Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-12 02:12:36
hjnatdat

Sometimes I feel our Richard moves in mysterious ways.


I was recently returning from holiday and after a tortuous journey that was taking 2 hours' longer than usual, I found myself tossed off the MI once more because of another 40 minute predicted delay. And there I was on a beautiful afternoon on the A508, heading to Stony Stratford through Grafton Regis. And I was forcibly going slower because I was in the inevitable diverted queue. So I could take a proper survey of the countryside and the road. And I noticed something I hadn't before.

You pass very quickly through the village of Roade and then on the left-handside the countryside opens out to Bedfordshire fields, where you can see straight across to Hanslope. On the right-hand side there is the typical blend of big Northants estates, sheep fields and what the GPS tells me was the forest of Salcey. (There are also signs to Hartwell and Furtho Manor Farm).

But what I'd neglected to notice before (because I wasn't looking) was that the land undulates, in fact the road as you approach Grafton Regis goes up and down like a roller-coaster. And Grafton sits at the very top of the arc - you can see it for miles from both sides and it can see both sides for miles! So anyone stationed at Grafton would be able to see Richard's approach for about 2 miles. And on the other side, they would be able to signal to potential ambushers in the 'valley' on the roads that Doug identified. It really is an ideal spot. You can probably see further if you go to the top of the church tower.

I carried on to the A5 and again I noted a couple of things. Firstly, it's quite a long way from Grafton to Stony Stratford, so it's certainly a big diversion to go all the way to Northampton from there. On the other hand, Towcester is very handy - just six miles, as the sign I was stuck by for 15 mins said. If Rivers (and Buckingham) had come from Ludlow, it would have been stupid to go to Northampton when Richard would have to pass through Stony Stratford anyway.

To me it just demonstrates how often we take things for granted and go through locations without really taking due notice.. H


Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-12 17:44:30
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople, who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-12 18:13:29
ricard1an
Great post Hilary. Also shows how some so called historians just accept everything that More, Crowland, Mancini and Shakespeare tell them without question whereas on this Forum we question everything. Ok you didn't raise these questions on previous journeys but as soon as you were trapped in traffic you saw what was probably intended to happen.
Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 10:05:31
Hilary Jones
Yes it is weird about Edward not going to Northampton if the others were isn't it? The only certainty we seem to have (I say seem on purpose) is that Edward was coming from Ludlow. So as you say Rivers must have been in East Anglia to agree to meet with Richard in Northampton, otherwise why not take Edward, and why no civic reception for the young King? It doesn't seem as though Edward was intended to go there, does it? A silly thought, but could he not have been well enough to make that extra detour? There were rumours about his health, but did that come later? H
On Thursday, 12 April 2018, 17:46:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople, who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 10:14:05
Hilary Jones
Thanks Mary. It's the old W H Davies thing 'What is this life if full of care ........' :) :) H
On Thursday, 12 April 2018, 18:13:41 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Great post Hilary. Also shows how some so called historians just accept everything that More, Crowland, Mancini and Shakespeare tell them without question whereas on this Forum we question everything. Ok you didn't raise these questions on previous journeys but as soon as you were trapped in traffic you saw what was probably intended to happen.


Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 13:59:47
Nicholas Brown
A very insightful post. I have never actually been to Grafton Regis or Stony Stratford, but you get the idea if you go on Street view. As you 'drive' along the A508, you can see the elevation just before you get to Grafton Regis and it goes down again as you leave giving the clear views on either side. When you combine the unusual circumstances and positions of AW in Northampton, EV in Stony Stratford, AW's manor being an excellent location for an ambush and the EW fleeing to the Sanctuary for no apparent reason, that tends to support a different version of the traditionalist view.
Nico



On Friday, 13 April 2018, 10:15:55 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes it is weird about Edward not going to Northampton if the others were isn't it? The only certainty we seem to have (I say seem on purpose) is that Edward was coming from Ludlow. So as you say Rivers must have been in East Anglia to agree to meet with Richard in Northampton, otherwise why not take Edward, and why no civic reception for the young King? It doesn't seem as though Edward was intended to go there, does it? A silly thought, but could he not have been well enough to make that extra detour? There were rumours about his health, but did that come later? H
On Thursday, 12 April 2018, 17:46:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople, who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 14:23:55
Hilary Jones
One further thought. If it was up to Rivers to make arrangements for civic receptions on Edward's 'progress' to London, did Richard think he had done so at Northampton and they were all meeting young Edward there? If there was no such reception or an excuse he might indeed have smelled a rat. After all, he'd traveled the route lots of times before and he was a professional soldier. H
On Friday, 13 April 2018, 13:59:57 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

A very insightful post. I have never actually been to Grafton Regis or Stony Stratford, but you get the idea if you go on Street view.. As you 'drive' along the A508, you can see the elevation just before you get to Grafton Regis and it goes down again as you leave giving the clear views on either side. When you combine the unusual circumstances and positions of AW in Northampton, EV in Stony Stratford, AW's manor being an excellent location for an ambush and the EW fleeing to the Sanctuary for no apparent reason, that tends to support a different version of the traditionalist view.
Nico



On Friday, 13 April 2018, 10:15:55 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes it is weird about Edward not going to Northampton if the others were isn't it? The only certainty we seem to have (I say seem on purpose) is that Edward was coming from Ludlow. So as you say Rivers must have been in East Anglia to agree to meet with Richard in Northampton, otherwise why not take Edward, and why no civic reception for the young King? It doesn't seem as though Edward was intended to go there, does it? A silly thought, but could he not have been well enough to make that extra detour? There were rumours about his health, but did that come later? H
On Thursday, 12 April 2018, 17:46:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople, who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 15:09:35
Doug Stamate
Hilary,
I can't say how pleased I am about your discovery! I was going solely by
where those side roads met the A 508, but apparently there were
topographical reasons for where the roads were, which makes sense! After
all, why ride or walk up and down hills when you can take a more level
route?
I agree with you that for anyone coming from Ludlow, Towcester would make a
much more sensible stop-over. However if, as Marie has proposed in at least
one of her posts, Northampton was an agreed-upon rendezvous for all parties,
with "all" heavily under-lined, then why wasn't Edward there as well? I tend
to think that it was where Edward wasn't that first alerted Richard that
something was up.
Doug

Hilary wrote:
"I was recently returning from holiday and after a tortuous journey that was
taking 2 hours' longer than usual, I found myself tossed off the MI once
more because of another 40 minute predicted delay. And there I was on a
beautiful afternoon on the A508, heading to Stony Stratford through Grafton
Regis. And I was forcibly going slower because I was in the inevitable
diverted queue. So I could take a proper survey of the countryside and the
road. And I noticed something I hadn't before.
You pass very quickly through the village of Roade and then on the left-hand
side the countryside opens out to Bedfordshire fields, where you can see
straight across to Hanslope. On the right-hand side there is the typical
blend of big Northants estates, sheep fields and what the GPS tells me was
the forest of Salcey. (There are also signs to Hartwell and Furtho Manor
Farm).
But what I'd neglected to notice before (because I wasn't looking) was that
the land undulates, in fact the road as you approach Grafton Regis goes up
and down like a roller-coaster. And Grafton sits at the very top of the
arc - you can see it for miles from both sides and it can see both sides for
miles! So anyone stationed at Grafton would be able to see Richard's
approach for about 2 miles. And on the other side, they would be able to
signal to potential ambushers in the 'valley' on the roads that Doug
identified. It really is an ideal spot. You can probably see further if you
go to the top of the church tower.
I carried on to the A5 and again I noted a couple of things. Firstly, it's
quite a long way from Grafton to Stony Stratford, so it's certainly a big
diversion to go all the way to Northampton from there. On the other hand,
Towcester is very handy - just six miles, as the sign I was stuck by for 15
mins said. If Rivers (and Buckingham) had come from Ludlow, it would have
been stupid to go to Northampton when Richard would have to pass through
Stony Stratford anyway.
To me it just demonstrates how often we take things for granted and go
through locations without really taking due notice."



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

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 16:54:58
Doug Stamate
Marie,
If I remember correctly (too lazy to troll through the older posts), you've
previously wondered if Northampton was the designated rendezvous for
everyone; it rather looks as if you were right! Your point about this trip
basically being Edward's first progress and the poor PR involved in skipping
Northampton raised all sorts of questions in my mind.
As you said, whether AW originally planned that Edward wouldn't go to
Northampton or it was a last minute change; it would be viewed as an insult
to the corporation and townspeople. To be honest, I can't come up with any
above-board reason for AW to plan from the beginning for Edward not to go to
Northampton along with everyone else. Buckingham, whether he started in
Wales or joined along the way, was there; Grey, who definitely had started
in Wales was there; Richard, all the way from York was there; and AW, from
the wide expanses of Norfolk, was there. So why not Edward?
What do you think of the idea that Buckingham's presence may have thrown a
monkey-wrench (spanner?) into the works? Because, had Buckingham not been
there, it would have been Richard, and however many men he had with him,
against AW and Grey (possibly even Vaughan?), with however many men they had
with them? IOW, the original plan would have had Richard captured or killed
in Northampton, but when Buckingham either joined Edward's party somewhere
en route or simply showed up in Northampton, the plan had to be changed to
an ambush. Which required there be a reason for AW to get Richard out of
Northampton and somewhere where. Such as Edward being in Stony Stratford.
Had it been possible to follow what may have been the original plan, then
Edward might have been parked at Towcester.
At any rate, I'm in complete agreement agree with your "Hmmm."
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly
not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the
days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or
Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it
was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample
accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first
progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of
allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really
important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough
such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or
a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very
peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and
Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople,
who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>"



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

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 17:48:27
Hilary Jones
I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded.
Congratulations to you and your atlas! H
On Friday, 13 April 2018, 15:52:54 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,
I can't say how pleased I am about your discovery! I was going solely by
where those side roads met the A 508, but apparently there were
topographical reasons for where the roads were, which makes sense! After
all, why ride or walk up and down hills when you can take a more level
route?
I agree with you that for anyone coming from Ludlow, Towcester would make a
much more sensible stop-over. However if, as Marie has proposed in at least
one of her posts, Northampton was an agreed-upon rendezvous for all parties,
with "all" heavily under-lined, then why wasn't Edward there as well? I tend
to think that it was where Edward wasn't that first alerted Richard that
something was up.
Doug

Hilary wrote:
"I was recently returning from holiday and after a tortuous journey that was
taking 2 hours' longer than usual, I found myself tossed off the MI once
more because of another 40 minute predicted delay. And there I was on a
beautiful afternoon on the A508, heading to Stony Stratford through Grafton
Regis. And I was forcibly going slower because I was in the inevitable
diverted queue. So I could take a proper survey of the countryside and the
road. And I noticed something I hadn't before.
You pass very quickly through the village of Roade and then on the left-hand
side the countryside opens out to Bedfordshire fields, where you can see
straight across to Hanslope. On the right-hand side there is the typical
blend of big Northants estates, sheep fields and what the GPS tells me was
the forest of Salcey. (There are also signs to Hartwell and Furtho Manor
Farm).
But what I'd neglected to notice before (because I wasn't looking) was that
the land undulates, in fact the road as you approach Grafton Regis goes up
and down like a roller-coaster. And Grafton sits at the very top of the
arc - you can see it for miles from both sides and it can see both sides for
miles! So anyone stationed at Grafton would be able to see Richard's
approach for about 2 miles. And on the other side, they would be able to
signal to potential ambushers in the 'valley' on the roads that Doug
identified. It really is an ideal spot. You can probably see further if you
go to the top of the church tower.
I carried on to the A5 and again I noted a couple of things. Firstly, it's
quite a long way from Grafton to Stony Stratford, so it's certainly a big
diversion to go all the way to Northampton from there. On the other hand,
Towcester is very handy - just six miles, as the sign I was stuck by for 15
mins said. If Rivers (and Buckingham) had come from Ludlow, it would have
been stupid to go to Northampton when Richard would have to pass through
Stony Stratford anyway.
To me it just demonstrates how often we take things for granted and go
through locations without really taking due notice."

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

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-13 17:55:42
Pamela Bain

I think both of you are brilliant. And, I wonder if any other recent experts have ever taken the time to drive the area slowly and carefully!

From: <>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 11:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded.

Congratulations to you and your atlas! H

On Friday, 13 April 2018, 15:52:54 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,
I can't say how pleased I am about your discovery! I was going solely by
where those side roads met the A 508, but apparently there were
topographical reasons for where the roads were, which makes sense! After
all, why ride or walk up and down hills when you can take a more level
route?
I agree with you that for anyone coming from Ludlow, Towcester would make a
much more sensible stop-over. However if, as Marie has proposed in at least
one of her posts, Northampton was an agreed-upon rendezvous for all parties,
with "all" heavily under-lined, then why wasn't Edward there as well? I tend
to think that it was where Edward wasn't that first alerted Richard that
something was up.
Doug

Hilary wrote:
"I was recently returning from holiday and after a tortuous journey that was
taking 2 hours' longer than usual, I found myself tossed off the MI once
more because of another 40 minute predicted delay. And there I was on a
beautiful afternoon on the A508, heading to Stony Stratford through Grafton
Regis. And I was forcibly going slower because I was in the inevitable
diverted queue. So I could take a proper survey of the countryside and the
road. And I noticed something I hadn't before.
You pass very quickly through the village of Roade and then on the left-hand
side the countryside opens out to Bedfordshire fields, where you can see
straight across to Hanslope. On the right-hand side there is the typical
blend of big Northants estates, sheep fields and what the GPS tells me was
the forest of Salcey. (There are also signs to Hartwell and Furtho Manor
Farm).
But what I'd neglected to notice before (because I wasn't looking) was that
the land undulates, in fact the road as you approach Grafton Regis goes up
and down like a roller-coaster. And Grafton sits at the very top of the
arc - you can see it for miles from both sides and it can see both sides for
miles! So anyone stationed at Grafton would be able to see Richard's
approach for about 2 miles. And on the other side, they would be able to
signal to potential ambushers in the 'valley' on the roads that Doug
identified. It really is an ideal spot. You can probably see further if you
go to the top of the church tower.
I carried on to the A5 and again I noted a couple of things. Firstly, it's
quite a long way from Grafton to Stony Stratford, so it's certainly a big
diversion to go all the way to Northampton from there. On the other hand,
Towcester is very handy - just six miles, as the sign I was stuck by for 15
mins said. If Rivers (and Buckingham) had come from Ludlow, it would have
been stupid to go to Northampton when Richard would have to pass through
Stony Stratford anyway.
To me it just demonstrates how often we take things for granted and go
through locations without really taking due notice."

--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-15 15:34:05
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose! Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-16 10:36:39
Hilary Jones
That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose! Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-16 22:07:17
mariewalsh2003
I tried doing a detour by Grafton on my way south from Loughborough today, but my Sat Nav went stubbornly haywire and kept taking me up and down the M1 in different directions so in the end I had to give up (the curse of the Woodvilles or what?). I'll try again on my way home next week.
Is anyone able to look up Crowland or Mancini to check whether they believed there was an agreed rendezvous with Richard? I've nothing here with me but my phone.
Incidentally, a few interesting facts on Coventry came out of the weekend. First, it was held to belong to the Prince of Wales in some sense, and was known as the Prince's Chamber'. Hence MoA and QE focusing so much on the town with their sons. Second, Coventry traditionally gave each king £100 and a gold cup on his first visit. Henry Tudor actually rode back to Coventry to get his 2 days after Bosworth. So it certainly looks likely that EV would have entered Coventry on his journey from Ludlow and got his reward. It's yet one more motive for him to have taken the Midlands route.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-16 22:14:30
mariewalsh2003
To Doug,

I think it's quite likely that Buckingham threw in a spanner by changing sides. Another possibility is that the Woodvilles became convinced that Richard meant to snatch Edward from them and so determined to keep the two of them apart.

