Constitution, in post seventeenth century England a king could violate statute law, but at this time there was only precedent which could be set aside at will by the strongest. Even Primogeniture could be changed. So potentially Richard was vulnerable. What I am saying is that, if the Council had been completely dominated by the Woodvilles, they could indeed have revoked Richard's office as Constable by disappointment at any time, and even like HT pre-dated it to a day before Stony Stratford to make his actions there illegal. The fact that even after the events of Stony Stratford they didn't, would imply that there was a majority there who actually agreed with what Richard had done. Carson says that during his absence the Council tried to reduce Richard's powers. Ross doesn't do that, other than that they wanted an early coronation on May so that no one person usurped sovereignty.
And what I'm also saying is that all this is good because it means Richard was granted the role by them willingly, not because he had put thumbscrews on all members via a military coup - which is what several old and modern historians would have us believe. Hope this helps! H



On Friday, 16 February 2018, 15:36:50 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Paul is correct  as Carson makes clear.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 16 February 2018 14:37
To:
Subject: Re: Following up on Gairdner


Sorry Hilary but where did you get the idea the council could remove the Constableship from Richard? Between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable carried all the powers of the monarch as if he were in fact king. Nobody could take those powers away. Any attempt would be an act of high treason, as Rivers discovered to his cost!
Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 16 févr. 2018 à 11:13, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

That's interesting because Ross (or Croyland or Mancini) has Bourchier as one of those not present at the meeting of the Council called by the Woodvilles before Richard and Edward got there.

Quite honestly I think we can start arguing against ourselves on this. If the Council had approved of Woodville-led rule and disapproved of Richard's actions en route then they would have declared appropriately - after all as you say they were led by the most senior bishop and Hastings was the captain of the Calais garrison - and they had the power to withdraw Richard's post as Constable via disappointment.

Although we have no piece of paper confirming Richard's protectorship, the Council's action or rather lack of action, actually says it all. If we say Richard needed that to have acted with the written agreement of the Council then we stray into the territory so beloved of Horspool and others - that they were forced to agree this under military duress. I think I prefer the former.. H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 19:34:59 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Thanks very much for this, AJ.
It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.
The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".
This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.
I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?
If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.
So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.
I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.



Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-18 21:40:42
stephenmlark

That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

So, until Edward V came of age, the Duke of Gloucester's appointment continued.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-19 17:28:45
Hilary Jones
The point I was making was that no-one seems to have opposed Richard's office as Constable in Spring 1483. Which was good.
Because the Council could have done since they didn't have to adhere to the wishes of a dead king. No-one could stop them. In fact both Humphrey Stafford and Rivers senior could have been said to have been disappointed - because they were taken out by another regime which at the time had the upper hand. And that could have happened to Richard in April 1483 - lucky it didn't. And it proves the measure of support he had from those on the Council like Ferrers, Howard and Hastings. Don't know why you're arguing over a good thing; it proves he didn't need to undertake an armed coup and seize control, which is what his detractors claim. In other words, the majority of the Council obviously trusted him. Carson, like me, used Ross and Roskell as her starting point. All the rest has to be interpretation because there were no contemporary statutes against which to measure and judge and control. Therefore the regime which had the upper hand at the time could do whatever it wanted. There was no Separation of Powers to check it, no Acts to invoke - something which is built into modern day constitutions, written or unwritten, to prevent exactly such a thing happening today. H

On Sunday, 18 February 2018, 21:50:00 GMT, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

So, until Edward V came of age, the Duke of Gloucester's appointment continued.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-19 17:31:40
Stephen
No, she confirms that the continuous service of the Constable is a fact. QED.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 17:28
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Following up on Gairdner

 
The point I was making was that no-one seems to have opposed Richard's office as Constable in Spring 1483. Which was good.

Because the Council could have done since they didn't have to adhere to the wishes of a dead king. No-one could stop them. In fact both Humphrey Stafford and Rivers senior could have been said to have been disappointed - because they were taken out by another regime which at the time had the upper hand. And that could have happened to Richard in April 1483 - lucky it didn't. And it proves the measure of support he had from those on the Council like Ferrers, Howard and Hastings. Don't know why you're arguing over a good thing; it proves he didn't need to undertake an armed coup and seize control, which is what his detractors claim. In other words, the majority of the Council obviously trusted him.
 
Carson, like me, used Ross and Roskell as her starting point.  All the rest has to be interpretation because there were no contemporary statutes against which to measure and judge and control. Therefore the regime which had the upper hand at the time could do whatever it wanted. There was no Separation of Powers to check it, no Acts to invoke - something which is built into modern day constitutions, written or unwritten, to prevent exactly such a thing happening today. H 


On Sunday, 18 February 2018, 21:50:00 GMT, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


 
That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.
 
The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.
 
So, until Edward V came of age, the Duke of Gloucester's appointment continued.




Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-19 19:10:47
Hilary Jones
Like Marie, I did reply but it seems to have gone missing. Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place. There are some shaky precedents, but not Acts which can be challenged by an independent judiciary like say the US Supreme Court which can clip the wings of the President. Had the Council disliked Richard's decision to arrest Rivers they would have found a way round it and he would be at risk. Who could stop them - unless he took up arms against them in a coup? And that's a gift for Richard detractors if they found that he did.
We are on the same side you know, but any Ricardian who puts their head above the parapet is open to challenge. They have to be, it makes them stronger. I'm saying that what Annette says is her opinion based on precedent, but in an Absolutely Monarchy he/they who would wield the most power can change anything to suit themselves. Cheers H
On Monday, 19 February 2018, 17:31:53 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

No, she confirms that the continuous service of the Constable is a fact. QED.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 17:28
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Following up on Gairdner


The point I was making was that no-one seems to have opposed Richard's office as Constable in Spring 1483. Which was good.