If Richard had arrived in Northampton to join the royal party only to discover EV had either passed through or bypassed the town altogether, he would surely have ridden hot foot after them, so the Woodvilles would have had no alternative than to send someone to Northampton to delay him.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-16 23:06:07
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, late to look up your request tonight but will do so.
'Camera Principis', the 'Princes Chamber' is where I was born and worked for 20 years. When we were inducted we were taken to the Muniment Room to see the city treasures, which were medieval and very beautiful, and the Computer Room which occupied two rooms!! :) :) The manor of Cheylesmore (pronounced Charlesmore) in Coventry originally belonged to Queen Isabella, mother of Edward III, and passed to his son the Black Prince. Hence Camera Principis. In Edward IV's s time it was about the seventh biggest city in England, with London way ahead and, as you say, had a special place in the hearts of the monarch - and the Catesbys.
If you go to St Mary's Guildhall you can see the chair in which Richard sat on his visit to Coventry, but HT made sure that Richard's reputation was forever blackened and that persists, though strangely that of Clarence remains as a good guy.
As a child I was lucky because we had the legendary archivist John Shelton. We would go on trips where he'd show us the Coventry sallet (from Richard's time) and fifteenth century shoes. They didn't seem that important to many after WWII, but I've come to realise how lucky we were. That's why I've said all along that young Edward wouldn't have ignored Coventry - it was much too important. H

On Monday, 16 April 2018, 22:07:23 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I tried doing a detour by Grafton on my way south from Loughborough today, but my Sat Nav went stubbornly haywire and kept taking me up and down the M1 in different directions so in the end I had to give up (the curse of the Woodvilles or what?). I'll try again on my way home next week.
Is anyone able to look up Crowland or Mancini to check whether they believed there was an agreed rendezvous with Richard? I've nothing here with me but my phone.
Incidentally, a few interesting facts on Coventry came out of the weekend. First, it was held to belong to the Prince of Wales in some sense, and was known as the Prince's Chamber'. Hence MoA and QE focusing so much on the town with their sons. Second, Coventry traditionally gave each king £100 and a gold cup on his first visit. Henry Tudor actually rode back to Coventry to get his 2 days after Bosworth. So it certainly looks likely that EV would have entered Coventry on his journey from Ludlow and got his reward. It's yet one more motive for him to have taken the Midlands route.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 11:27:22
Nicholas Brown
It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose! Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 12:12:47
Paul Trevor Bale
Buckingham. Now that's a big question Nico. I spent the best part of a year trying to track him down, and he proved to be a very slippery customer indeed.He is not mentioned as taking part in any of the battles Richard was in, in spite of being of an age. He was a Royal ward of Edward IV after the deaths of his grandfather and father, and of course one of his family homes was Tonbridge in Kent where Cecily Neville and her children were ordered to be kept prisoners at the home of her sister the Duchess, during the first wars, after Ludlow, so Richard probably met Harry for the first time at a very young age. A fascinating little mention I found was him going on a wine buying trip in the West Country with George, but I've mislaid the source which annoys me intensely!Buckingham did take troops to France with Edward that ended at Picquiny, and he joined Richard when Richard, disgusted at Edwards accepting Louis XI bribes, walked out and returned to England. That would have been an interesting trip to have been a fly on the wall of. He also became temporary Chamberlain so that he, not Richard, would pronounce Clarence's death sentence and see it carried out. His first act on the way to Henry VII house of Stafford? From then on until Northampton, it seems they only met on Richard's occasional visits to court, which as we all know, after his brother's execution, Richard made only when absolutely necessary.Harry fascinates me still, but he is so hard to find in the pages of contemporary documents it is frustrating that someone who appears to have had such influence during the earth shattering period in Richard's life should have left so few marks. Perhaps his son destroyed documents that showed the internal workings of his father as he prepared for his own treasonable activities, and possible grab for the throne.Paul
Part of my imagining of the first meeting from my script....

DUKE HUMPHREYThe Queen has instructed me to keepyou safe here, in my home. Because of our ties of blood I shall not imprison you in my dungeons, but keep you in secured rooms, near our solar. I do not intend to make you suffer unnecessarily, as I do not blame you for your husband's sins, but you will be guarded day and night by trusted sentinels.(Turns to his grandson)Stay here Henry, and make the acquaintance of our visitors.Duke Humphrey nods to the visitors', turns and leaves. Young Henry crosses the room to his grandmother's side.ANNE, DUCHESS OF BUCKINGHAM This is my grandson Henry, named forthe king. Henry, these are your cousins, Margaret, George, and Richard.HENRY STAFFORD (nods)I am Henry Stafford, and shall one day be Duke of Buckingham. I too have royal blood in my veins.RICHARD (tentatively)I am pleased to make your acquaintance, cousin Harry.HENRY STAFFORD (stiffly)Cousin you may be Richard, but for now you and your family are prisoners here, not guests.He moves close to Richard and lowers his voice.HENRY STAFFORDI shall not forget that your fatherkilled mine.He pauses, then louder for all to hearHENRY STAFFORD And my name is HENRY.He turns arrogantly on his heels and leaves the chamber.Richard looks at Margaret who makes a face.
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 18 avr. 2018 à 12:27, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> a écrit :

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose! Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 12:45:29
Hilary Jones
Nico I've started to think about Buckingham again. Having read Carpenter I don't think he was at Maxstoke - he only features in 3 pages of her enormous tome on Warwickshire and the two most miscreant gentry, Verney and Mountfort came from just down the road (Meriden and Coleshill). Had he been a 'regular' there he would surely have got involved?
So where was he? Could have been at Brecon, of course, but what about London, if just to pass through? I think the reason we assume he wasn't in London is that he wasn't included amongst those issued with commissions to levy taxes on aliens on 27 April, but even Ross admits that these were probably selectively chosen by the Woodvilles and they don't include Richard either. We know (I think) that he wasn't at Edward's funeral on 17-20 April (Ross), but even if at Brecon he could have reached London just after then - and departed for Northampton with Dorset? Or before that he could have been at Guildford with Auntie? He was after all a Plantagenet duke, he would expect to have a role on the Council, so one would expect him to head for London for his big chance.
Going with Dorset would have been a clever move for several reasons -
Someone who was ingratiated with the new regime was very useful to MBIt would reinforce Buck's own ego as a duke of the bloodIt would be useful for the Woodvilles to have a 'proper aristocrat' on their sideAny any doubters might think it useful for the new King to have another senior blood relative to great him
One can only assume that on the way Buck guessed at the real intent and, by the time he had split up from Dorset to reach Northampton, he realised it was doomed. I know this is a wild conjecture but I don't believe any of this any more. So much of what has no basis has been turned into solid fact in the telling. I just think we need to be brave enough to turn it all on its head and test theories. The really big job is tracking down Buckingham in the days around Edward's death. There must be a deed or land transaction somewhere ....... H


On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 11:27:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose! Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 13:11:25
Hilary Jones
After a bit of digging I see that Bucks owned a favourite Stafford residence in Writtle and other places in Essex. Could he have been there? H
On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 11:27:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose! Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-04-18 14:08:51
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog. Doug here: Actually, it's a children's book about some Lilliputians stranded in the wilds of Northamptonshire that I came across years ago and enjoyed immensely. I re-read it every so often. Hilary continued: I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that. Doug here: Sounds like a sort of an early version of that famous Tudor policy of promoting from the gentry class, or lower, to reduce the Crown's dependence on the nobility. Which means, of course, that Henry VII didn't originate that policy, but rather continued and refined it. Unless the reference you cited is based solely on information that was lacking earlier, isn't it amazing what historians missed? Or ignored. Hilary continued: That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford? Doug here: FWIW, my understanding of the political institutions of the time is that the vast majority of the House of Commons consisted of either members of the gentry or people, such as wealthy merchants, who wanted to be members of the gentry. What was lacking was a realization of the potential power the House of Commons had, if they organized and remained united. That organization and unity, especially the former, is what gave the House of Commons so much power during the Civil War. But it took the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I for the House of Commons to develop a sense of self, for want of a better term. Richard II learned the value of having the House of Commons on one's side, and throughout the WotR, both sides used Parliament to bolster their claims; with the House of Commons assuming greater importance than previously. However, as best I can tell, at this point in time, the gentry relied for its' organization, either for war or politics, on either a local noble (such as Buckingham or Warwick) or the king. It rather looks as if Edward had realized he could use the gentry against overweening nobles, but hadn't yet realized their potential as politically organized supporters of the monarchy. Hilary concluded: I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H Doug here: I really wish I could recall where I got the idea that the meeting at Northampton between Richard and AW wasn't planned! Probably based on the idea that, if the Woodvilles planned on a hurried coronation in order to retain power, the last thing AW would have wanted would have been to encounter the one person with the most to lose from their plans? My interest in Buckingham is currently focused on when he first got in contact with Richard. Did Buckingham accompany Edward's party; at least part of the way from Ludlow? Or did Buckingham take a different route from, say, Mecester (I believe it was) to Northampton? Did he send a messenger ahead to inform Richard of when he would be at Northampton? Or was his arrival fortuitous and unexpected by both parties? Answer one question and more pop up! In regards to the lack of information about Edward V, perhaps the difference is as simple as the fact that Edward VI didn't have a younger brother? And, if the historians are to be trusted, Edward VI's mother, Jane Seymour, was the wife Henry VIII was most passionately attached to. As a result, Edward VI most likely was much more looked after, at least in the sense that his father, and interested nobles, kept an eye on him, his health and his accomplishments, such as they were. Could the lack of claims for expenses be because Edward's traveling from Ludlow to London was viewed as a progress, where it was more or less expected that the king be feted and accommodated at the expense of his subjects? If I understand how progresses operated, that is. Doug
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 14:19:02
A J Hibbard
Doug - regarding the story of Richard at Picquigny, I have in my notes, a scenario very different that what has been accepted (apparently based on Philippe de Comines)

In 1475 Richard took more men on the French campaign than any other English noble and was probably enthusiastic about the enterprise. Philippe de Comines reported that he was comme mal content at the treaty of Picquigny and absent from the interview on the bridge, but that he was in time bought' by the French king when he met him at Amiens and accepted gifts.69 As so often with Comines, the truth is more innocent: Richard and Clarence visited Louis together on the morning of Thursday 31 August, less than forty-eight hours after the meeting of Edward and Louis, and they had a meal with the king while thousands of their troops were milling around in Amiens, which they all left on the same day.70 Nor is Richard's absence from the necessarily limited party on the bridge itself evidence of his disapproval, for he had used the time of the conference to go and review the French army drawn up in the field, accompanied by the admiral of France.71  
___
70 According to an anonymous, contemporary German report, printed in J Chmel, Briefe und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg& 3 vols, Vienna 1858, i, pp 210-15, esp 214.
71 For all references and further details, Richard III's Books, p 94.
[I think I found the original German report on Google Books]

Item am Dornstag dornach do kamen des kunigs von Engellant zwen bruder gon Amyens der eyn ist hertzog von Clerans der ander ein hertzog von Koloschetter und assen das morgen mal by dem konig und waren die Engelschen aber in der statt mit vil tausent und verkaufftend ir pferdt und wolten also uff dem wasser in Engellant faren.
Gleichzeitige Aufzeichnung. Papier. 4 Bl. Fol. Haus- und Staatsarchiv.
[J Chmel, Briefe und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg& 3 vols, Vienna 1858 1854, i, pp 210-15, esp 214


Livia Visser-Fuchs discusses this issue briefly here (in the top 3rd of the page)

http://www.richardiii.net/9_1_1_other_campaigns.php

A J


On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

After a bit of digging I see that Bucks owned a favourite Stafford residence in Writtle and other places in Essex. Could he have been there? H
On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 11:27:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :)  Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain:  Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose!   Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy!   I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!  
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 14:20:09
A J Hibbard
PS - That should have been Paul's comment, not Doug's, that I was responding to.

A J

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:19 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
Doug - regarding the story of Richard at Picquigny, I have in my notes, a scenario very different that what has been accepted (apparently based on Philippe de Comines)

In 1475 Richard took more men on the French campaign than any other English noble and was probably enthusiastic about the enterprise. Philippe de Comines reported that he was comme mal content at the treaty of Picquigny and absent from the interview on the bridge, but that he was in time bought' by the French king when he met him at Amiens and accepted gifts.69 As so often with Comines, the truth is more innocent: Richard and Clarence visited Louis together on the morning of Thursday 31 August, less than forty-eight hours after the meeting of Edward and Louis, and they had a meal with the king while thousands of their troops were milling around in Amiens, which they all left on the same day.70 Nor is Richard's absence from the necessarily limited party on the bridge itself evidence of his disapproval, for he had used the time of the conference to go and review the French army drawn up in the field, accompanied by the admiral of France.71  
___
70 According to an anonymous, contemporary German report, printed in J Chmel, Briefe und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg& 3 vols, Vienna 1858, i, pp 210-15, esp 214.
71 For all references and further details, Richard III's Books, p 94.
[I think I found the original German report on Google Books]

Item am Dornstag dornach do kamen des kunigs von Engellant zwen bruder gon Amyens der eyn ist hertzog von Clerans der ander ein hertzog von Koloschetter und assen das morgen mal by dem konig und waren die Engelschen aber in der statt mit vil tausent und verkaufftend ir pferdt und wolten also uff dem wasser in Engellant faren.
Gleichzeitige Aufzeichnung. Papier. 4 Bl. Fol. Haus- und Staatsarchiv.
[J Chmel, Briefe und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg& 3 vols, Vienna 1858 1854, i, pp 210-15, esp 214


Livia Visser-Fuchs discusses this issue briefly here (in the top 3rd of the page)

http://www.richardiii.net/9_1_ 1_other_campaigns.php

A J


On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

After a bit of digging I see that Bucks owned a favourite Stafford residence in Writtle and other places in Essex. Could he have been there? H
On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 11:27:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

 

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

 

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :)  Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain:  Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

 

Hilary, Again, thank you for the kind words! I don't think you need worry about not noticing the canal, as I spent two years driving around the back roads in Gloucestershire and can offhand only recall one that went over a hill (it almost had to, the route would have been five or ten miles longer otherwise). The more I think on it, the more I'm in agreement with Marie's proposal that Northampton was a meeting point agreed upon by all the parties concerned; Edward V, AW and Richard (I'm still up in the air about how/where Buckingham fits in). Previously I've tended toward the view that any plans for a meeting between Richard and AW's at Northampton came solely from Richard, most likely in his attempt to join Edward's party for the last leg to London, while AW was doing his best to avoid any meeting with Richard until after Edward was in London and crowned. Perhaps that was the impression some chroniclers and later writers wished to leave? Anyway, and presuming Marie's most sensible suggestion is correct, we now have AW likely knowing from the very start, that Richard, really the only person standing in the way of a successful Woodville coup d'etat, would be arriving in Northampton, when Richard was arriving and likely also knew, at least roughly, how many men would be accompanying Richard. If I was trying to make AW out to be the injured party, I'd gloss over the above, too! Doug Who has to admit that, besides the atlas, my only other acquaintance with Northampton and its' environs is T.H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose!   Hilary wrote: I knew you'd be happy!   I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded. Congratulations to you and your atlas!  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-18 15:02:23
Doug Stamate
Marie,
The only question I have right now about Buckingham is when he arrived at
Northampton. If he had joined Edward's party en route, AW may have presumed
Buckingham supported him (AW) when, in reality Buckingham was trying to get
close to the new king - wouldn't necessarily be the same, would it? And the
Woodvilles seem to have had a tendency to make incorrect presumptions. OTOH,
if Buckingham hadn't been with Edward's party at any point, where was he?
Perhaps he and Richard had agreed to meet at, say, Leicester (a bit out of
the way for Buckingham, but much would depend on where he'd started from),
but Richard hadn't waited for him? Or had Buckingham simply followed in the
trail of Edward's party, possibly by nearly a day's travel? If the latter,
that could explain that report of Buckingham's arrival after Richard, AW and
Grey had sat down to supper.
FWIW, I rather tend towards the view that, from the beginning, AW had no
intention of letting anyone but himself accompany Edward into London and
from the moment he agreed with Richard to meet at Northampton, AW planned to
either capture or kill Richard, most likely the latter. The only reason I
can come up with for AW not doing so when he did meet Richard is because, at
that point in time, he simply didn't have the man-power with him to do so.
Whether that lack was because he'd just discovered Buckingham wasn't "on
side" (?) or because Buckingham simply wasn't there, I don't know. Darn it!
Which indicates to me that the meeting that took place in Northampton
between Richard and AW and Grey was, as you say, a stalling tactic to
prevent Richard from meeting Edward. But it would only have been a stalling
tactic because the original plans couldn't be carried out.
I hope that makes sense!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"I think it's quite likely that Buckingham threw in a spanner by changing
sides. Another possibility is that the Woodvilles became convinced that
Richard meant to snatch Edward from them and so determined to keep the two
of them apart.
If Richard had arrived in Northampton to join the royal party only to
discover EV had either passed through or bypassed the town altogether, he
would surely have ridden hot foot after them, so the Woodvilles would have
had no alternative than to send someone to Northampton to delay him."



--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 17:00:40
mariewalsh2003
I also find Buckingham hard to fathom.

1. It's a good point that he might have met Richard first in 1459, though it would probably have been at Maxstoke- the Tonbridge idea is based on a misreading of the Paston Letters - see Joanna Laynesmith's book on Cecily.

2. I'd love the ref for the wine buying trip if you can find it.

3. It's not clear that Buckingham did go to France. He is on the initial lists as having booked to go, but doesn't appear in the lists of those who actually sailed. So there's a potential for him having let Edward IV down on that one, which could explain why he was not given preferment later on.

4. A lot of history books have it wrong about Richard's office re Clarence's execution. The officer who pronounced Sentence on peers was the Lord Steward, not the Great Chamberlain, and that office had been in abeyance for decades. Every time a peer was condemned a temporary Steward would be appointed for the occasion, which is what happened with Buckingham. Richard wasn't Great Chamberlain anyway, having ceded that office to Clarence. He only got it back as a result of Clarence's execution.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-18 19:30:04
ricard1an
Yes Nico I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. It appears that people just accepted that AW was at Ludlow. I takes a bit of brainstorming, people who have knowledge of contemporary evidence and a clearer picture begins to emerge. We may not be right but it is possible that we are and in any case it is equally as acceptable a scenario as what we have been led to believe previously.
Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-18 20:56:00
mariewalsh2003
Hi Doug,
I'm afraid I can't answer your questions about Buckingham. I don't have my books and notes to hand, and they probably wouldn't be clear enough anyway.
I've got a feeling at least one source says he was in Wales, but I can't be sure, and it might not be accurate anyway.
Obviously if he had started from Brecon ( quite some way south ofLudlow) you would have expected him to have taken the Thames valley route unless he was intending to join the royal party at Ludlow. In that scenario, unless he had set out late and failed to catch the King's party up, then it would look as though he parted company with them. But if so, why did he allegedly turn up to Northampton late, well after Rivers?
I would like to know more. I don't feel we have enough to go on with regard to Buckingham, except that he does seem to have been the person who persuaded Richard the Woodvilles were up to no good, so unless he made that up in order to curry favour with Richard and remove a rival (Rivers), which I wouldn't put past him, the only other explanation is that he had been included in the Woodville plans.

We could really do with some more pieces of evidence coming to light.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-19 02:30:41
Nicholas Brown
Paul, I would love to see your script performed one day. Buckingham is real little brat in this scene; is that an indication of what is to come?

I had forgotten about the complex relationships between the people in this scene. I'm curious about Buckingham's early life, and his relationship with the Stafford family, especially Henry Stafford and Margaret Beaufort and how it related to what he did in 1483. He was the senior male Stafford while still a child, which may have given him a massive ego and sense of entitlement. There weren't many male Staffords left, so I would be surprised if he didn't spend quite a lot of time with his uncle Henry and Margaret Beaufort who was also related to his mother. They had no children together, so perhaps they doted on Buckingham as a child. Did MB draw him in when she was plotting with EW, but then he got ideas of his own or was it the other way around? The plotting between EW and MB seems to have begun around the time that Buckinhgham became disillusioned with his rewards from Richard. Would she have supported Buckingham as King? As long as HT was coming home, personally I think she would have preferred him to an illegitimate boy King dominated by Dorset.
I also wish there was more on his relationship with the Woodvilles, especially Anthony. It was said that he resented his marriage to Catherine Woodville, but that may not be true and they may have seen him as useful to include in a conspiracy.
Nico


On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 19:30:10 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Nico I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. It appears that people just accepted that AW was at Ludlow. I takes a bit of brainstorming, people who have knowledge of contemporary evidence and a clearer picture begins to emerge. We may not be right but it is possible that we are and in any case it is equally as acceptable a scenario as what we have been led to believe previously.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-19 10:17:05
Nicholas Brown
Hilary wrote:
One can only assume that on the way Buck guessed at the real intent and, by the time he had split up from Dorset to reach Northampton, he realised it was doomed. I know this is a wild conjecture but I don't believe any of this any more. So much of what has no basis has been turned into solid fact in the telling. I just think we need to be brave enough to turn it all on its head and test theories. The really big job is tracking down Buckingham in the days around Edward's death. There must be a deed or land transaction somewhere ....... H

I hope that we can one day find something to indicate where Buckingham was and where he came to Northampton from. I hadn't considered Dorset, but that is a possible explanation for how Buckingham found out. Do we know for certain that Dorset actually left for Northampton and went from London (rather than his estates?) I think I recall reading that Dorset was in London when EIV died or was at his funeral, but I can't be sure. It does look like there was a good chance that Buckingham could have had very recent contact with him

AW would have been the most likely ringleader of any plot to ambush and murder Richard (I can't see how keeping Richard captive would have worked without the truth coming out.) However, AW strikes me as someone who played his cards closer to his chest. He may have seen Buckingham as useful and could have tried to cultivate him, but I don't think he would have felt safe enough to include him in a treasonous plot at that stage - not before EV was crowned anyway. At this point, AW had to focus on keeping custody of the King. Dorset on the other hand was a bigmouth and may well have inadvertently given the plot away. Even if he didn't tell him everything, I can imagine him bragging in his 'we are so powerful mode' and Buckingham realizing what he and his family were up to.

As for Buckingham's motivation, I found Nance's post insightful. Buckingham my well have seen Richard as family, whereas the Woodvilles were just inlaws and he may have genuinely felt a duty to warn him, but may also have expected some reward for the tip off. I doubt he had any idea that Richard would be King, but a powerful position in the Protector's inner circle would have been a realistic expectation.

Nico

On Thursday, 19 April 2018, 02:30:46 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Paul, I would love to see your script performed one day. Buckingham is real little brat in this scene; is that an indication of what is to come?

I had forgotten about the complex relationships between the people in this scene. I'm curious about Buckingham's early life, and his relationship with the Stafford family, especially Henry Stafford and Margaret Beaufort and how it related to what he did in 1483. He was the senior male Stafford while still a child, which may have given him a massive ego and sense of entitlement. There weren't many male Staffords left, so I would be surprised if he didn't spend quite a lot of time with his uncle Henry and Margaret Beaufort who was also related to his mother. They had no children together, so perhaps they doted on Buckingham as a child. Did MB draw him in when she was plotting with EW, but then he got ideas of his own or was it the other way around? The plotting between EW and MB seems to have begun around the time that Buckinhgham became disillusioned with his rewards from Richard. Would she have supported Buckingham as King? As long as HT was coming home, personally I think she would have preferred him to an illegitimate boy King dominated by Dorset.
I also wish there was more on his relationship with the Woodvilles, especially Anthony. It was said that he resented his marriage to Catherine Woodville, but that may not be true and they may have seen him as useful to include in a conspiracy.
Nico


On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 19:30:10 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Nico I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. It appears that people just accepted that AW was at Ludlow. I takes a bit of brainstorming, people who have knowledge of contemporary evidence and a clearer picture begins to emerge. We may not be right but it is possible that we are and in any case it is equally as acceptable a scenario as what we have been led to believe previously.


Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-19 15:24:40
Doug Stamate
Marie,
Well, presuming Buckingham did start from Brecon, and that he also waited
until the day after St. George's Day to set out, that would likely have put
him roughly a day behind Edward's party, I believe. Perhaps his possible
late arrival in Northampton was simply due to his never having "caught up"
with Edward's party? However, if Buckingham's party managed to close the gap
by, say, an hour or so each day, that might account for arrival time at
Northampton. Presuming, of course, that he did arrive late.
As to the "why" he'd take the longer route, I'm holding on to my original
idea that he was simply trying to establish a relationship with the new
king. If that indeed was the case, then even had Buckingham caught up with
Edward somewhere along the route, in his attempt to establish that
relationship, Buckingham may have viewed AW as the person most likely to
assist him in establishing that relationship. Now, I've always presumed
that knowledge of Richard being proposed as Protector started to spread when
Edward IV made out his will; but even so, just how widespread would that
knowledge have been? IOW, could it have been that, while AW most likely
already knew Richard had been nominated as Edward's Protector (otherwise why
the rushed coronation?), Buckingham didn't - and didn't discover that fact
until his arrival in Northampton? Where he, as you put it, "switched sides."
Buckingham's aim would have remained the same, getting close to the new
king; only the route would have changed from AW to Richard.
Might Richard's actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford best be explained by,
first AW not having Edward at Northampton, second, discovering from
Buckingham that Edward's coronation was scheduled for 5 May and then topped
off by learning about the proposed ambush? The first two would have alerted
Richard something was up, and the third might very well have been discovered
simply by asking around Northampton as to where AW's men were.
"We could really do with some more pieces of evidence coming to light." Oh
boy, could we!
Doug

Marie wrote:
Hi Doug,
"I'm afraid I can't answer your questions about Buckingham. I don't have my
books and notes to hand, and they probably wouldn't be clear enough anyway.
I've got a feeling at least one source says he was in Wales, but I can't be
sure, and it might not be accurate anyway.
Obviously if he had started from Brecon ( quite some way south ofLudlow) you
would have expected him to have taken the Thames valley route unless he was
intending to join the royal party at Ludlow. In that scenario, unless he had
set out late and failed to catch the King's party up, then it would look as
though he parted company with them. But if so, why did he allegedly turn up
to Northampton late, well after Rivers?
I would like to know more. I don't feel we have enough to go on with regard
to Buckingham, except that he does seem to have been the person who
persuaded Richard the Woodvilles were up to no good, so unless he made that
up in order to curry favour with Richard and remove a rival (Rivers), which
I wouldn't put past him, the only other explanation is that he had been
included in the Woodville plans.
We could really do with some more pieces of evidence coming to light."



--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-19 21:34:27
mariewalsh2003
Dorset definitely seems to have been in London, which is why he wasn't arrested at Stony Stratford. Mancini says when the news of the arrests reached London, Dorset and the Queen initially tried to raise the city against Gloucester, but nobody was interested. So he took sanctuary with his mother.
His younger brother, Richard Grey, had come up from London, however.

The confusion with Dorset arises from the later London chronicles, all based on a draft of c.1495, which incorrectly place the Marquess at Stony Stratford.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-20 10:06:03
nico11238
Thanks for clarifying that, Marie. Dorset being in London at the relevant time is in keeping with my suspicions that he and EW were the instigators with Rivers and Grey sent to carry out the ambush. It is also interesting that their attempts to incite London against Richard completely failed, showing their lack of any effective power base. If EW had been a popular Queen like Elizabeth or York or Catherine of Aragon, then she may have got a bit more support. Even Margaret of Anjou could rally people to her cause. Either the Londoners turned against their attempts to circumvent Edward IV's intentions, or they just didn't like them or both. So much for those theories about EW and the Woodvilles being poor lovely people who were passive victims of the nasty ambitions of Richard III who had to run and hide in the sanctuary!

Nico

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-20 10:56:48
Hilary Jones
There's a useful list of Buckingham's properties in HT's first parliament in Nov 1485 when they were restored to his wife, uncle Jasper's wife. One of them is Kimbolton Castle, restored by the Staffords in the 1460s. If he was there it would place him in East Anglia where Rivers potentially was. I still don't favour Brecon that much; he wasn't popular there and it's a fair way from the action, even though he didn't know Edward was going to die. H
On Thursday, 19 April 2018, 15:25:39 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Marie,
Well, presuming Buckingham did start from Brecon, and that he also waited
until the day after St. George's Day to set out, that would likely have put
him roughly a day behind Edward's party, I believe. Perhaps his possible
late arrival in Northampton was simply due to his never having "caught up"
with Edward's party? However, if Buckingham's party managed to close the gap
by, say, an hour or so each day, that might account for arrival time at
Northampton. Presuming, of course, that he did arrive late.
As to the "why" he'd take the longer route, I'm holding on to my original
idea that he was simply trying to establish a relationship with the new
king. If that indeed was the case, then even had Buckingham caught up with
Edward somewhere along the route, in his attempt to establish that
relationship, Buckingham may have viewed AW as the person most likely to
assist him in establishing that relationship. Now, I've always presumed
that knowledge of Richard being proposed as Protector started to spread when
Edward IV made out his will; but even so, just how widespread would that
knowledge have been? IOW, could it have been that, while AW most likely
already knew Richard had been nominated as Edward's Protector (otherwise why
the rushed coronation?), Buckingham didn't - and didn't discover that fact
until his arrival in Northampton? Where he, as you put it, "switched sides."
Buckingham's aim would have remained the same, getting close to the new
king; only the route would have changed from AW to Richard.
Might Richard's actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford best be explained by,
first AW not having Edward at Northampton, second, discovering from
Buckingham that Edward's coronation was scheduled for 5 May and then topped
off by learning about the proposed ambush? The first two would have alerted
Richard something was up, and the third might very well have been discovered
simply by asking around Northampton as to where AW's men were.
"We could really do with some more pieces of evidence coming to light." Oh
boy, could we!
Doug

Marie wrote:
Hi Doug,
"I'm afraid I can't answer your questions about Buckingham. I don't have my
books and notes to hand, and they probably wouldn't be clear enough anyway.
I've got a feeling at least one source says he was in Wales, but I can't be
sure, and it might not be accurate anyway.
Obviously if he had started from Brecon ( quite some way south ofLudlow) you
would have expected him to have taken the Thames valley route unless he was
intending to join the royal party at Ludlow. In that scenario, unless he had
set out late and failed to catch the King's party up, then it would look as
though he parted company with them. But if so, why did he allegedly turn up
to Northampton late, well after Rivers?
I would like to know more. I don't feel we have enough to go on with regard
to Buckingham, except that he does seem to have been the person who
persuaded Richard the Woodvilles were up to no good, so unless he made that
up in order to curry favour with Richard and remove a rival (Rivers), which
I wouldn't put past him, the only other explanation is that he had been
included in the Woodville plans.
We could really do with some more pieces of evidence coming to light."

--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-20 13:08:14
Hilary Jones
Sorry it was me who confused Richard Grey with Dorset - yes Dorset was in London saying how powerful they were! H
On Thursday, 19 April 2018, 21:37:34 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Dorset definitely seems to have been in London, which is why he wasn't arrested at Stony Stratford. Mancini says when the news of the arrests reached London, Dorset and the Queen initially tried to raise the city against Gloucester, but nobody was interested. So he took sanctuary with his mother.
His younger brother, Richard Grey, had come up from London, however.