Because the Council could have done since they didn't have to adhere to the wishes of a dead king. No-one could stop them. In fact both Humphrey Stafford and Rivers senior could have been said to have been disappointed - because they were taken out by another regime which at the time had the upper hand. And that could have happened to Richard in April 1483 - lucky it didn't. And it proves the measure of support he had from those on the Council like Ferrers, Howard and Hastings. Don't know why you're arguing over a good thing; it proves he didn't need to undertake an armed coup and seize control, which is what his detractors claim. In other words, the majority of the Council obviously trusted him.

Carson, like me, used Ross and Roskell as her starting point. All the rest has to be interpretation because there were no contemporary statutes against which to measure and judge and control. Therefore the regime which had the upper hand at the time could do whatever it wanted. There was no Separation of Powers to check it, no Acts to invoke - something which is built into modern day constitutions, written or unwritten, to prevent exactly such a thing happening today. H

On Sunday, 18 February 2018, 21:50:00 GMT, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

So, until Edward V came of age, the Duke of Gloucester's appointment continued.



Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-20 12:46:40
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place.


Marie:

I think the issue here is that the Council of April 1483 hadn't been 'set up' in any constitutional sense - i.e. the king who had appointed its members was dead and since 422 had been deemed to have no constitutional authority to influence anything that happened after his death (the parliament of 1422 doesn't seem to have quite grasped the nettle with that one).

As a consequence, people do seem to have been falling back on considerations of natural precedence. Most councillors backed Richard's claim to lead the council not just because Edward IV had appointed him as Protector, and not just because they preferred him to the Woodvilles, but because he was the senior adult male of the blood royal. The Woodvilles, although just as closely related to the young king (more so in the case of EW) were not of the blood royal and so could not claim any natural right to govern the realm.

It is probably for similar reasons of precedence that Richard took the decision to encourage Cardinal Bourchier to take the Great Seal (the physical instrument of government) into his hands and oversee the council whilst an agreed solution could be thrashed out (and Bourchier's record of the meeting of 7 May doesn't even use the word council, just describing those present as 'noble men of the realm'). The solution agreed involved a modified protectorship pro tem, and parliamentary ratification of a protectorship with wider powers as soon as it could possibly be achieved, i.e. the statutory 40 days from the issue of the writs.

The Woodvilles' preferred solution was to follow the precedent of the 1420s (though not of the 1450s) and use a rushed coronation to bring an end to Richard's claim to be protector, and thereafter use their personal influence with Edward V to steer the government. It would have been helpful to them, in that regard, that the Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham, was a sympathiser.

Both solutions had some constitutional justification, but it would seem, from Mancini and Crowland, that the majority of the lords were unhappy with the Woodville solution, which would vest power in a family not of the blood royal.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Following up on Gaird

2018-02-20 15:54:12
Doug Stamate
Marie, I had no idea Richard and Edward returned to Northampton before setting out for London! Of course, it would be too much to hope for that someone would have jotted down their itinerary and then had it copied into official records! That bit about the Archbishop of Canterbury makes sense, if only because he'd likely be either in London or nearby and could be expected to hold the fort until the new monarch arrived. Doug With my apologies for the delay in replying. Marie wrote:

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.


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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Following up on Gaird

2018-02-20 16:32:10
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I don't suppose we're lucky enough to have a date for the Council meeting called by the Woodvilles? For that matter, do we even know where the Archbishop was when Edward IV died? If Bourchier was at Windsor, he'd be about a day's journey (22-25 miles according to Google) from London. Canterbury would place him even further away (60 miles?). If the meeting was called rather precipitously, he may not have been there because he physically couldn't make it. FWIW, and lacking knowledge of exactly who was there and what their respective stances were concerning a Protectorate, I tend to presume that Council was likely split into three factions; a pro-Woodville faction, an anti-Woodville faction and a third group, almost certainly the majority. IOW, prior to Richard's arrival in London, neither the pro- nor anti-Woodville groups had a majority. Which was why the Council did the minimum required to ensure a peaceful transition; that large bloc in the middle, so to speak, was waiting for Edward, and Richard and Buckingham, to arrive. So, while we can't say that the Council necessarily approved of Richard's actions, we can say they didn't disapprove; and certainly not enough to either cancel the Protectorate entirely or try and limit it, Duke Humphrey-style. However, Richard would still have been Constable (unless or until Edward took it away from him) and the Council sensibly decided to wait until the Constable's arrival before making any decisions concerning his actions. Hilary wrote: That's interesting because Ross (or Croyland or Mancini) has Bourchier as one of those not present at the meeting of the Council called by the Woodvilles before Richard and Edward got there. Quite honestly I think we can start arguing against ourselves on this. If the Council had approved of Woodville-led rule and disapproved of Richard's actions en route then they would have declared appropriately - after all as you say they were led by the most senior bishop and Hastings was the captain of the Calais garrison - and they had the power to withdraw Richard's post as Constable via disappointment. Although we have no piece of paper confirming Richard's protectorship, the Council's action or rather lack of action, actually says it all. If we say Richard needed that to have acted with the written agreement of the Council then we stray into the territory so beloved of Horspool and others - that they were forced to agree thi s under military duress. I think I prefer the former.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-20 21:45:33
Paul Trevor Bale
Hilary you seem to be wanting the continuation of Richard as Constable to have been illegal, bending over backwards trying to show he could have been removed. He simply could not by law. As I've said before, and as Annette Carson has proved, between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next, the coronation, not the accession, the Constable was the power, as if king himself, and attempting to take away that power was high treason. The council trying to remove him from office would have had the council on charges of treason, and they knew it. Or all but Dorset perhaps. Though of course when he heard the news from Northampton he legged it straightaway into sanctuary, so he knew he'd committed treason. And I would suggest this was also the motive for Elizabeth bolting there as well. As it wasn't until her grandson started beheading his queens, I doubt Richard would have thought of doing so, but in fact he could have put her on trial.But in order to avoid a power vacuum the Constable was the power. No question, no doubt. Moving against him was treason.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 19 févr. 2018 à 18:31, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> a écrit :

No, she confirms that the continuous service of the Constable is a fact. QED.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 17:28
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Following up on Gairdner


The point I was making was that no-one seems to have opposed Richard's office as Constable in Spring 1483. Which was good.