The confusion with Dorset arises from the later London chronicles, all based on a draft of c.1495, which incorrectly place the Marquess at Stony Stratford.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-20 15:12:42
mariewalsh2003
Re Buckingham's whereabouts, I'd like to look and see what evidence we have of his whereabouts on other occasions, to see which were his favourite residences.
No it's a good point that he didn't know EIV was going to die, so if he was at Brecon he wouldn't have got the news for several days.
I'm not sure he realised how unpopular he was in Brecon or he wouldn't have chosen it for his base for the rebellion. There's a possibility, in fact, that he was unpopular there *because* he was well known. Richard's grants of Welsh offices to him perhaps suggest that Buckingham regarded Wales as his power base. Don't know. Another place he might have used a lot is Thornbury- on the way to Brecon if you take the ferry across the Bristol Channel- but also well away from the capital.
Marie

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-04-20 20:08:20
Paul Trevor bale
Dorset was definitely in London lording it over the council meeting saying his famous line about how powerful the Woodvilles are. Arrogant shit! Serves him right when the family plotting failed and he had to run into sanctuary with his mummy! Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 20 avr. 2018 à 16:12, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> a écrit :

Re Buckingham's whereabouts, I'd like to look and see what evidence we have of his whereabouts on other occasions, to see which were his favourite residences.
No it's a good point that he didn't know EIV was going to die, so if he was at Brecon he wouldn't have got the news for several days.
I'm not sure he realised how unpopular he was in Brecon or he wouldn't have chosen it for his base for the rebellion. There's a possibility, in fact, that he was unpopular there *because* he was well known. Richard's grants of Welsh offices to him perhaps suggest that Buckingham regarded Wales as his power base. Don't know. Another place he might have used a lot is Thornbury- on the way to Brecon if you take the ferry across the Bristol Channel- but also well away from the capital..
Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-20 21:53:48
mariewalsh2003
Hi Nico,

To be fair to EW, I don't think her popularity or lack thereof would have been the Londoners' main consideration, although there is reason to suppose they did favour Richard over the Woodvilles. What was most important to the city was not supporting sides in dynastic squabbles for their own sake but maintaining a safe, peaceful and stable environment in which to live and to trade. And Richard now had the King, so opposing him would have been even more dangerous than if it was only Gloucester himself who was to be challenged.

Clearly Richard's escort was not regarded as big enough to be scary, so that it was felt safer to let him in than oppose him - quite the opposite of the situation after 2nd St Albans, when they had refused entry to QM.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-21 13:16:45
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Thanks to the trusty motoring atlas, I found a Kimbolton on the A 45, about half-way between Higham Ferrers and St. Neots. Is that the one? If so, it would place Buckingham approximately 20 miles or so from Northampton. Would Kimbolton Castle have been on a possible route AW may have taken from even further east? We don't know when AW got to Northampton, do we? So we have the possibility that AW, en route to Northampton to meet Richard, arrived several days before Richard; or Edward's party, for that matter. I suppose a lot would depend on where AW started from, wouldn't it? And when? Was he subject to that requirement to celebrate St. George's Day? If not, that could affect his travel plans, couldn't it? Judging by his later actions, and combined with the Woodvilles' propensity to view their power and influence in inflated terms, any meeting between Buckingham and AW prior to Northampton could still allow for Buckingham to mistakenly presume AW was the best route to the new king. However, and presuming Buckingham didn't already know about the Protectorship, when Buckingham discovered that Richard is to be Protector, Buckingham correctly realized that the power nexis (?) wouldn't be AW and Edward, but rather would be Richard and Edward; and adjusted his views, and support, accordingly. I do think, though, that regardless of where Buckingham started his journey, his sole aim was to get in good with the new regime. So, if Buckingham met AW at any time prior to Northampton, and remembering the Woodvilles' view of themselves (and their willingness to impart that view to all and sundry), I can easily imagine Buckingham giving the impression, possibly a true one at that point in time, of supporting AW; only to switch his support to Richard on his learning that Richard was to be Protector. An interesting thought occurred to me when I read your ...he wasn't popular there [Brecon] and it's a fair way from the action... That would also apply to when Buckingham took Morton there, wouldn't it? Do we know the conditions concerning Buckingham's custody of Morton? Was Buckingham to keep personal custody of Morton? Or was he simply to keep Morton secure? And if the former was the case, was Brecon specifically chosen? If so, that would in your words, place Buckingham a fair way from the action, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: There's a useful list of Buckingham's properties in HT's first parliament in Nov 1485 when they were restored to his wife, uncle Jasper's wife. One of them is Kimbolton Castle, restored by the Staffords in the 1460s. If he was there it would place him in East Anglia where Rivers potentially was. I still don't favour Brecon that much; he wasn't popular there and it's a fair way from the action, even though he didn't know Edward was going to die.
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-28 12:02:08
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early 1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e. Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out there?
Still catching up with the rest. H




On Saturday, 21 April 2018, 13:16:56 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Thanks to the trusty motoring atlas, I found a Kimbolton on the A 45, about half-way between Higham Ferrers and St. Neots. Is that the one? If so, it would place Buckingham approximately 20 miles or so from Northampton.. Would Kimbolton Castle have been on a possible route AW may have taken from even further east? We don't know when AW got to Northampton, do we? So we have the possibility that AW, en route to Northampton to meet Richard, arrived several days before Richard; or Edward's party, for that matter. I suppose a lot would depend on where AW started from, wouldn't it? And when? Was he subject to that requirement to celebrate St. George's Day? If not, that could affect his travel plans, couldn't it? Judging by his later actions, and combined with the Woodvilles' propensity to view their power and influence in inflated terms, any meeting between Buckingham and AW prior to Northampton could still allow for Buckingham to mistakenly presume AW was the best route to the new king. However, and presuming Buckingham didn't already know about the Protectorship, when Buckingham discovered that Richard is to be Protector, Buckingham correctly realized that the power nexis (?) wouldn't be AW and Edward, but rather would be Richard and Edward; and adjusted his views, and support, accordingly. I do think, though, that regardless of where Buckingham started his journey, his sole aim was to get in good with the new regime. So, if Buckingham met AW at any time prior to Northampton, and remembering the Woodvilles' view of themselves (and their willingness to impart that view to all and sundry), I can easily imagine Buckingham giving the impression, possibly a true one at that point in time, of supporting AW; only to switch his support to Richard on his learning that Richard was to be Protector. An interesting thought occurred to me when I read your ...he wasn't popular there [Brecon] and it's a fair way from the action... That would also apply to when Buckingham took Morton there, wouldn't it? Do we know the conditions concerning Buckingham's custody of Morton? Was Buckingham to keep personal custody of Morton? Or was he simply to keep Morton secure? And if the former was the case, was Brecon specifically chosen? If so, that would in your words, place Buckingham a fair way from the action, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: There's a useful list of Buckingham's properties in HT's first parliament in Nov 1485 when they were restored to his wife, uncle Jasper's wife. One of them is Kimbolton Castle, restored by the Staffords in the 1460s. If he was there it would place him in East Anglia where Rivers potentially was. I still don't favour Brecon that much; he wasn't popular there and it's a fair way from the action, even though he didn't know Edward was going to die.
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-04-30 11:58:19
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,

Sorry for the delay. I was travelling over the middle days of last week (I failed to see Grafton again as it was pouring with rain so I didn't bother trying), and have had a lot to catch up with since I got home.


Hilary wrote:

Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham College Cambridge and Croyland.
Marie replies:The proximity of Kimbolton is certainly interesting, but I'm not happy to assume it without evidence at least that Buckingham had a habit of staying there. I'm now able to check Crowland and Mancini:1) Mancini is hopelessly muddled about the geography, and says Buckingham and Richard were both 'in the country' and had joined together before setting off (i.e. in real life this would mean Buckingham having taken himself and his men up to Middleham). They were both joined in the town by Rivers. But you have to remember Mancini misunderstood the logistics and thought the town in question was only 12 miles out of London. He was envisaging something like, in modern terms, Edward V coming east along the M4, and Richard and Buckingham driving down the M1, and stopping by the intersection of the M1 and M25, where Rivers meets them to escort them round the M25 to join the royal party by the M4 intersection with the M25 (lets say Harmondsworth). Northampton has, if you liked, morphed into the South Mimms Services. Mancini has Rivers arrested at the town (Northampton/South Mimms Services), and the others at the village where the King is (Stony Stratford/ Harmondsworth).2) Crowland has Richard joined at Northampton by first Buckingham and then Rivers, but has all three arrests take place at Stony Stratford next morning.3) Vergil has Buckingham reach Northampton first, then Richard. He doesn't place Rivers in Northampton at all and has all three arrests take place in Stony Stratford in the morning.4) More has the King's party pass through Northampton first, with Rivers, who remained behind to meet Richard. Then Richard and Buckingham arrive together. Rivers is arrested in Northampton that night, and the others at Stony Stratford in the morning.So Buckingham wasn't late, and it looks very likely that he had been able to join Richard before he reached Northampton (in which case he had more probably been at Maxstoke) or was waiting for him in Northampton (which would fit with either Maxstoke or Kimbolton).
Hilary wrote:
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I wondered if Marie knew more.
Marie replies:The Dymmok papers indicate that AW was most often in Norfolk at this period, mainly at his manor of Middleton. His own landed interests were mostly in the East Midlands, not only around Grafton but also Norfolk and Lincolnshire, and he seems to have had influence in places like King's Lynn. These are the whereabouts I've ascertained from the end of 1479:December 1479 - Castle Rising, Norfolk.10 February 1480 - The Wardrobe, London, for a Garter Chapter.26 October 1480 - Windsor for the proxy installation of the Duke of Ferrara as KG.13 March 1482 - Sandwich, Kent.26 March 1482 - Norwich, Norfolk28 May & 4 June 1482 - Middleton, Norfolk. The Duchess of Norfolk seems to have visited him there.15 July 1482 - Middleton again.17 August 1482 - London18 August 1482 - London and Ware, HertfordshireChristmas 1482 - NorwichProbably 2 January 1483 (though possibly the previous Thursday, 26 Dec 1482) - King's Lynn, Norfolk11 January 1483 - Walsingham, Norfolk17 January 1483 - King's LynnLate January to 20 February 1483 - Westminster for parliament22 to 27 February 1483 - Still in London8 & 20 March 1483 - King's Lynn25 March (Lady Day) 1483 - Walsingham
Hilary wrote: And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early 1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e. Buckingham hosting?
Marie:I don't think so. Titles in England really didn't correspond to land holdings or power bases, and Northampton was an independent borough. It was just well placed for everybody and offering plenty of accommodation, I think.
Hilary wrote:
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out there?
Marie replies:I've not seen any indication that he was up to anything this early. If he was, the evidence is lost.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-01 10:38:42
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, thank you so much. The information on AW is incredible and one wonders why the so-called experts never mention it! To me it says there couldn't have been real anxiety about Edward's health at this time or AW would either have remained with his soon-to-become-very precious charge, or stayed round London? Also, is it likely that he may have stayed in East Anglia or returned to London so that he could have been around for the Garter Ceremony/St George's day. Edward's death would have changed his plans, but no point surely in going all the way back to Ludlow.
Now to Buckingham. When I went back to Rawcliffe I noticed that she said that one reason the Dukes were always skint was that they traveled nowhere without a 'ducal retinue'. It enhanced their status as having been of the Blood Royal. Now the 'ducal retinue' was 240 men - just like that (and no more) AW was advised by the Council to escort young Edward. I don't see 'our' Buckingham as the frugal or modest type, so I would have thought he would have continued the tradition, particularly to emphasis his position a that point.
So:
1. Spotting the 'vacancy' left by AW, did he decide to escort the young King from Ludlow or meet him some where along the way?
or
2. Did AW grasp this as a backhanded way of increasing the young King's retinue whilst not disobeying the Council - you know 'the Duke of Buckingham happened to join us to pay his respects?
or
3. Did Buckingham intend to join Richard all along, because both were of the Blood Royal and a better bet?
I'm sure others can come up with more. But this alters the game doesn't it? If Bucks is on the Woodville side he increases their contingent by about a third (assuming Grey took a 'retinue' too) and if he was on Richard's side all along it might have made the Woodvilles think twice about their plan. I assume we don't know how many men Richard had, but probably less than the ducal retinue? Thanks again! H
On Monday, 30 April 2018, 11:58:24 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

Sorry for the delay. I was travelling over the middle days of last week (I failed to see Grafton again as it was pouring with rain so I didn't bother trying), and have had a lot to catch up with since I got home.


Hilary wrote:

Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham College Cambridge and Croyland.
Marie replies:The proximity of Kimbolton is certainly interesting, but I'm not happy to assume it without evidence at least that Buckingham had a habit of staying there. I'm now able to check Crowland and Mancini:1) Mancini is hopelessly muddled about the geography, and says Buckingham and Richard were both 'in the country' and had joined together before setting off (i.e. in real life this would mean Buckingham having taken himself and his men up to Middleham). They were both joined in the town by Rivers. But you have to remember Mancini misunderstood the logistics and thought the town in question was only 12 miles out of London. He was envisaging something like, in modern terms, Edward V coming east along the M4, and Richard and Buckingham driving down the M1, and stopping by the intersection of the M1 and M25, where Rivers meets them to escort them round the M25 to join the royal party by the M4 intersection with the M25 (lets say Harmondsworth). Northampton has, if you liked, morphed into the South Mimms Services. Mancini has Rivers arrested at the town (Northampton/South Mimms Services), and the others at the village where the King is (Stony Stratford/ Harmondsworth).2) Crowland has Richard joined at Northampton by first Buckingham and then Rivers, but has all three arrests take place at Stony Stratford next morning.3) Vergil has Buckingham reach Northampton first, then Richard. He doesn't place Rivers in Northampton at all and has all three arrests take place in Stony Stratford in the morning.4) More has the King's party pass through Northampton first, with Rivers, who remained behind to meet Richard. Then Richard and Buckingham arrive together. Rivers is arrested in Northampton that night, and the others at Stony Stratford in the morning.So Buckingham wasn't late, and it looks very likely that he had been able to join Richard before he reached Northampton (in which case he had more probably been at Maxstoke) or was waiting for him in Northampton (which would fit with either Maxstoke or Kimbolton).
Hilary wrote:
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I wondered if Marie knew more.
Marie replies:The Dymmok papers indicate that AW was most often in Norfolk at this period, mainly at his manor of Middleton. His own landed interests were mostly in the East Midlands, not only around Grafton but also Norfolk and Lincolnshire, and he seems to have had influence in places like King's Lynn. These are the whereabouts I've ascertained from the end of 1479:December 1479 - Castle Rising, Norfolk.10 February 1480 - The Wardrobe, London, for a Garter Chapter.26 October 1480 - Windsor for the proxy installation of the Duke of Ferrara as KG.13 March 1482 - Sandwich, Kent.26 March 1482 - Norwich, Norfolk28 May & 4 June 1482 - Middleton, Norfolk. The Duchess of Norfolk seems to have visited him there.15 July 1482 - Middleton again.17 August 1482 - London18 August 1482 - London and Ware, HertfordshireChristmas 1482 - NorwichProbably 2 January 1483 (though possibly the previous Thursday, 26 Dec 1482) - King's Lynn, Norfolk11 January 1483 - Walsingham, Norfolk17 January 1483 - King's LynnLate January to 20 February 1483 - Westminster for parliament22 to 27 February 1483 - Still in London8 & 20 March 1483 - King's Lynn25 March (Lady Day) 1483 - Walsingham
Hilary wrote: And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early 1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e. Buckingham hosting?
Marie:I don't think so. Titles in England really didn't correspond to land holdings or power bases, and Northampton was an independent borough. It was just well placed for everybody and offering plenty of accommodation, I think.
Hilary wrote:
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out there?
Marie replies:I've not seen any indication that he was up to anything this early. If he was, the evidence is lost.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-01 10:52:54
Nicholas Brown
Hi,

That is an interesting idea that Buckingham may not have known that Richard would have been Protector and assumed that AW and EW would have been in charge of Edward V, but when he discovered that the Woodvilles were out and Richard was in, he went out of his way to ingratiate himself with Richard. The more I read about Buckingham, the more I think he was lacking any real purpose and was desperate to be closer to the centre of power. EIV had never had any use for him, but he may have seen an opportunity in Edward V - he just had to please the right guardian. If he did switch loyalties abruptly, it may worked against him, as Richard may have seen through it, and considered him untrustworthy.