Because the Council could have done since they didn't have to adhere to the wishes of a dead king. No-one could stop them. In fact both Humphrey Stafford and Rivers senior could have been said to have been disappointed - because they were taken out by another regime which at the time had the upper hand. And that could have happened to Richard in April 1483 - lucky it didn't. And it proves the measure of support he had from those on the Council like Ferrers, Howard and Hastings. Don't know why you're arguing over a good thing; it proves he didn't need to undertake an armed coup and seize control, which is what his detractors claim. In other words, the majority of the Council obviously trusted him.

Carson, like me, used Ross and Roskell as her starting point. All the rest has to be interpretation because there were no contemporary statutes against which to measure and judge and control. Therefore the regime which had the upper hand at the time could do whatever it wanted. There was no Separation of Powers to check it, no Acts to invoke - something which is built into modern day constitutions, written or unwritten, to prevent exactly such a thing happening today. H

On Sunday, 18 February 2018, 21:50:00 GMT, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

So, until Edward V came of age, the Duke of Gloucester's appointment continued.



Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-20 23:17:39
mariewalsh2003

Re governing during a minority prior to parliamentary approval of government, it seems to me there's a further problem because the council also consisted entirely of people appointed by the late king, so before a parliamentary settlement was reached had no more right to impose its will than the protector named by the late king.

This, I believe, is why Richard involved Cardinal Bourchier as caretaker until things were sorted out and believed that the Cardinal could force Rotherham to deliver the Great Seal to him: "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of the realm, and hath precedence, after the blood royal, before all the peers of the realm and the great officers of state" (Letter to the Archbishop of York by R. M. Beverley, 1831).

It's notable that the council seems to have attempted to do very little (just a couple of unavoidable appointments) before the arrival of Edward V and the reaching of a working agreement with Richard and the Archbishop c. 10-13 May.

Just my take.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-21 10:33:01
Hilary Jones
That's it exactly! In fact what was irregular (but not right or wrong as there is no right or wrong) is that the dowager Queen's family chose to summon the Council; normally precedent was for the new King's mother to be sidelined - for obvious reasons because she was usually a foreigner. It was unusual, but as Ross says, not wrong. And therefore for Richard it was dangerous.
Do you agree with Ross that Bourchier wasn't there when it was first summoned? H
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018, 12:53:53 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place.


Marie:

I think the issue here is that the Council of April 1483 hadn't been 'set up' in any constitutional sense - i.e. the king who had appointed its members was dead and since 422 had been deemed to have no constitutional authority to influence anything that happened after his death (the parliament of 1422 doesn't seem to have quite grasped the nettle with that one).

As a consequence, people do seem to have been falling back on considerations of natural precedence. Most councillors backed Richard's claim to lead the council not just because Edward IV had appointed him as Protector, and not just because they preferred him to the Woodvilles, but because he was the senior adult male of the blood royal. The Woodvilles, although just as closely related to the young king (more so in the case of EW) were not of the blood royal and so could not claim any natural right to govern the realm.

It is probably for similar reasons of precedence that Richard took the decision to encourage Cardinal Bourchier to take the Great Seal (the physical instrument of government) into his hands and oversee the council whilst an agreed solution could be thrashed out (and Bourchier's record of the meeting of 7 May doesn't even use the word council, just describing those present as 'noble men of the realm'). The solution agreed involved a modified protectorship pro tem, and parliamentary ratification of a protectorship with wider powers as soon as it could possibly be achieved, i.e. the statutory 40 days from the issue of the writs.

The Woodvilles' preferred solution was to follow the precedent of the 1420s (though not of the 1450s) and use a rushed coronation to bring an end to Richard's claim to be protector, and thereafter use their personal influence with Edward V to steer the government. It would have been helpful to them, in that regard, that the Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham, was a sympathiser.

Both solutions had some constitutional justification, but it would seem, from Mancini and Crowland, that the majority of the lords were unhappy with the Woodville solution, which would vest power in a family not of the blood royal.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-22 00:27:53
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

That's it exactly! In fact what was irregular (but not right or wrong as there is no right or wrong) is that the dowager Queen's family chose to summon the Council; normally precedent was for the new King's mother to be sidelined - for obvious reasons because she was usually a foreigner. It was unusual, but as Ross says, not wrong. And therefore for Richard it was dangerous.Do you agree with Ross that Bourchier wasn't there when it was first summoned?
Marie replies:I don't have time to check what Ross says, but his sources can only be Crowland and Mancini since we don't have council minutes for this period (the one of 7 May at Baynards Castle presided over by Cardinal Bourchier is minuted in Bourchier's register).
So first of all Mancini, whose information was all second or third hand:"On completion of the royal obsequies, and while many peers of the realm, who possessed neighbouring estates, were collecting in the city, a council assembled before the arrival of the young King Edward and Richard duke of Gloucester. In this meeting the problem of the government during the royal minority was referred to the consideration of the barons*." Mancini goes on to say that the winning side was that which wanted Richard to be chief of the council rather than sole governor of the realm.
*the Latin word is actually proceres, which just means the top men - could be translated as lords, and doesn't imply, as does Armstrong's 'barons', that none of them were churchmen.
It's hard to know when this is supposed to have occurred. On completion of the obsequies could mean after the funeral, but that took place at Windsor, not London (when Mancini refers to the city [urbs] he always means the capital). There were a few appointments made on 21 April, the day after Edward IV's burial, as we have seen, so Mancini may be wrong about the venue and perhaps this council meeting took place at Windsor.Alternatively, if it was held in London, then it must have been squeezed in between Edward's starter-obsequies at Westminster, which went on till 18 April, and the beginning of the funeral procession to Windsor, which set out that same day with no real break in the proceedings. That doesn't feel plausible. Alternatively, it could have been fitted in some time during the 9 days of obsequies in the capital, i.e.when Edward's body was lying in state but most people gathered would have been free most of the time.As for Cardinal Bourchier's presence, he had no role in Edward's funeral, either at Westminster or in Windsor or during the procession to Windsor, so this may have led Ross to conclude that he was absent. On the other hand he had been booked in advance to preside over a convocation on 18 April, but it was cancelled - probably because of Edward's death.
Now Crowland:"When the councillors of the dead king, who were then attending the queen at Westminster, had fixed upon a day on which Edward, the King's eldest son, . . . should hasten to London [for his] . . . coronation, various arguments were put forward . . . " for the number of men who should go with him and about who should control the king's person until he came of age - the 'more farsighted' thought his maternal relatives should be excluded. The funeral comes after this.So the council deliberations talked about by Crowland definitely took place at Westminster, and not necessarily at a single meeting. Crowland doesn't mention the discussion of what Gloucester's role was to be when he arrived.
So all in all, it would seem that the meeting or meetings must have taken place at Westminster whilst Edward IV was lying in state. Much of Crowland is obsessed with the lovely queen, whereas, in terms of Woodvilles, Mancini is more interested in Dorset. Crowland indicates that the Queen was personally trying to influence Edward IV's councillors and corresponding with her brother Rivers - and she must have been in order to feel the need to take sanctuary - but he doesn't actually claim that she called the council meeting, or even that she sat in on it. My guess is that her supporter Chancellor Rotherham (who certainly was present, and involved with Edward's funeral) would have acted on her behalf.
So all in all it looks as though the council meeting took place at Westminster before 18 April and that Cardinal Bourchier was probably absent. He seems to have spent most of his time at Knole in Kent.
But when Richard wrote to the Cardinal from Northampton on 2 May he must have had reason to believe he was by then in the capital.
This is all I can do, I'm afraid. I'll be away from home from tomorrow for 2 weeks.
Best to all,Marie




Since the funeral procession was an all-male affair, and the Queen does not seem


---In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote :

That's it exactly! In fact what was irregular (but not right or wrong as there is no right or wrong) is that the dowager Queen's family chose to summon the Council; normally precedent was for the new King's mother to be sidelined - for obvious reasons because she was usually a foreigner. It was unusual, but as Ross says, not wrong. And therefore for Richard it was dangerous.
Do you agree with Ross that Bourchier wasn't there when it was first summoned? H
On Tuesday, 20 February 2018, 12:53:53 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place.


Marie:

I think the issue here is that the Council of April 1483 hadn't been 'set up' in any constitutional sense - i.e. the king who had appointed its members was dead and since 422 had been deemed to have no constitutional authority to influence anything that happened after his death (the parliament of 1422 doesn't seem to have quite grasped the nettle with that one).

As a consequence, people do seem to have been falling back on considerations of natural precedence. Most councillors backed Richard's claim to lead the council not just because Edward IV had appointed him as Protector, and not just because they preferred him to the Woodvilles, but because he was the senior adult male of the blood royal. The Woodvilles, although just as closely related to the young king (more so in the case of EW) were not of the blood royal and so could not claim any natural right to govern the realm.

It is probably for similar reasons of precedence that Richard took the decision to encourage Cardinal Bourchier to take the Great Seal (the physical instrument of government) into his hands and oversee the council whilst an agreed solution could be thrashed out (and Bourchier's record of the meeting of 7 May doesn't even use the word council, just describing those present as 'noble men of the realm'). The solution agreed involved a modified protectorship pro tem, and parliamentary ratification of a protectorship with wider powers as soon as it could possibly be achieved, i.e. the statutory 40 days from the issue of the writs.

The Woodvilles' preferred solution was to follow the precedent of the 1420s (though not of the 1450s) and use a rushed coronation to bring an end to Richard's claim to be protector, and thereafter use their personal influence with Edward V to steer the government. It would have been helpful to them, in that regard, that the Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham, was a sympathiser.

Both solutions had some constitutional justification, but it would seem, from Mancini and Crowland, that the majority of the lords were unhappy with the Woodville solution, which would vest power in a family not of the blood royal.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Following up

2018-02-22 15:43:58
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, it's my belief that what you have in your last sentence is what the Woodvilles were counting on. A crowned king, even if a minor, would have power and authority that would require immense will and effort for someone to continue any opposition. That person would also need the support of a very large portion of the nobility, with their retainers and associated gentry. I don't know if Parliaments were as open to packing as they later became, but it would have been likely that, should the Woodvilles gain control of Edward, they likely have a majority in the Commons; loyal King's men, so to speak. The Lords might be more doubtful, but again, they'd need a leader and a very good reason for any continued opposition to the Woodville, I mean royal wishes. Which likely explains that remark of, I believe, Dorset's. Doug Hilary wrote: Like Marie, I did reply but it seems to have gone missing. Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place. There are some shaky precedents, but not Acts which can be challenged by an independent judiciary like say the US Supreme Court which can clip the wings of the President. Had the Council disliked Richard's decision to arrest Rivers they would have found a way round it and he would be at risk. Who could stop them - unless he took up arms against them in a coup? And that's a gift for Richard detractors if they found that he did. We are on the same side you know, but any Ricardian who puts their head above the parapet is open to challenge. They have to be, it makes them stronger. I'm saying that what Annette says is her opinion based on precedent, but in an Absolutely Monarchy he/they who would wield the most power can change anything to suit themselves. Cheers H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Following up on G

2018-02-22 15:59:35
Doug Stamate
Marie, I put the Council's decision to not make any important decisions as being due more to its' inability to form a majority in favor of one or another position, rather than it, legally anyway, not having any authority to make those decisions. I don't know if it really makes any difference? BTW, I want to say how much I look forward to your posts  even the ones that burst my theories! Doug

Marie wrote:

Re governing during a minority prior to parliamentary approval of government, it seems to me there's a further problem because the council also consisted entirely of people appointed by the late king, so before a parliamentary settlement was reached had no more right to impose its will than the protector named by the late king.