As for Anthony Woodville, if I called him the ringleader, I meant only as the leader of the Northampton coup attempt. I don't see him as an initiator of serious change. My instinct is that Dorset and EW were the instigators and he was ordered to carry it out with Richard Grey and Vaughan by them. I have been reading Susan Higginbotham's, 'The Woodvilles' and the premise of the book is to rehabilitate their negative reputation. While she has done some excellent research, I lost patience with her blinkered views about Richard, and her excuses for them only reinforced my impression of them as an arrogant, ambitious, self serving and insular family. Whether the accusations against them are true or not, there is nothing on record about any of the Woodvilles doing anything noble or altruistic to counter the many suggestions that they were not a very pleasant lot. Some were definitely worse than other though. AW does come across as someone who was style over substance with grand ideas like the crusade he talked about, but didn't follow up on. Overall, a pretentious and sometimes pompous character, but left to his own devices, probably harmless.

Nevertheless, there are some insights in the book that made me think. One thing that stands out is that Buckingham may have been more interaction with the Woodvilles than I previously thought. If, as Mancini says, he resented the marriage to Katherine Woodville initially, he probably got over it. She supported him during the rebellion by taking refuge with him and their sons at Weobley, where elder son avoided capture by being dressed as a girl. Also, Mary Fitzlewis, AW's second wife was Buckingham's first cousin. I had overlooked that link. Therefore it appears that he had social and family loyalties to both the Woodvilles and Margaret Beaufort. He could have been under pressure, even manipulation from both of them. However, I still suspect he was pushing his own agenda too. If he were King, Katherine Woodville would be Queen - better than the King's aunt, and MB may have felt more comfortable Buckingham anyway. Alternatively, he may have been hoping for Protector status. By the time of the rebellion, the alternative for that role was Dorset. FWIW, Buckingham may have thought himself a more suitable Protector for both the 12 year old King and the country itself than Dorset who had never done anything noteworthy beyond having been said to have 'without shame devoured, defloured and defouled'... 'many maids, widows and wives.'

Dorset comes off as the most unpleasant of the Woodvilles, with EW as a close second. They didn't have any real loyalty to Henry VII, even after he married Elizabeth of York, as they clearly had some involvement in the Lambert Simnel rebellion. So what it looks like is that they hatched one conspiracy to hang on to power when EIV died. That failed, but they thought they had a second shot with Henry and Elizabeth, but when that didn't benefit them enough, Warwick presented another opportunity. Even Susan Higginbotham considered the possibility of Warwick marrying one of EofY's sisters or Dorset's daughters. What they had planned for EofY, who knows, but that shows their most unattractive quality of all and fundamental weakness - while on the surface they look like a cohesive group, that only lasts as long as it of mutual benefit. In a conflict of interest, they were out for themselves.

Nico




On Saturday, 28 April 2018, 12:02:15 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early 1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e. Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out there?
Still catching up with the rest. H




On Saturday, 21 April 2018, 13:16:56 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Thanks to the trusty motoring atlas, I found a Kimbolton on the A 45, about half-way between Higham Ferrers and St. Neots. Is that the one? If so, it would place Buckingham approximately 20 miles or so from Northampton... Would Kimbolton Castle have been on a possible route AW may have taken from even further east? We don't know when AW got to Northampton, do we? So we have the possibility that AW, en route to Northampton to meet Richard, arrived several days before Richard; or Edward's party, for that matter. I suppose a lot would depend on where AW started from, wouldn't it? And when? Was he subject to that requirement to celebrate St. George's Day? If not, that could affect his travel plans, couldn't it? Judging by his later actions, and combined with the Woodvilles' propensity to view their power and influence in inflated terms, any meeting between Buckingham and AW prior to Northampton could still allow for Buckingham to mistakenly presume AW was the best route to the new king. However, and presuming Buckingham didn't already know about the Protectorship, when Buckingham discovered that Richard is to be Protector, Buckingham correctly realized that the power nexis (?) wouldn't be AW and Edward, but rather would be Richard and Edward; and adjusted his views, and support, accordingly. I do think, though, that regardless of where Buckingham started his journey, his sole aim was to get in good with the new regime. So, if Buckingham met AW at any time prior to Northampton, and remembering the Woodvilles' view of themselves (and their willingness to impart that view to all and sundry), I can easily imagine Buckingham giving the impression, possibly a true one at that point in time, of supporting AW; only to switch his support to Richard on his learning that Richard was to be Protector. An interesting thought occurred to me when I read your ...he wasn't popular there [Brecon] and it's a fair way from the action... That would also apply to when Buckingham took Morton there, wouldn't it? Do we know the conditions concerning Buckingham's custody of Morton? Was Buckingham to keep personal custody of Morton? Or was he simply to keep Morton secure? And if the former was the case, was Brecon specifically chosen? If so, that would in your words, place Buckingham a fair way from the action, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: There's a useful list of Buckingham's properties in HT's first parliament in Nov 1485 when they were restored to his wife, uncle Jasper's wife. One of them is Kimbolton Castle, restored by the Staffords in the 1460s. If he was there it would place him in East Anglia where Rivers potentially was. I still don't favour Brecon that much; he wasn't popular there and it's a fair way from the action, even though he didn't know Edward was going to die.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-08 13:43:03
Doug Stamate
Hilary,
In regards to the "Where's Henry?" question, did he own any other properties
in the general vicinity? Could his late arrival at Northampton be explained
by a messenger having to discover just where Buckingham was before informing
him about the Northampton meeting? How complete are the records of
Buckingham College? If Stafford visited, one would think there'd be a
record, if there isn't, then we could move Cambridge to the bottom of the
list.
From Marie's posts, it appears that AW often headed off to his properties in
Norfolk, so his being in that area wouldn't be unusual. Then there'd likely
be Easter celebrations at Walsingham which he could attend.
The more I learn about AW, the more I see him as a dilettante; dabbling
first in this area, then in another, but not taking the time to really
master the ins and outs of any one subject. It was likely Nico who
suggested AW as the "ringleader," as my view of him wouldn't have him
remaining concentrated on any one subject long enough to master it.
However, he could very well have been the "manager;" if only by default,
because of his position as the "senior" male.
FWIW, my view of the planned ambush is that it was a spur of the moment
plan, decided on when AW learned that Richard hadn't brought a large number
of men with him. Had AW been certain Richard would only be accompanied by a
hundred or so men, there was no reason not to kill or capture Richard at
their first meeting in Northampton. Edward could have been, as he actually
was, safely parked at Stony Stratford with a couple of hundred men, while AW
with the remaining thousand or so "took care of business" in Northampton.
However, that scenario depended on knowing how many men Richard had with
him, something AW didn't discover until the actual meeting. Thus the plan
for an "ambush," presumably by "bandits." Not only would it remove Richard,
and Buckingham, but it would also provide a gloss of "plausible deniability"
if so desired: "I didn't kill Richard, those bandits did!"
Perhaps some of his later actions, such as the rebellion, might be better
explained by Buckingham having not only supported Richard as Protector from
the beginning, but because he provided some sort of information concerning
the Woodvilles' plans? Buckingham could reason that Richard owed his life
to Buckingham and feel aggrieved when he wasn't included in Richard's
governing inner-circle?
As for Morton, I'm still viewing him as being someone well aware of his own
abilities and willing to serve anyone who viewed his abilities similarly.
Whether that somebody was the Woodvilles, Richard or Henry Tudor really
didn't matter. What did was seeing Morton as he saw himself and, most
importantly, putting him in a position where he could employ those
abilities.
Doug
My apologies as well for taking so long in responding (apparently I get some
of the posts, but not all!).

Hilary wrote:
"Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of
Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a
logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham
College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have
been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I
wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I
notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early
1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton
was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e.
Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than
substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico
who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded
this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his
lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was
bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not
have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it
gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried
him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I
agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to
the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out
there?
Still catching up with the rest."




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

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-08 21:54:02
Nicholas Brown
Manager is a much better work for how I see AW's role too. He does come across as a dilettante whose instinct would be to take the path of least resistance. Personally, I think the conspiracy started in London with Dorset, EW and probably Richard Grey, but as senior male AW was pushed into 'managing' the Northampton end.

Marie's post about his locations is very revealing. He certainly liked his East Anglian estates, and spent most of his time there or in London. Of all the major Woodvilles, he had the least to lose when EIV died, as he could have carried on as normal with a lifestyle he enjoyed. So, I see him as possibly a reluctant participant in this venture. I very much doubt he ever went to Ludlow after EIV died. In fact, during that Dymock paper's timeline, there is no record of him visiting Ludlow at all. Contrary to general belief, it is appears that his involvement in young Edward's life was minimal and they would have barely known each other.

As for Morton, I also think he was an opportunist who would back who ever would advance him.

Nico

On Tuesday, 8 May 2018, 13:43:13 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,
In regards to the "Where's Henry?" question, did he own any other properties
in the general vicinity? Could his late arrival at Northampton be explained
by a messenger having to discover just where Buckingham was before informing
him about the Northampton meeting? How complete are the records of
Buckingham College? If Stafford visited, one would think there'd be a
record, if there isn't, then we could move Cambridge to the bottom of the
list.
From Marie's posts, it appears that AW often headed off to his properties in
Norfolk, so his being in that area wouldn't be unusual. Then there'd likely
be Easter celebrations at Walsingham which he could attend.
The more I learn about AW, the more I see him as a dilettante; dabbling
first in this area, then in another, but not taking the time to really
master the ins and outs of any one subject. It was likely Nico who
suggested AW as the "ringleader," as my view of him wouldn't have him
remaining concentrated on any one subject long enough to master it.
However, he could very well have been the "manager;" if only by default,
because of his position as the "senior" male.
FWIW, my view of the planned ambush is that it was a spur of the moment
plan, decided on when AW learned that Richard hadn't brought a large number
of men with him. Had AW been certain Richard would only be accompanied by a
hundred or so men, there was no reason not to kill or capture Richard at
their first meeting in Northampton. Edward could have been, as he actually
was, safely parked at Stony Stratford with a couple of hundred men, while AW
with the remaining thousand or so "took care of business" in Northampton.
However, that scenario depended on knowing how many men Richard had with
him, something AW didn't discover until the actual meeting. Thus the plan
for an "ambush," presumably by "bandits." Not only would it remove Richard,
and Buckingham, but it would also provide a gloss of "plausible deniability"
if so desired: "I didn't kill Richard, those bandits did!"
Perhaps some of his later actions, such as the rebellion, might be better
explained by Buckingham having not only supported Richard as Protector from
the beginning, but because he provided some sort of information concerning
the Woodvilles' plans? Buckingham could reason that Richard owed his life
to Buckingham and feel aggrieved when he wasn't included in Richard's
governing inner-circle?
As for Morton, I'm still viewing him as being someone well aware of his own
abilities and willing to serve anyone who viewed his abilities similarly.
Whether that somebody was the Woodvilles, Richard or Henry Tudor really
didn't matter. What did was seeing Morton as he saw himself and, most
importantly, putting him in a position where he could employ those
abilities.
Doug
My apologies as well for taking so long in responding (apparently I get some
of the posts, but not all!).

Hilary wrote:
"Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of
Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a
logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham
College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have
been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I
wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I
notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early
1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton
was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e.
Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than
substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico
who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded
this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his
lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was
bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not
have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it
gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried
him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I
agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to
the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out
there?
Still catching up with the rest."

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

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-08 22:49:46
ricard1an
I think he was plotting but obviously not from Ludlow as we have been led to believe by historians who do not indulge in the excellent research that Marie does. I think that from the Dymock letters we know that he was plotting but possibly under instruction from his sister and her son. I still can't understand why he wouldn't want to be personally in charge of Edward after his father died. He obviously could trust Richard Grey and Thomas Vaughan to carry out his orders or were they EW's orders? Maybe that is why Richard arrested and eventually executed Grey and Vaughan because they were equally as guilty as AW. I have always felt a slight amount of sympathy for them assuming that they were his pawns just doing his bidding. The more we discuss this the more the story that we have been told is appearing to be untrue. We may not be able to unravel all that happened during those weeks after Edward's death, however, I think that it is becoming clearer.
Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-11 10:53:10
Hilary Jones
Haven't overlooked this Doug. Still searching for Buckingham info. I agree with Nico that AW was probably a very reluctant participator in all this; but his sister loved giving orders and he was the senior male. And she had sent her son to help :) :)
Buckingham's 250 'ducal retinue' would be very useful to either side. It would certainly do a lot to even the odds for Richard and make him much less vulnerable, so it is tempting so see B using this opportunity to ensure that Richard 'owed him one'. And one could understand why AW would then hesitate, but too late because B had revealed the plot to Richard.
There's any interesting point in the Stafford book. In fact it's just a throwaway remark but it says that Buckingham must have been so unpopular in Wales that all he ended up with in his last days were Thomas Nandyke the 'necromancer' from Cambridge and our friend John Russhe. I found out a bit more about the latter BTW. He was one of those listed as supporting Clarence in 1469 (I think I told you that), but he was then pardoned and he turns up again in the Stonor papers receiving a shipment of cutlery for the Stonors in London (including a broken spoon). I don't think he was really a merchant, more a 'dealer'. Like Thomas Hampton he was clearly in the Stonor circle.
What is perhaps interesting on reflection is that both Nandyke and Russhe weren't executed by Richard as aiding and abetting a traitor. Was Russhe, like potentially one or both of the Wellesbournes, playing a double game in watching B for the Woodvilles (or Richard)?
I agree about Morton. I reckon he would work happily for anyone who gave him a position. He followed the ascendant star - and had made one mistake with MOA. Why B took Morton to Brecon is a mystery, unless he thought it so remote that he'd have a job getting correspondence out of there?
Will look at your requests in para 1. H

On Tuesday, 8 May 2018, 13:43:12 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,
In regards to the "Where's Henry?" question, did he own any other properties
in the general vicinity? Could his late arrival at Northampton be explained
by a messenger having to discover just where Buckingham was before informing
him about the Northampton meeting? How complete are the records of
Buckingham College? If Stafford visited, one would think there'd be a
record, if there isn't, then we could move Cambridge to the bottom of the
list.
From Marie's posts, it appears that AW often headed off to his properties in
Norfolk, so his being in that area wouldn't be unusual. Then there'd likely
be Easter celebrations at Walsingham which he could attend.
The more I learn about AW, the more I see him as a dilettante; dabbling
first in this area, then in another, but not taking the time to really
master the ins and outs of any one subject. It was likely Nico who
suggested AW as the "ringleader," as my view of him wouldn't have him
remaining concentrated on any one subject long enough to master it.
However, he could very well have been the "manager;" if only by default,
because of his position as the "senior" male.
FWIW, my view of the planned ambush is that it was a spur of the moment
plan, decided on when AW learned that Richard hadn't brought a large number
of men with him. Had AW been certain Richard would only be accompanied by a
hundred or so men, there was no reason not to kill or capture Richard at
their first meeting in Northampton. Edward could have been, as he actually
was, safely parked at Stony Stratford with a couple of hundred men, while AW
with the remaining thousand or so "took care of business" in Northampton.
However, that scenario depended on knowing how many men Richard had with
him, something AW didn't discover until the actual meeting. Thus the plan
for an "ambush," presumably by "bandits." Not only would it remove Richard,
and Buckingham, but it would also provide a gloss of "plausible deniability"
if so desired: "I didn't kill Richard, those bandits did!"
Perhaps some of his later actions, such as the rebellion, might be better
explained by Buckingham having not only supported Richard as Protector from
the beginning, but because he provided some sort of information concerning
the Woodvilles' plans? Buckingham could reason that Richard owed his life
to Buckingham and feel aggrieved when he wasn't included in Richard's
governing inner-circle?
As for Morton, I'm still viewing him as being someone well aware of his own
abilities and willing to serve anyone who viewed his abilities similarly.
Whether that somebody was the Woodvilles, Richard or Henry Tudor really
didn't matter. What did was seeing Morton as he saw himself and, most
importantly, putting him in a position where he could employ those
abilities.
Doug
My apologies as well for taking so long in responding (apparently I get some
of the posts, but not all!).