This, I believe, is why Richard involved Cardinal Bourchier as caretaker until things were sorted out and believed that the Cardinal could force Rotherham to deliver the Great Seal to him: "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of the realm, and hath precedence, after the blood royal, before all the peers of the realm and the great officers of state" (Letter to the Archbishop of York by R. M. Beverley, 1831).

It's notable that the council seems to have attempted to do very little (just a couple of unavoidable appointments) before the arrival of Edward V and the reaching of a working agreement with Richa rd and the Archbishop c. 10-13 May.

Just my take.


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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Following up

2018-02-23 09:35:33
Hilary Jones
Re your remarks about Parliament Doug, the preamble to the 1482 Parliament in BHOL says that Rivers tried to create 5 additional members - but didn't succeed. Yet another feeling that all was not well with the King or his health? Oh and BTW there is the argument put forward by Horsepool (and some others) that Edward never intended a Protectorate but for his son to rule from day one. H
On Thursday, 22 February 2018, 15:44:09 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, FWIW, it's my belief that what you have in your last sentence is what the Woodvilles were counting on. A crowned king, even if a minor, would have power and authority that would require immense will and effort for someone to continue any opposition. That person would also need the support of a very large portion of the nobility, with their retainers and associated gentry. I don't know if Parliaments were as open to packing as they later became, but it would have been likely that, should the Woodvilles gain control of Edward, they likely have a majority in the Commons; loyal King's men, so to speak. The Lords might be more doubtful, but again, they'd need a leader and a very good reason for any continued opposition to the Woodville, I mean royal wishes. Which likely explains that remark of, I believe, Dorset's. Doug Hilary wrote: Like Marie, I did reply but it seems to have gone missing. Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place. There are some shaky precedents, but not Acts which can be challenged by an independent judiciary like say the US Supreme Court which can clip the wings of the President. Had the Council disliked Richard's decision to arrest Rivers they would have found a way round it and he would be at risk. Who could stop them - unless he took up arms against them in a coup? And that's a gift for Richard detractors if they found that he did. We are on the same side you know, but any Ricardian who puts their head above the parapet is open to challenge. They have to be, it makes them stronger. I'm saying that what Annette says is her opinion based on precedent, but in an Absolutely Monarchy he/they who would wield the most power can change anything to suit themselves. Cheers H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-23 15:58:14
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Without further information, I'm inclined to think Rivers was more likely simply trying to build up his clout as a local magnate in the area/s where proposed those new Parliamentary seats. We know Rivers definitely wasn't militarily inclined, so his attempting to increase his power via political means makes sense. And he could very well have been responding to actual requests. Population wasn't static, even in 15th century England and his actions might partially represent that. I've read that a town in Norfolk, I believe, where half of it simply fell into the North Sea during a particularly bad storm. Then there are those ports along the Channel, once very prosperous, but declining as the coast receded; Rye comes t mind. Does Horsepool give any reason/s for the idea Edward never intended a Protectorate? Or is he relying on the lack of tangible records in favor of a Protectorate? Doug Hilary wrote: Re your remarks about Parliament Doug, the preamble to the 1482 Parliament in BHOL says that Rivers tried to create 5 additional members - but didn't succeed. Yet another feeling that all was not well with the King or his health? Oh and BTW there is the argument put forward by Horsepool (and some others) that Edward never intended a Protectorate but for his son to rule from day one. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-23 16:02:56
Stephen
That sounds like Dunwich, Suffolk.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 23 February 2018 16:01
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: Following up on Gairdner

 
 
 
Hilary,
Without further information, I'm inclined to think Rivers was more likely simply trying to build up his clout as a local magnate in the area/s where proposed those new Parliamentary seats. We know Rivers definitely wasn't militarily inclined, so his attempting to increase his power via political means makes sense. And he could very well have been responding to actual requests. Population wasn't static, even in 15th century England and his actions might partially represent that. I've read that a town in Norfolk, I believe, where half of it simply fell into the North Sea during a particularly bad storm. Then there are those ports along the Channel, once very prosperous, but declining as the coast receded; Rye comes t mind.
Does Horsepool give any reason/s for the idea Edward never intended a Protectorate? Or is he relying on the lack of tangible records in favor of a Protectorate?
Doug
 
Hilary wrote:
Re your remarks about Parliament Doug, the preamble to the 1482 Parliament in BHOL says that Rivers tried to create 5 additional members - but didn't succeed. Yet another feeling that all was not well with the King or his health? Oh and BTW there is the argument put forward by Horsepool (and some others) that Edward never intended a Protectorate but for his son to rule from day one. H
 
 