Hilary wrote:
"Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of
Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a
logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham
College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have
been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I
wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I
notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early
1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton
was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e.
Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than
substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico
who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded
this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his
lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was
bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not
have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it
gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried
him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I
agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to
the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out
there?
Still catching up with the rest."

--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-12 15:31:45
Doug Stamate
Nico, Apologies for not replying sooner, still having trouble receiving emails from anyone other than, apparently, Marie!?! From the itinerary Marie provided, it appears as if AW did everything but supervise his charge, doesn't it? Wouldn't part of his job include AW's keeping an eye on the Prince of Wales' household; its members, expenses, etc.? He doesn't seem to have done that, either, but it may be due to a lack of surviving records. What is interesting is that with AW tootling around Norfolk and Grey in London, Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas... I think I've always tended to view Morton as an opportunist and I have to admit he doesn't seem to have done anything to change that view! Doug Nico wrote: Manager is a much better work for how I see AW's role too. He does come across as a dilettante whose instinct would be to take the path of least resistance. Personally, I think the conspiracy started in London with Dorset, EW and probably Richard Grey, but as senior male AW was pushed into 'managing' the Northampton end. Marie's post about his locations is very revealing. He certainly liked his East Anglian estates, and spent most of his time there or in London. Of all the major Woodvilles, he had the least to lose when EIV died, as he could have carried on as normal with a lifestyle he enjoyed. So, I see him as possibly a reluctant participant in this venture. I very much doubt he ever went to Ludlow after EIV died. In fact, during that Dymock paper's timeline, there is no record of him visiting Ludlow at all. Contrary to general belief, it is appears that his involvement in young Edward's life was minimal and they would have barely known each other . As for Morton, I also think he was an opportunist who would back who ever would advance him.
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-12 15:41:49
Pamela Bain
If you only get one, Marie is a good one. Two other groups too which I belong are experiencing slow to no posts. Yahoo groups must be having problems.
On May 12, 2018, at 9:31 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Apologies for not replying sooner, still having trouble receiving emails from anyone other than, apparently, Marie!?! From the itinerary Marie provided, it appears as if AW did everything but supervise his charge, doesn't it? Wouldn't part of his job include AW's keeping an eye on the Prince of Wales' household; its members, expenses, etc.? He doesn't seem to have done that, either, but it may be due to a lack of surviving records. What is interesting is that with AW tootling around Norfolk and Grey in London, Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas... I think I've always tended to view Morton as an opportunist and I have to admit he doesn't seem to have done anything to change that view! Doug Nico wrote: Manager is a much better work for how I see AW's role too. He does come across as a dilettante whose instinct would be to take the path of least resistance. Personally, I think the conspiracy started in London with Dorset, EW and probably Richard Grey, but as senior male AW was pushed into 'managing' the Northampton end. Marie's post about his locations is very revealing. He certainly liked his East Anglian estates, and spent most of his time there or in London. Of all the major Woodvilles, he had the least to lose when EIV died, as he could have carried on as normal with a lifestyle he enjoyed. So, I see him as possibly a reluctant participant in this venture. I very much doubt he ever went to Ludlow after EIV died. In fact, during that Dymock paper's timeline, there is no record of him visiting Ludlow at all. Contrary to general belief, it is appears that his involvement in young Edward's life was minimal and they would have barely known each other . As for Morton, I also think he was an opportunist who would back who ever would advance him.
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-12 16:33:40
Hilary Jones
Doug hope you get this but who knows when? I did a bit more on Buckingham College. It became Magdalene College Cambridge in 1549 but the Buckingham bit is still on their website. They say it was originally called Buckingham College because Duke Humphrey and 'our' Duke Henry invested a large amount of money in it - but nobody has ever traced the specifics of that money.
It was set up to benefit the monks of Croyland and administered by their abbot. Perhaps they were 'sponsoring' Croyland? But it does definitely give Buckingham a sponsored base in East Anglia as well as Kimbolton.
There are two themes which run through th 1483 rebellions (and therefore this if you accept them to be linked with the Woodvilles). The first is the judiciary; nearly all our rebels link back to a significant Judge. The second is Wykehamism - and Henry VI and Lancaster were key to this - think King's College Cambridge, Eton etc. Did the Woodvilles woo old Lancastrians with a Wykehamist promise? Interesting that MB established her own College (St John's Cambridge) and HT finished the King's College chapel - with Tudor roses of course. H

On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 15:31:49 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Apologies for not replying sooner, still having trouble receiving emails from anyone other than, apparently, Marie!?! From the itinerary Marie provided, it appears as if AW did everything but supervise his charge, doesn't it? Wouldn't part of his job include AW's keeping an eye on the Prince of Wales' household; its members, expenses, etc.? He doesn't seem to have done that, either, but it may be due to a lack of surviving records. What is interesting is that with AW tootling around Norfolk and Grey in London, Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas... I think I've always tended to view Morton as an opportunist and I have to admit he doesn't seem to have done anything to change that view! Doug Nico wrote: Manager is a much better work for how I see AW's role too. He does come across as a dilettante whose instinct would be to take the path of least resistance. Personally, I think the conspiracy started in London with Dorset, EW and probably Richard Grey, but as senior male AW was pushed into 'managing' the Northampton end. Marie's post about his locations is very revealing. He certainly liked his East Anglian estates, and spent most of his time there or in London. Of all the major Woodvilles, he had the least to lose when EIV died, as he could have carried on as normal with a lifestyle he enjoyed. So, I see him as possibly a reluctant participant in this venture. I very much doubt he ever went to Ludlow after EIV died. In fact, during that Dymock paper's timeline, there is no record of him visiting Ludlow at all. Contrary to general belief, it is appears that his involvement in young Edward's life was minimal and they would have barely known each other . As for Morton, I also think he was an opportunist who would back who ever would advance him.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-12 16:38:41
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote:
"Haven't overlooked this Doug. Still searching for Buckingham info. I agree
with Nico that AW was probably a very reluctant participator in all this;
but his sister loved giving orders and he was the senior male. And she had
sent her son to help :) :)"

Doug here:
The reaction to events, beginning with the death of Edward IV do seem to be
of an <i>ad hoc</i> nature, don't they? Sort of a scurrying around, trying
to manage unexpected events and deal with people with whom there'd
previously been little or no contact?

Hilary continued:
"Buckingham's 250 'ducal retinue' would be very useful to either side. It
would certainly do a lot to even the odds for Richard and make him much less
vulnerable, so it is tempting so see B using this opportunity to ensure that
Richard 'owed him one'. And one could understand why AW would then hesitate,
but too late because B had revealed the plot to Richard."

Doug here:
What do you make of the idea that the information Buckingham may have
provided to Richard wasn't about any planned ambush, but rather that Edward
had been accompanied from Wales by only five hundred or so men? Presuming
Buckingham came to Northampton from one of his estates along Watling Street,
he'd almost certainly have that information, but the decision about an
ambush would have been made by AW who, as far as we can tell, was already in
Northampton or its' vicinity.
Now, everything I've read has AW meeting Richard and telling him that Edward
is at Stony Stratford. Presuming, safely I think, that Northampton was the
agreed-upon meeting place for everyone; the question becomes: Why wasn't
Edward at Northampton? And just as important, what reason did AW give
Richard for Edward not being there? We don't have that, do we?
To succeed, an ambush requires that the person being ambushed not know about
it. Even the possibility there might be an ambush could cause the potential
victim to take steps to avoid it. Someone (Marie?) previously posted that
Northampton had been the site of Parliaments, treaty-signings and such and
was capable of accommodating quite a large number of people. Could the
"tip-off" for Richard have been AW giving "crowded conditions" in
Northampton as the reason for Edward being at Stony Stratford? If
Northampton had previously accommodated Parliaments, it could easily have
accommodated Edward's party of five hundred, Richard's party of two hundred
or so and Buckingham's two hundred fifty, with room for some of AW's as
well.
So, when Buckingham told Richard that Edward's escort was around five
hundred, Richard's suspicions were aroused. I've posted before that, if AW
was gathering large numbers of men in and around Grafton Regis, that
knowledge would almost certainly be available in Northampton. So, Richard
puts two and two together and, on the morning of 30 April, arrests AW and
Grey. And with the knowledge that their leaders were in chains, the men
who'd been designated to carry out the ambush - didn't.
I hope that makes sense!

Hilary continued:
"There's any interesting point in the Stafford book. In fact it's just a
throwaway remark but it says that Buckingham must have been so unpopular in
Wales that all he ended up with in his last days were Thomas Nandyke the
'necromancer' from Cambridge and our friend John Russhe. I found out a bit
more about the latter BTW. He was one of those listed as supporting Clarence
in 1469 (I think I told you that), but he was then pardoned and he turns up
again in the Stonor papers receiving a shipment of cutlery for the Stonors
in London (including a broken spoon). I don't think he was really a
merchant, more a 'dealer'. Like Thomas Hampton he was clearly in the Stonor
circle.
What is perhaps interesting on reflection is that both Nandyke and Russhe
weren't executed by Richard as aiding and abetting a traitor. Was Russhe,
like potentially one or both of the Wellesbournes, playing a double game in
watching B for the Woodvilles (or Richard)?"

Doug here:
Russhe rather sounds to me as if he may have been a sort of high-class
peddler;" not only dealing in whatever a potential customer may have wanted
but, more importantly, possibly traveling around a general "circuit."
Definitely an excellent way to gather, and disseminate, information.
Would Russhe have been considered a member of Buckingham's "affinity"? If
so, might conflicted loyalties have something to do with his not being
executed? Do we have any record of Russhe actually doing something to help
Buckingham in his rebellion?

Hilary concluded:
"I agree about Morton. I reckon he would work happily for anyone who gave
him a position. He followed the ascendant star - and had made one mistake
with MOA. Why B took Morton to Brecon is a mystery, unless he thought it so
remote that he'd have a job getting correspondence out of there?
Will look at your requests in para 1."

Doug here:
If Morton had been given into Buckingham's personal custody, that would
require Buckingham to place himself somewhere where he could keep a close,
24/7 watch over the Bishop. Which certainly indicates a fairly remote site
where the comings and goings of everyone could be closely monitored;
conditions Brecon would likely meet. Perhaps that's one of the
reasons,Buckingham was so easily seduced by Morton? Custody of Morton could
be, literally, viewed as being banished from Court and Morton played on that
theme? Richard had "banished" Buckingham, fearing his capabilities and
influence?
Don't put yourself out over those questions in that paragraph! I was just
wondering if <i>we</i> had better information than that produced by five
centuries of "historians.*"
Doug
*Who does recognize we might have a few more sources available, but still...




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

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-13 11:19:10
Hilary Jones
I love the 'high class peddler'. I think quite a few round Stonor were, and gold-diggers as well. I'm still digging on Russhe, but we know he was married to the daughter of Sir John Stanley i.e. the niece of Will and Tom and is buried in All Hallows in London.
I like your ideas re these meetings. I think they are very logical. In effect when AW got cold feet or sensed the game was up he was in reality the prisoner when they passed through Grafton, even though it hadn't actually happened till Stony Stratford. Incidentally, as the cultivated man, AW is just the sort to 'cash in' on Wykehamist supporters; he probably promised some endowments in return for support. I still have to ascertain why some of the East Anglian gentry supported the rebels and later HT. One would have thought they were doing well with sheep alone.
Re there being other information out there I am optimistic. I was working on another project a couple of weeks ago and the people concerned were from Northants and what you'd call the 'Stonor area'. I'd been looking for this on and off for a couple of years and then I did a slight variation on the name and the info turned up - in the Devon record office! It had no connection whatsoever with Devon. One can only assume that they thought it related to a Devon family with a slightly different surname.I think there is still a lot of misfiled stuff in our local record offices and they would have to have extremely skilled archivists to spot whether it was important unless it contained a 'famous name'. So who would think William Basket (or John Russhe) was particularly relevant?
Secondly, for my sins I tuned in enthusiastically to Tony Robinson's programme on Great British Cathedrals which featured York Minster. Richard didn't get a single mention. The only three royal events mentioned were Edward III's marriage (fair enough), Katherine Worsley's marriage to the Duke of Kent (!) and Henry VIII installing a rose window to confirm how Tudors had successfully ended the WOTR. One despairs - and then the Dean appeared, she who was Dean of Leicester and for once I don't blame Tony Robinson.
BUT what was revealed were the 600 boxes in the Minster Archive - yes 600 - which had not been opened since archaeologists had examined the footings of the Minster when it was being underpinned in the 1960s. They opened just one which contained some Saxon pins. So yes, I think there's stuff out there, however obscure it may seem at first, but when we'll stumble upon it who knows?. H
On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 16:38:48 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary wrote:
"Haven't overlooked this Doug. Still searching for Buckingham info. I agree
with Nico that AW was probably a very reluctant participator in all this;
but his sister loved giving orders and he was the senior male. And she had
sent her son to help :) :)"

Doug here:
The reaction to events, beginning with the death of Edward IV do seem to be
of an <i>ad hoc</i> nature, don't they? Sort of a scurrying around, trying
to manage unexpected events and deal with people with whom there'd
previously been little or no contact?

Hilary continued:
"Buckingham's 250 'ducal retinue' would be very useful to either side. It
would certainly do a lot to even the odds for Richard and make him much less
vulnerable, so it is tempting so see B using this opportunity to ensure that
Richard 'owed him one'. And one could understand why AW would then hesitate,
but too late because B had revealed the plot to Richard."

Doug here:
What do you make of the idea that the information Buckingham may have
provided to Richard wasn't about any planned ambush, but rather that Edward
had been accompanied from Wales by only five hundred or so men? Presuming
Buckingham came to Northampton from one of his estates along Watling Street,
he'd almost certainly have that information, but the decision about an
ambush would have been made by AW who, as far as we can tell, was already in
Northampton or its' vicinity.
Now, everything I've read has AW meeting Richard and telling him that Edward
is at Stony Stratford. Presuming, safely I think, that Northampton was the
agreed-upon meeting place for everyone; the question becomes: Why wasn't
Edward at Northampton? And just as important, what reason did AW give
Richard for Edward not being there? We don't have that, do we?
To succeed, an ambush requires that the person being ambushed not know about
it. Even the possibility there might be an ambush could cause the potential
victim to take steps to avoid it. Someone (Marie?) previously posted that
Northampton had been the site of Parliaments, treaty-signings and such and
was capable of accommodating quite a large number of people. Could the
"tip-off" for Richard have been AW giving "crowded conditions" in
Northampton as the reason for Edward being at Stony Stratford? If
Northampton had previously accommodated Parliaments, it could easily have
accommodated Edward's party of five hundred, Richard's party of two hundred
or so and Buckingham's two hundred fifty, with room for some of AW's as
well.
So, when Buckingham told Richard that Edward's escort was around five
hundred, Richard's suspicions were aroused. I've posted before that, if AW
was gathering large numbers of men in and around Grafton Regis, that
knowledge would almost certainly be available in Northampton. So, Richard
puts two and two together and, on the morning of 30 April, arrests AW and
Grey. And with the knowledge that their leaders were in chains, the men
who'd been designated to carry out the ambush - didn't.
I hope that makes sense!