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




Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-23 16:30:32
Hilary Jones
Doug, apparently, and I can't at the moment get my hands on Eric Ives's 'papers of Anthony Woodville' we don't know whether he got his five but he was looking for 17 more in the West Country before 'time ran out'.
To say Horsepool is hostile is an understatement. His claim that Edward may have preferred to have his son crowned straight away is based on there being no recent will. He claims Richard is in a precarious financial situation in Yorkshire and is afraid of being dispossessed of his lands and his titles by the new King. There is an awful lot of Mancini, Croyland and More and an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims - like Rivers is at Ludlow when then news arrives. And Rivers is of course a saintly scholar. One of those books that makes you very cross - but unfortunately it's recent and people buy it! So we have to be ready for that argument. H
On Friday, 23 February 2018, 16:01:32 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Without further information, I'm inclined to think Rivers was more likely simply trying to build up his clout as a local magnate in the area/s where proposed those new Parliamentary seats. We know Rivers definitely wasn't militarily inclined, so his attempting to increase his power via political means makes sense. And he could very well have been responding to actual requests. Population wasn't static, even in 15th century England and his actions might partially represent that. I've read that a town in Norfolk, I believe, where half of it simply fell into the North Sea during a particularly bad storm. Then there are those ports along the Channel, once very prosperous, but declining as the coast receded; Rye comes t mind. Does Horsepool give any reason/s for the idea Edward never intended a Protectorate? Or is he relying on the lack of tangible records in favor of a Protectorate? Doug Hilary wrote: Re your remarks about Parliament Doug, the preamble to the 1482 Parliament in BHOL says that Rivers tried to create 5 additional members - but didn't succeed. Yet another feeling that all was not well with the King or his health? Oh and BTW there is the argument put forward by Horsepool (and some others) that Edward never intended a Protectorate but for his son to rule from day one. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-25 17:54:08
Doug Stamate
Stephen wrote:
"That sounds like Dunwich, Suffolk."

That's the place! Apparently the town had been prosperous and growing until
then.
Doug



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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard II

2018-02-25 18:01:12
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: :Doug, apparently, and I can't at the moment get my hands on Eric Ives's 'papers of Anthony Woodville' we don't know whether he got his five but he was looking for 17 more in the West Country before 'time ran out'. Doug here: Probably associated with sheep raising and/or tin mining, I'll bet. I know that there was a solid group of Members of Parliament from, I believe, Cornwall during the 17th and early 18th centuries numbering 20 or 30 and who often made the difference in whether legislation passed or not. Perhaps Woodville was simply being prescient? Hilary concluded: To say Horsepool is hostile is an understatement. His claim that Edward may have preferred to have his son crowned straight away is based on there being no recent will. He claims Richard is in a precarious financial situation in Yorkshire and is afraid of being dispossessed of his lands and his titles by the new King. There is an awful lot of Mancini, Croyland and More and an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims - like Rivers is at Ludlow when then news arrives. And Rivers is of course a saintly scholar. One of those books that makes you very cross - but unfortunately it's recent and people buy it! So we have to be ready for that argument. Doug here: Looks as if it's going to bet yet another battle against What everybody knows! Oh, well... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-26 20:49:37
justcarol67
Marie wrote:

"I don't have time to check what Ross says, but his sources can only be Crowland and Mancini since we don't have council minutes for this period (the one of 7 May at Baynards Castle presided over by Cardinal Bourchier is minuted in Bourchier's register)."
Carol responds:

I wasn't aware of this source. Is it part of Harleian MS 433 (if not, where can I find it?) and is there anything else of importance to Richard in it?

Thanks.
Carol

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-26 21:04:41
mariewalsh2003
The meeting at Baynards Castle.
Hi Carol, Archbishop Bourchier's register is nothing to do with Harley 433. All bishops and archbishops kept a register summarising business, and some of these have been transcribed and published by the Canterbury and York Society. Bourchier's register as Archbishop of Canterbury is one of those. Unfortunately, like many other bishop's registers it was written up on loose sheets for binding later on, and if my memory serves me correctly it wasn't bound until H VIi's reign. At any rate it seems very incomplete- a lot of material must have gone missing. ( I'll leave you all free to speculate as to reasons). But it does contain a brief record of this council meeting held at Baynards on 7 May, seemingly under Bourchier's chairmanship, to discuss what to do about administering Edward IV's will, which was a problem with most of the named beneficiaries in sanctuary.
Unfortunately there is nothing else in it which sheds any light on the events of 1483-5.
I have a battered old secondhand copy - I think it's probably long out of print.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-26 22:34:34
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"To say Horsepool is hostile is an understatement. His claim that Edward may have preferred to have his son crowned straight away is based on there being no recent will. He claims Richard is in a precarious financial situation in Yorkshire and is afraid of being dispossessed of his lands and his titles by the new King. There is an awful lot of Mancini, Croyland and More and an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims - like Rivers is at Ludlow when then news arrives. And Rivers is of course a saintly scholar. One of those books that makes you very cross - but unfortunately it's recent and people buy it! So we have to be ready for that argument."

Carol responds:

But, of course, Mancini mentions the provision in the will appointing Richard as Protector: "[Regarding] the problem of the government during the royal minority . . . two opinions were propounded. One was that the Duke of Gloucester should govern, *because Edward in his will had so directed,* and because by law the government should devolve on him" (Dockray, p. 42, my ellipsis and brackets). And Croyland hints at it, mentioning that Edward had made his will long before his illness and adding, "On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose." The codicils referred to, giving this commentator's attitudes toward the "benevolent" queen and the (shall we say?) overly ambitious Duke of Gloucester, can only be those removing EW as one of his executors and appointing Richard as Protector.

Not one of the overtly hostile Tudor chroniclers doubts the existence of the will/codicil (though, of course, they use it *against* Richard, arguing or implying that he violated his brother's trust). Horspool (for whom I have my own private and unflattering nickname) has no evidence to back up his theory, only the desire to present what he thinks is a new angle using the same old sources.

Carol

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-02-26 23:18:48
justcarol67

Marie wrote:
"The meeting at Baynards Castle.
Hi Carol, Archbishop Bourchier's register is nothing to do with Harley 433. All bishops and archbishops kept a register summarising business, and some of these have been transcribed and published by the Canterbury and York Society. Bourchier's register as Archbishop of Canterbury is one of those. Unfortunately, like many other bishop's registers it was written up on loose sheets for binding later on, and if my memory serves me correctly it wasn't bound until H VIi's reign. At any rate it seems very incomplete- a lot of material must have gone missing. ( I'll leave you all free to speculate as to reasons). But it does contain a brief record of this council meeting held at Baynards on 7 May, seemingly under Bourchier's chairmanship, to discuss what to do about administering Edward IV's will, which was a problem with most of the named beneficiaries in sanctuary.
Unfortunately there is nothing else in it which sheds any light on the events of 1483-5.
I have a battered old secondhand copy - I think it's probably long out of print."

Carol responds:

Thanks very much. Is the excerpt short enough to quote? If not, does it say anything specific about Richard (as opposed to the beneficiaries in sanctuary)? You said it doesn't refer to him as Protector. Is the register our main source for his stay at Baynards Castle? I seem to recall Mancini saying that both he and Buckingham were staying there.

Thanks as usual for your invaluable help.
Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-27 10:17:46
Hilary Jones
Thanks for all this Carol. I'd love to know that nickname! H
On Monday, 26 February 2018, 22:34:42 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:


"To say Horsepool is hostile is an understatement. His claim that Edward may have preferred to have his son crowned straight away is based on there being no recent will. He claims Richard is in a precarious financial situation in Yorkshire and is afraid of being dispossessed of his lands and his titles by the new King. There is an awful lot of Mancini, Croyland and More and an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims - like Rivers is at Ludlow when then news arrives. And Rivers is of course a saintly scholar. One of those books that makes you very cross - but unfortunately it's recent and people buy it! So we have to be ready for that argument."

Carol responds:

But, of course, Mancini mentions the provision in the will appointing Richard as Protector: "[Regarding] the problem of the government during the royal minority . . . two opinions were propounded. One was that the Duke of Gloucester should govern, *because Edward in his will had so directed,* and because by law the government should devolve on him" (Dockray, p. 42, my ellipsis and brackets). And Croyland hints at it, mentioning that Edward had made his will long before his illness and adding, "On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose." The codicils referred to, giving this commentator's attitudes toward the "benevolent" queen and the (shall we say?) overly ambitious Duke of Gloucester, can only be those removing EW as one of his executors and appointing Richard as Protector.

Not one of the overtly hostile Tudor chroniclers doubts the existence of the will/codicil (though, of course, they use it *against* Richard, arguing or implying that he violated his brother's trust). Horspool (for whom I have my own private and unflattering nickname) has no evidence to back up his theory, only the desire to present what he thinks is a new angle using the same old sources.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-27 12:01:03
Paul Trevor bale
Odd thing about Horspool is he is such an admirer of Richard up to 1483, then he turns. But what I noticed when reading his book was how his sources from 1483 onwards narrowed enormously, relying chiefly on the small number of anti Richard volumes. Almost as if he hurried to finish the book and took short cuts. Very disappointing as up to then it was a well written and researched volume.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 févr. 2018 à 11:17, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Thanks for all this Carol. I'd love to know that nickname! H
On Monday, 26 February 2018, 22:34:42 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:


"To say Horsepool is hostile is an understatement. His claim that Edward may have preferred to have his son crowned straight away is based on there being no recent will. He claims Richard is in a precarious financial situation in Yorkshire and is afraid of being dispossessed of his lands and his titles by the new King. There is an awful lot of Mancini, Croyland and More and an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims - like Rivers is at Ludlow when then news arrives. And Rivers is of course a saintly scholar. One of those books that makes you very cross - but unfortunately it's recent and people buy it! So we have to be ready for that argument."

Carol responds:

But, of course, Mancini mentions the provision in the will appointing Richard as Protector: "[Regarding] the problem of the government during the royal minority . . . two opinions were propounded. One was that the Duke of Gloucester should govern, *because Edward in his will had so directed,* and because by law the government should devolve on him" (Dockray, p. 42, my ellipsis and brackets). And Croyland hints at it, mentioning that Edward had made his will long before his illness and adding, "On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose." The codicils referred to, giving this commentator's attitudes toward the "benevolent" queen and the (shall we say?) overly ambitious Duke of Gloucester, can only be those removing EW as one of his executors and appointing Richard as Protector.

Not one of the overtly hostile Tudor chroniclers doubts the existence of the will/codicil (though, of course, they use it *against* Richard, arguing or implying that he violated his brother's trust). Horspool (for whom I have my own private and unflattering nickname) has no evidence to back up his theory, only the desire to present what he thinks is a new angle using the same old sources.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-03-01 20:12:14
justcarol67

Hilary wrote:

Thanks for all this Carol. I'd love to know that nickname! H

Carol responds:

You're welcome. And let's just say that the nickname has to do with horses.

Carol

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-01 20:17:33
mariewalsh2003
Hi Carol, it's probably short enough to quote but can you remind me after next Wed as I don't have access to it here?
We have reports of Richard at Baynards and Crosby Place during those months, but I've never quite sorted out a pattern.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-07 00:20:03
justcarol67


Marie wrote:

Hi Carol, it's probably short enough to quote but can you remind me after next Wed as I don't have access to it here?
We have reports of Richard at Baynards and Crosby Place during those months, but I've never quite sorted out a pattern.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Marie. I think it's Wednesday in England now or close to it. Still Tuesday here.

Carol

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-07 21:03:08
mariewalsh2003

Carol wrote:

Thanks, Marie. I think it's Wednesday in England now or close to it. Still Tuesday here.


Marie:

Actually, it was Tuesday evening, and I had said *after* Wednesday as I was travelling on Tuesday and would have a lot to sort out on my return home. But I don't mind being nagged.


I have looked at Northumberland now though, and I see no real reason to suppose he was in London in the spring of 1483 (not after the dissolution of parliament, anyway):

1) He had no role in Edward's funeral;

2) He was not present at the council meeting at Baynards Castle on 7 May,

3) In June, Richard chose him to bring the troop down from the North, so my guess is that he was in the North and Richard wrote to give him the commission at the same time as he wrote to Lord Neville and the city of York.