Hilary continued:
"There's any interesting point in the Stafford book. In fact it's just a
throwaway remark but it says that Buckingham must have been so unpopular in
Wales that all he ended up with in his last days were Thomas Nandyke the
'necromancer' from Cambridge and our friend John Russhe. I found out a bit
more about the latter BTW. He was one of those listed as supporting Clarence
in 1469 (I think I told you that), but he was then pardoned and he turns up
again in the Stonor papers receiving a shipment of cutlery for the Stonors
in London (including a broken spoon). I don't think he was really a
merchant, more a 'dealer'. Like Thomas Hampton he was clearly in the Stonor
circle.
What is perhaps interesting on reflection is that both Nandyke and Russhe
weren't executed by Richard as aiding and abetting a traitor. Was Russhe,
like potentially one or both of the Wellesbournes, playing a double game in
watching B for the Woodvilles (or Richard)?"

Doug here:
Russhe rather sounds to me as if he may have been a sort of high-class
peddler;" not only dealing in whatever a potential customer may have wanted
but, more importantly, possibly traveling around a general "circuit."
Definitely an excellent way to gather, and disseminate, information.
Would Russhe have been considered a member of Buckingham's "affinity"? If
so, might conflicted loyalties have something to do with his not being
executed? Do we have any record of Russhe actually doing something to help
Buckingham in his rebellion?

Hilary concluded:
"I agree about Morton. I reckon he would work happily for anyone who gave
him a position. He followed the ascendant star - and had made one mistake
with MOA. Why B took Morton to Brecon is a mystery, unless he thought it so
remote that he'd have a job getting correspondence out of there?
Will look at your requests in para 1."

Doug here:
If Morton had been given into Buckingham's personal custody, that would
require Buckingham to place himself somewhere where he could keep a close,
24/7 watch over the Bishop. Which certainly indicates a fairly remote site
where the comings and goings of everyone could be closely monitored;
conditions Brecon would likely meet. Perhaps that's one of the
reasons,Buckingham was so easily seduced by Morton? Custody of Morton could
be, literally, viewed as being banished from Court and Morton played on that
theme? Richard had "banished" Buckingham, fearing his capabilities and
influence?
Don't put yourself out over those questions in that paragraph! I was just
wondering if <i>we</i> had better information than that produced by five
centuries of "historians.*"
Doug
*Who does recognize we might have a few more sources available, but still...

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-13 15:22:54
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Perhaps Duke Humphrey used William of Wykeham's method for funding his establishments? If Wikipedia is to be believed, William used funds from suppressed abbeys, monasteries and convents in France to supplement whatever he could raise in England. If there aren't any records of Duke Henry's funding, might that be due to the manner in which he provided those funds? Cash, say, or even foodstuffs from some nearby manor, rather than turning over the income from either that manor or another? However, if the College was set up to benefit the monks at Croyland, perhaps records of funding the College might be found in their records? In view of later events, there's the connection between Croyland and Morton to consider, as well. That Judge sounds very interesting! Was he in London or did he travel a circuit (eyre?)? Either would provide an excellent means of gaining, and distributing, information  especially the latter. What is this Wykehamism and Wykehamist promise of which you speak? The only references to Wykeham I can find on the internet are that Wykehamist refers to graduates of Winchester College (both the College in Winchester and Winchester College aka New College, Cambridge?) and also ties it to something called the Wykehamist Fallacy which, if I understand it properly, reasons that simply because someone has attended certain schools one is to be trusted to carry out important governmental business. I presume I'm missing something? Doug I now seem to be getting your posts as well, but I have no idea how long that'll continue! Hilary wrote: Doug hope you get this but who knows when? I did a bit more on Buckingham College. It became Magdalene College Cambridge in 1549 but the Buckingham bit is still on their website. They say it was originally called Buckingham College because Duke Humphrey and 'our' Duke Henry invested a large amount of money in it - but nobody has ever traced the specifics of that money. It was set up to benefit the monks of Croyland and administered by their abbot. Perhaps they were 'sponsoring' Croyland? But it does definitely give Buckingham a sponsored base in East Anglia as well as Kimbolton. There are two themes which run through th 1483 rebellions (and therefore this if you accept them to be linked with the Woodvilles). The first is the judiciary; nearly all our rebels link back to a significant Judge. The second is Wykehamism - and Henry VI and Lancaster were key to this - think King's College Cambridge, Eton etc. Did the Woodvilles woo old Lancastrians with a Wykehamist promise? Interesting that MB established her own College (St John's Cambridge) and HT finished the King's College chapel - with Tudor roses of course.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-13 15:43:30
Hilary Jones
Doug I'm off to a BBQ but you may find this interesting, particularly some of the key people
William of Wykeham and His Colleges : Mackenzie Edward Charles Walcott : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

William of Wykeham and His Colleges : Mackenzie Edward Charles Walcott :...

Book digitized by Google from the library of the New York Public Library and uploaded to the Internet Archive by...


And how many British PMs went to Eton? I'll write tomorrow. H
On Sunday, 13 May 2018, 15:22:57 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Perhaps Duke Humphrey used William of Wykeham's method for funding his establishments? If Wikipedia is to be believed, William used funds from suppressed abbeys, monasteries and convents in France to supplement whatever he could raise in England. If there aren't any records of Duke Henry's funding, might that be due to the manner in which he provided those funds? Cash, say, or even foodstuffs from some nearby manor, rather than turning over the income from either that manor or another? However, if the College was set up to benefit the monks at Croyland, perhaps records of funding the College might be found in their records? In view of later events, there's the connection between Croyland and Morton to consider, as well. That Judge sounds very interesting! Was he in London or did he travel a circuit (eyre?)? Either would provide an excellent means of gaining, and distributing, information  especially the latter. What is this Wykehamism and Wykehamist promise of which you speak? The only references to Wykeham I can find on the internet are that Wykehamist refers to graduates of Winchester College (both the College in Winchester and Winchester College aka New College, Cambridge?) and also ties it to something called the Wykehamist Fallacy which, if I understand it properly, reasons that simply because someone has attended certain schools one is to be trusted to carry out important governmental business. I presume I'm missing something? Doug I now seem to be getting your posts as well, but I have no idea how long that'll continue! Hilary wrote: Doug hope you get this but who knows when? I did a bit more on Buckingham College. It became Magdalene College Cambridge in 1549 but the Buckingham bit is still on their website. They say it was originally called Buckingham College because Duke Humphrey and 'our' Duke Henry invested a large amount of money in it - but nobody has ever traced the specifics of that money. It was set up to benefit the monks of Croyland and administered by their abbot. Perhaps they were 'sponsoring' Croyland? But it does definitely give Buckingham a sponsored base in East Anglia as well as Kimbolton. There are two themes which run through th 1483 rebellions (and therefore this if you accept them to be linked with the Woodvilles). The first is the judiciary; nearly all our rebels link back to a significant Judge. The second is Wykehamism - and Henry VI and Lancaster were key to this - think King's College Cambridge, Eton etc. Did the Woodvilles woo old Lancastrians with a Wykehamist promise? Interesting that MB established her own College (St John's Cambridge) and HT finished the King's College chapel - with Tudor roses of course.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-14 12:48:00
Hilary Jones
Back again Doug. I think you could say that Wykehamism was (still is) a sort educational version of the Knights Templar or the Freemasons. As you so rightly say, belong to the 'club' and you get on. I found a 19 century book which mentioned the syallbi of the Cambridge Colleges in the middle ages. Most as you might guess were various forms of Law or Divinity, but Bokingham alone was 'monarchi'. Does anyone know what that is? Could it be the art of government i.e. to equip people like Russell, Beckington, etc for a 'civil service' role?
I do wonder to what dubious ends these collections by people like Waynflete were put, I mean as well as the odd college? To the 19 century historians they were saints of course. But it does make a marvellous cover. H
On Sunday, 13 May 2018, 15:22:57 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Perhaps Duke Humphrey used William of Wykeham's method for funding his establishments? If Wikipedia is to be believed, William used funds from suppressed abbeys, monasteries and convents in France to supplement whatever he could raise in England. If there aren't any records of Duke Henry's funding, might that be due to the manner in which he provided those funds? Cash, say, or even foodstuffs from some nearby manor, rather than turning over the income from either that manor or another? However, if the College was set up to benefit the monks at Croyland, perhaps records of funding the College might be found in their records? In view of later events, there's the connection between Croyland and Morton to consider, as well. That Judge sounds very interesting! Was he in London or did he travel a circuit (eyre?)? Either would provide an excellent means of gaining, and distributing, information  especially the latter. What is this Wykehamism and Wykehamist promise of which you speak? The only references to Wykeham I can find on the internet are that Wykehamist refers to graduates of Winchester College (both the College in Winchester and Winchester College aka New College, Cambridge?) and also ties it to something called the Wykehamist Fallacy which, if I understand it properly, reasons that simply because someone has attended certain schools one is to be trusted to carry out important governmental business. I presume I'm missing something? Doug I now seem to be getting your posts as well, but I have no idea how long that'll continue! Hilary wrote: Doug hope you get this but who knows when? I did a bit more on Buckingham College. It became Magdalene College Cambridge in 1549 but the Buckingham bit is still on their website. They say it was originally called Buckingham College because Duke Humphrey and 'our' Duke Henry invested a large amount of money in it - but nobody has ever traced the specifics of that money. It was set up to benefit the monks of Croyland and administered by their abbot. Perhaps they were 'sponsoring' Croyland? But it does definitely give Buckingham a sponsored base in East Anglia as well as Kimbolton. There are two themes which run through th 1483 rebellions (and therefore this if you accept them to be linked with the Woodvilles). The first is the judiciary; nearly all our rebels link back to a significant Judge. The second is Wykehamism - and Henry VI and Lancaster were key to this - think King's College Cambridge, Eton etc. Did the Woodvilles woo old Lancastrians with a Wykehamist promise? Interesting that MB established her own College (St John's Cambridge) and HT finished the King's College chapel - with Tudor roses of course.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-14 14:41:18
Doug Stamate
Pamela wrote: If you only get one, Marie is a good one. Two other groups too which I belong are experiencing slow to no posts. Yahoo groups must be having problems. Doug here: Most definitely agree! I read every post, and save most; mainly in order to have their contents at hand when I make a post, either in reply or on a different topic. I'm currently getting posts from Marie, Hilary and you  haven't checked the forum site to see if any others have posted. It does rather appear to be a Yahoo glitch. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-14 14:52:39
Hilary Jones
You seem to have missed a lot from Nico Doug. H
On Monday, 14 May 2018, 14:41:24 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Pamela wrote: If you only get one, Marie is a good one. Two other groups too which I belong are experiencing slow to no posts. Yahoo groups must be having problems. Doug here: Most definitely agree! I read every post, and save most; mainly in order to have their contents at hand when I make a post, either in reply or on a different topic. I'm currently getting posts from Marie, Hilary and you  haven't checked the forum site to see if any others have posted. It does rather appear to be a Yahoo glitch. Doug
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-14 15:26:53
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I love the 'high class peddler'. I think quite a few round Stonor were, and gold-diggers as well. I'm still digging on Russhe, but we know he was married to the daughter of Sir John Stanley i.e. the niece of Will and Tom and is buried in All Hallows in London. Doug here: I suppose we shouldn't be too hard on those gold diggers! It required money to buy land because, if one wanted to establish one's family properly, one had to have land. Interesting that Russhe seems to have gone from supporting Edward V/Buckingham to becoming attached to the Stanleys. Hilary continued: I like your ideas re these meetings. I think they are very logical. In effect when AW got cold feet or sensed the game was up he was in reality the prisoner when they passed through Grafton, even though it hadn't actually happened till Stony Stratford. Incidentally, as the cultivated man, AW is just the sort to 'cash in' on Wykehamist supporters; he probably promised some endowments in return for support. I still have to ascertain why some of the East Anglian gentry supported the rebels and later HT. One would have thought they were doing well with sheep alone. Doug here: While AW may have qualified as a dilettante, even he would realize it wasn't wise to tell all and sundry, aka Buckingham, about any plans involving the capture or death of Richard. Not unless there'd been a fairly close relationship between the two, an idea for which we haven't any support. That I know of, anyway. Still uncertain about how those Wykenham supporters would be tied in. I do understand that graduates often have a soft spot for their Alma Mater, would that be enough? Even with promises of endowments? In regards to those members of the East Anglian gentry, could their support have been the result of AW spending so much time in that general area and while there developing an attachment between himself, and his interests, and those of the gentry? There's also the point that, as generally Woodville territory, the Woodville position on Edward V's illegitimacy might likely be prevalent. Which would, I think, support the idea that the October Rebellion, no matter what Buckingham's own plans may have been, was originally designed to return Edward V to the throne and most certainly not to put HT there. Later support for HT could then be explained through their belief that HT represented the Cause of his late brothers-in-law. Hilary continued: Re there being other information out there I am optimistic. I was working on another proje ct a couple of weeks ago and the people concerned were from Northants and what you'd call the 'Stonor area'. I'd been looking for this on and off for a couple of years and then I did a slight variation on the name and the info turned up - in the Devon record office! It had no connection whatsoever with Devon. One can only assume that they thought it related to a Devon family with a slightly different surname. I think there is still a lot of misfiled stuff in our local record offices and they would have to have extremely skilled archivists to spot whether it was important unless it contained a 'famous name'. So who would think William Basket (or John Russhe) was particularly relevant? Doug here: Serendipity seems to be involved in your search! I agree that there's likely an awful lot of misfiled information waiting to be discovered by accident. The trouble being whether or not the over-all importance of what is discovered is even recognized! Hilary concluded: Secondly, for my sins I tuned in enthusiastically to Tony Robinson's programme on Great British Cathedrals which featured York Minster. Richard didn't get a single mention. The only three royal events mentioned were Edward III's marriage (fair enough), Katherine Worsley's marriage to the Duke of Kent (!) and Henry VIII installing a rose window to confirm how Tudors had successfully ended the WOTR. One despairs - and then the Dean appeared, she who was Dean of Leicester and for once I don't blame Tony Robinson. BUT what was revealed were the 600 boxes in the Minster Archive - yes 600 - which had not been opened since archaeologists had examined the footings of the Minster when it was being underpinned in the 1960s. They opened just one which contained some Saxon pins. So yes, I think there's stuff out there, however obscure it may seem at first, but when we'll stumble upon it who knows? Doug here: ...but when we'll stumble upon it who knows? Who indeed (typed slowly with a Tom Baker finger tapping my nose)? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-14 21:10:32
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"AW is just the sort to 'cash in' on Wykehamist supporters;"

Carol responds:

I'm probably missing something obvious here, but what are Wykehamist supporters and why would AW be likely to cash in on them?

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-15 09:32:47
Hilary Jones
You may have missed some posts Carol, I think Yahoo is having problems. So I apologise if I repeat what you do already have.
William of Wykeham who lived at the cusp of the fourteenth/fifteenth century was the bishop responsible for encouraging the foundation of schools and University colleges. This of course was eagerly embraced by Henry VI with his foundations of Eton and King's College Cambridge. Wykeham himself founded Winchester College, the alma mater of Beckington and John Russell amongst others. By Richard's time a number of Oxford and Cambridge colleges had been founded by 'disciples' of Wykeham and they were funded by the gentry and by collection. The prime collector at this time was William Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester. As Doug and I have said rather cynically, such 'collections' could go towards a host of things without really being queried. Waynflete was very good at cashing in unclaimed legacies. A number of foundations of Oxford colleges, like Magdalen, took place at this time and they had strong sponsorship from the local gentry, most of whom were loyal to De Vere, Lancaster and later HT.
These people were also old neighbours of the Woodvilles and we can see that in 1483 the Woodvilles called on them for support. AW had put himself forward as the cultured Renaissance man, so he could appeal to the 'cultured' gentry who were funding these works. Certainly HT finished King's College Chapel and MB founded a new college (St John's) at Cambridge when he took the throne. (That's not to say that Edward and Richard didn't fund colleges too - Queen's College Cambridge). And the Dukes of Buckingham funded what is now Magdalene College Cambridge.
For the scholars and founders of these places it was (and still is) like an exclusive club. Just as lots of US Presidents were/are Freemasons, so lots of British PMs (and Prince William) went to Eton.
What I was saying is that I'm pretty sure AW would have wanted to have been in that 'club'. H (Sorry it's so long)
On Monday, 14 May 2018, 21:10:38 BST, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"AW is just the sort to 'cash in' on Wykehamist supporters;"

Carol responds:

I'm probably missing something obvious here, but what are Wykehamist supporters and why would AW be likely to cash in on them?