It is true that indentures of appointment as Captain of Berwick town and castle were drawn up for him on 10 and 20 May, but there's no indication that he set his seal to them at that time.


It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-07 21:33:50
Hilary Jones
Thanks so much for Northumberland Marie. So one of the premier earls who Richard trusted enough to be his deputy and to create knights probably couldn't have made it to the coronation? Let alone participate in Council decisions earlier. Does look like a scheme doesnt it? H. (Who hasn't nudged you :) :) ). H.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018, 9:03 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Carol wrote:

Thanks, Marie. I think it's Wednesday in England now or close to it. Still Tuesday here.


Marie:

Actually, it was Tuesday evening, and I had said *after* Wednesday as I was travelling on Tuesday and would have a lot to sort out on my return home. But I don't mind being nagged.


I have looked at Northumberland now though, and I see no real reason to suppose he was in London in the spring of 1483 (not after the dissolution of parliament, anyway):

1) He had no role in Edward's funeral;

2) He was not present at the council meeting at Baynards Castle on 7 May,

3) In June, Richard chose him to bring the troop down from the North, so my guess is that he was in the North and Richard wrote to give him the commission at the same time as he wrote to Lord Neville and the city of York.

It is true that indentures of appointment as Captain of Berwick town and castle were drawn up for him on 10 and 20 May, but there's no indication that he set his seal to them at that time.


It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-08 23:34:16
mariewalsh2003

Reply to Hilary's nudge:


I looked at Crowland's Latin last night, and it doesn't get us any further. A very quick translation is as follows:


And, when he arrived at Northampton where the Duke of Buckingham joined him, there came thither to pay their respects to him Anthony Earl Rivers, the King's maternal uncle, and Richard Grey, a most noble knight and the same king's uterine brother, and also others sent by his nephew the King in order to submit everything that was to be done to the judgement of his paternal uncle the Duke of Gloucester. At their first coming they were received with an excessively cheerful and merry expression, and sitting at the Duke's table at dinner they passed that whole time in intensely agreeable conversation. At length Henry Duke of Buckingham similarly arrived, and because the hour was late they each turned in to their lodgings.


What I and Pronay & Cox have translated as "joined him" is sese ei associavit - it's plain old perfect indicative, in other words simple past tense.

The verb used for 'arrive' in each instance (1. Richard, 2. Rivers & Grey, and 3. Buckingham at the end of dinner) is the same - applico.


I do think we are meant to read it as Buckingham arriving after dinner. Doug may be right and this is the result of two separate accounts being amalgamated. It might also be the result of the account having been dictated, or written up from notes with a lot of crossings out and additions which made it hard to follow.


The hostile accounts interpret Richard's happy face as dissimulation, but what always strikes me is that things change once Buckingham has arrived and had a chance to talk to Richard on his own.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-08 23:43:40
justcarol67
Marie wrote:


"It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?"


Carol responds:


Thanks for the information on Northumberland.


With regard to that May 4 coronation, I would suppose that the attendees would be more or less the same as those who attended Edward IV's funeral. Do we know who those people were? For example, was Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk there with her husband and eldest son, John, Earl of Lincoln? She played a prominent role in *Richard's* coronation.


Carol

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-09 10:12:20
Hilary Jones
Thank you so much Marie. As you say it's almost as though someone passed on their notes, the chronicler wrote them down as best they could, and then it was 'marked' to make sure it was as required.
I am veering more and more towards the theory that Buckingham originally joined the new King's party, smelled a the rat of a plan which he doubted would work and took that earlier left turn to go to Richard. Perhaps he said there was no need for him to go with them to deposit the boy at Stony Stratford?
Thanks again! H On Thursday, 8 March 2018, 23:34:19 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Reply to Hilary's nudge:


I looked at Crowland's Latin last night, and it doesn't get us any further. A very quick translation is as follows:


And, when he arrived at Northampton where the Duke of Buckingham joined him, there came thither to pay their respects to him Anthony Earl Rivers, the King's maternal uncle, and Richard Grey, a most noble knight and the same king's uterine brother, and also others sent by his nephew the King in order to submit everything that was to be done to the judgement of his paternal uncle the Duke of Gloucester. At their first coming they were received with an excessively cheerful and merry expression, and sitting at the Duke's table at dinner they passed that whole time in intensely agreeable conversation. At length Henry Duke of Buckingham similarly arrived, and because the hour was late they each turned in to their lodgings.


What I and Pronay & Cox have translated as "joined him" is sese ei associavit - it's plain old perfect indicative, in other words simple past tense.

The verb used for 'arrive' in each instance (1. Richard, 2. Rivers & Grey, and 3. Buckingham at the end of dinner) is the same - applico.


I do think we are meant to read it as Buckingham arriving after dinner. Doug may be right and this is the result of two separate accounts being amalgamated. It might also be the result of the account having been dictated, or written up from notes with a lot of crossings out and additions which made it hard to follow.


The hostile accounts interpret Richard's happy face as dissimulation, but what always strikes me is that things change once Buckingham has arrived and had a chance to talk to Richard on his own.

Re: Following up on Gairdner

2018-03-09 10:16:06
Hilary Jones
Carol, according to Ross, Suffolk sent Lincoln to the Council meetings before Richard arrived. It does beg the question as to how important Suffolk thought any decisions of that Counciil might be before the King and Richard's arrival. H
On Thursday, 8 March 2018, 23:43:50 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Marie wrote:


"It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?"


Carol responds:


Thanks for the information on Northumberland.


With regard to that May 4 coronation, I would suppose that the attendees would be more or less the same as those who attended Edward IV's funeral. Do we know who those people were? For example, was Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk there with her husband and eldest son, John, Earl of Lincoln? She played a prominent role in *Richard's* coronation.


Carol