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-15 09:56:31
Hilary Jones
Doug, to start with the last first, I think our biggest chance (apart from opening boxes not in our domain) is the more stuff that is put on the web the more opportunity there is to search for it properly. I would never have gone to Devon Record Office! I remember that when they tied in Access to Archives with the National Archives they said that only 30 per cent of stuff had been put on and they didn't know when the rest would be digitised because of lack of resources! I don't know if Marie or anyone knows if this has improved?
Re Mr Russhe and his cohort I actually agree and to some degree admire them. They achieved a lot more than crashing round the countryside in armour like the Wellesbournes. You could rightly say that they, the merchants and the shepherds were what brought us into the modern age.
As for the Wykehamists, it's a different sort of power to money. If you founded, supported, went to these establishment it was your path to the King's side in government. Chicheley, Beckington. Stillington, Russell all went to Oxford (some to Winchester as well). It was the path to the Privy Seal. Remember how Wolsey and Cromwell were mocked because they didn't have the 'right background'. And this was because the study at Oxbridge which had previously been about theology had rapidly become about Civil and Canon Law. It gave these people a path to a high post in the Church, a high post in the Judiciary and with that came a path to Government. Er and it made them rich.
Re East Anglia, yes I agree about AW but I've discovered some other connections with the Wingfields and Cloptons which I'm still working on. Will come back of course. H
(who doesn't think there were 'bad' people at this time. Like you I think more headless-chicken and self-preservation which left them open to manipulation by calm-headed clever people like Morton).

On Monday, 14 May 2018, 15:32:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: I love the 'high class peddler'. I think quite a few round Stonor were, and gold-diggers as well. I'm still digging on Russhe, but we know he was married to the daughter of Sir John Stanley i.e. the niece of Will and Tom and is buried in All Hallows in London. Doug here: I suppose we shouldn't be too hard on those gold diggers! It required money to buy land because, if one wanted to establish one's family properly, one had to have land. Interesting that Russhe seems to have gone from supporting Edward V/Buckingham to becoming attached to the Stanleys. Hilary continued: I like your ideas re these meetings. I think they are very logical. In effect when AW got cold feet or sensed the game was up he was in reality the prisoner when they passed through Grafton, even though it hadn't actually happened till Stony Stratford. Incidentally, as the cultivated man, AW is just the sort to 'cash in' on Wykehamist supporters; he probably promised some endowments in return for support. I still have to ascertain why some of the East Anglian gentry supported the rebels and later HT. One would have thought they were doing well with sheep alone. Doug here: While AW may have qualified as a dilettante, even he would realize it wasn't wise to tell all and sundry, aka Buckingham, about any plans involving the capture or death of Richard. Not unless there'd been a fairly close relationship between the two, an idea for which we haven't any support. That I know of, anyway. Still uncertain about how those Wykenham supporters would be tied in. I do understand that graduates often have a soft spot for their Alma Mater, would that be enough? Even with promises of endowments? In regards to those members of the East Anglian gentry, could their support have been the result of AW spending so much time in that general area and while there developing an attachment between himself, and his interests, and those of the gentry? There's also the point that, as generally Woodville territory, the Woodville position on Edward V's illegitimacy might likely be prevalent. Which would, I think, support the idea that the October Rebellion, no matter what Buckingham's own plans may have been, was originally designed to return Edward V to the throne and most certainly not to put HT there. Later support for HT could then be explained through their belief that HT represented the Cause of his late brothers-in-law. Hilary continued: Re there being other information out there I am optimistic. I was working on another proje ct a couple of weeks ago and the people concerned were from Northants and what you'd call the 'Stonor area'. I'd been looking for this on and off for a couple of years and then I did a slight variation on the name and the info turned up - in the Devon record office! It had no connection whatsoever with Devon. One can only assume that they thought it related to a Devon family with a slightly different surname. I think there is still a lot of misfiled stuff in our local record offices and they would have to have extremely skilled archivists to spot whether it was important unless it contained a 'famous name'. So who would think William Basket (or John Russhe) was particularly relevant? Doug here: Serendipity seems to be involved in your search! I agree that there's likely an awful lot of misfiled information waiting to be discovered by accident. The trouble being whether or not the over-all importance of what is discovered is even recognized! Hilary concluded: Secondly, for my sins I tuned in enthusiastically to Tony Robinson's programme on Great British Cathedrals which featured York Minster. Richard didn't get a single mention. The only three royal events mentioned were Edward III's marriage (fair enough), Katherine Worsley's marriage to the Duke of Kent (!) and Henry VIII installing a rose window to confirm how Tudors had successfully ended the WOTR. One despairs - and then the Dean appeared, she who was Dean of Leicester and for once I don't blame Tony Robinson. BUT what was revealed were the 600 boxes in the Minster Archive - yes 600 - which had not been opened since archaeologists had examined the footings of the Minster when it was being underpinned in the 1960s. They opened just one which contained some Saxon pins. So yes, I think there's stuff out there, however obscure it may seem at first, but when we'll stumble upon it who knows? Doug here: ...but when we'll stumble upon it who knows? Who indeed (typed slowly with a Tom Baker finger tapping my nose)? Doug
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-15 11:10:09
Nicholas Brown
Doug wrote: Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas...
Vaughan was Edward's chamberlain at Ludlow, so he would have had more day to day contact with him than anyone else, and was likely something of a father figure to him (or grandfather since he was about 73 in 1483), as contact with Edward IV would have been sporadic. He does seem to have been overlooked, possibly for status reasons with Anthony Woodville being given credit for what must have been his responsibilities. AW is sometimes described as Edward's tutor, but he can't have done more than recommend a curriculum for him. Perhaps Vaughan's loss was what caused the mental state that Argentine mentioned. FWIW, some of Vaughan's family members joined Buckingham's rebellion and later supported HT.
The Michael Hicks book about Edward V had some good chapters on his life at Ludlow and the Council. I will have a look at the at the library for a review.
Nico

On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 16:33:54 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug hope you get this but who knows when? I did a bit more on Buckingham College. It became Magdalene College Cambridge in 1549 but the Buckingham bit is still on their website. They say it was originally called Buckingham College because Duke Humphrey and 'our' Duke Henry invested a large amount of money in it - but nobody has ever traced the specifics of that money.
It was set up to benefit the monks of Croyland and administered by their abbot. Perhaps they were 'sponsoring' Croyland? But it does definitely give Buckingham a sponsored base in East Anglia as well as Kimbolton.
There are two themes which run through th 1483 rebellions (and therefore this if you accept them to be linked with the Woodvilles). The first is the judiciary; nearly all our rebels link back to a significant Judge. The second is Wykehamism - and Henry VI and Lancaster were key to this - think King's College Cambridge, Eton etc. Did the Woodvilles woo old Lancastrians with a Wykehamist promise? Interesting that MB established her own College (St John's Cambridge) and HT finished the King's College chapel - with Tudor roses of course. H

On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 15:31:49 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Apologies for not replying sooner, still having trouble receiving emails from anyone other than, apparently, Marie!?! From the itinerary Marie provided, it appears as if AW did everything but supervise his charge, doesn't it? Wouldn't part of his job include AW's keeping an eye on the Prince of Wales' household; its members, expenses, etc.? He doesn't seem to have done that, either, but it may be due to a lack of surviving records. What is interesting is that with AW tootling around Norfolk and Grey in London, Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas... I think I've always tended to view Morton as an opportunist and I have to admit he doesn't seem to have done anything to change that view! Doug Nico wrote: Manager is a much better work for how I see AW's role too. He does come across as a dilettante whose instinct would be to take the path of least resistance. Personally, I think the conspiracy started in London with Dorset, EW and probably Richard Grey, but as senior male AW was pushed into 'managing' the Northampton end. Marie's post about his locations is very revealing. He certainly liked his East Anglian estates, and spent most of his time there or in London. Of all the major Woodvilles, he had the least to lose when EIV died, as he could have carried on as normal with a lifestyle he enjoyed. So, I see him as possibly a reluctant participant in this venture. I very much doubt he ever went to Ludlow after EIV died. In fact, during that Dymock paper's timeline, there is no record of him visiting Ludlow at all. Contrary to general belief, it is appears that his involvement in young Edward's life was minimal and they would have barely known each other . As for Morton, I also think he was an opportunist who would back who ever would advance him.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-15 14:07:52
Doug Stamate
Nico,
I've wondered just exactly what Sir Thomas' position was at Ludlow; thank
you for that bit of information!
As Edward's Chamberlain, Sir Thomas would also control access to him,
wouldn't he? Would communications from his father, or mother, go directly to
Edward, with Vaughan perhaps having a look afterwards, or would they go via
Sir Thomas for Edward to read after Sir Thomas had? In either case,
especially the latter, Sir Thomas would be "in the loop" when it came to
communications between the Prince of Wales and his parents. I don't know if
it would really matter...
I agree with your point that, at the most considering his non-attendance at
Ludlow, AW most likely did nothing more than draw up a curriculum.
Presuming Vaughan was with Edward for several years before Edward IV died,
your idea that being separated from Sir Thomas might account for Edward's
depression makes a lot of sense. Perhaps Edward might better be described
as suffering from a form of "home-sickness," which isn't uncommon to
children sent away to boarding school? Of course, later writers, certain of
Edward's "fate," ascribed an an all-too-common emotional reaction to being
separated from home and family to something more dire.
For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be
viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion
<b>was</b> to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may
have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know
if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or
after? I don't know if it really matters, as their support of HT before
Bosworth may have been a result of those rumors about the boys' deaths.
I'll have to keep an eye out for that book about Edward V by Hicks. It'll
likely be a bit infuriating, but that doesn't mean there's not some good
stuff in it...
Doug

Nico wrote:
"Doug wrote: Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with
Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the
trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas...

Vaughan was Edward's chamberlain at Ludlow, so he would have had more day to
day contact with him than anyone else, and was likely something of a father
figure to him (or grandfather since he was about 73 in 1483), as contact
with Edward IV would have been sporadic. He does seem to have been
overlooked, possibly for status reasons with Anthony Woodville being given
credit for what must have been his responsibilities. AW is sometimes
described as Edward's tutor, but he can't have done more than recommend a
curriculum for him. Perhaps Vaughan's loss was what caused the mental state
that Argentine mentioned. FWIW, some of Vaughan's family members joined
Buckingham's rebellion and later supported HT.
The Michael Hicks book about Edward V had some good chapters on his life at
Ludlow and the Council. I will have a look at the at the library for a
review."



--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-05-15 14:37:25
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Ah, now I get it! Wykehamism is a general term for the idea that if one has a position to fill, in this case somewhere in the governmental machine, anyone with a degree from one of the Oxbridge Colleges would be more than suitable. And, as the percentage of those able or wishing to attend University was very limited, those who had constituted a sort of in group. Something that, as you say, would likely appeal to AW. FWIW, I tried a Google search on monarchi and the closest I came was monarchia (which was also late Medieval Italian). Of course, monarchi may very well mean something such as (the study) Of Monarchy, but I can't say as my Latin consists of two years study more than fifty years ago! However, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't this about the time the Universities began to expand their curricula to include more non-religious studies? Or was that under the Tudors? I would imagine that, while most of the monies collected actually did go to fund Colleges and/or students, the method of collecting those funds, apparently requesting money from well-wishers/supporters, could easily be used for less, ah, noble aims? Doug Hilary wrote: Back again Doug. I think you could say that Wykehamism was (still is) a sort educational version of the Knights Templar or the Freemasons. As you so rightly say, belong to the 'club' and you get on. I found a 19 century book which mentioned the syallbi of the Cambridge Colleges in the middle ages. Most as you might guess were various forms of Law or Divinity, but Bokingham alone was 'monarchi'. Does anyone know what that is? Could it be the art of government i.e. to equip people like Russell, Beckington, etc for a 'civil service' role? I do wonder to what dubious ends these collections by people like Waynflete were put, I mean as well as the odd college? To the 19 century historians they were saints of course. But it does make a marvellous cover.
--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-05-15 15:36:57
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: You seem to have missed a lot from Nico Doug. Doug here: When I realized I wasn't getting all the posts, I went to the Forum site and read through the posts, including the ones on Leslau and his theories. I have to say that, while I do understand that hiding puzzles in paintings was a thing during that period, I find it difficult to believe somebody such as Sir Thomas More would run such risks. Hiding in plain sight could be very dangerous, not only for the individual doing so, but also for anyone that person knew and their families. I can't see Sir Thomas running such risks just for his private amusement and, AFAIK, he wasn't involved in any attempt to overthrow Henry VIII, so what could the reason be for his hiding a person who would represent such a danger to himself and his family? It's only my personal opinion, and subject to change if more information comes to light, but I see no reason for Clement, as the husband of a relative of More's, to not be included. Especially as the woman he married had been not only raised with More's daughters, but seemingly treated as one. Clements being off to one one side might merely represent the less-than-direct familial connection between him and Sir Thomas More. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-15 16:27:31
ricard1an
Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-05-16 11:28:49
Hilary Jones
Doug surely if you lived here you bumped into the 'old boys club'? :) :) Old girls can never break into it which is why women PMs meet with such hostility. It's this belief - which has come down from the Wykehamist colleges, that you are born to lead, to rule etc and it's all rather easy. It also manifests itself in indulgence in suet puddings (like they had at their boarding schools) and strange rituals which I won't go into here :) :)
And yes, I'm sure AW would have wanted to be at the leading edge of education/refinement of his day. And of course you could rely on your buddies for help....... H


On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 14:37:33 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Ah, now I get it! Wykehamism is a general term for the idea that if one has a position to fill, in this case somewhere in the governmental machine, anyone with a degree from one of the Oxbridge Colleges would be more than suitable. And, as the percentage of those able or wishing to attend University was very limited, those who had constituted a sort of in group. Something that, as you say, would likely appeal to AW. FWIW, I tried a Google search on monarchi and the closest I came was monarchia (which was also late Medieval Italian). Of course, monarchi may very well mean something such as (the study) Of Monarchy, but I can't say as my Latin consists of two years study more than fifty years ago! However, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't this about the time the Universities began to expand their curricula to include more non-religious studies? Or was that under the Tudors? I would imagine that, while most of the monies collected actually did go to fund Colleges and/or students, the method of collecting those funds, apparently requesting money from well-wishers/supporters, could easily be used for less, ah, noble aims? Doug Hilary wrote: Back again Doug. I think you could say that Wykehamism was (still is) a sort educational version of the Knights Templar or the Freemasons. As you so rightly say, belong to the 'club' and you get on. I found a 19 century book which mentioned the syallbi of the Cambridge Colleges in the middle ages. Most as you might guess were various forms of Law or Divinity, but Bokingham alone was 'monarchi'. Does anyone know what that is? Could it be the art of government i.e. to equip people like Russell, Beckington, etc for a 'civil service' role? I do wonder to what dubious ends these collections by people like Waynflete were put, I mean as well as the odd college? To the 19 century historians they were saints of course. But it does make a marvellous cover.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-16 11:34:40
Hilary Jones
Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-05-16 11:37:40
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, I think the point is that the figure who is supposedly John Clement (or John Harris) is all wrong. For a start he's in the clothes of an earlier era and he is not well drawn.
I agree entirely with your view that this could never have been commissioned by More; it would have been pure stupidity. We now know that Lockey (who did the final version) was also deeply into allegory. But why did he do it? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 15:37:40 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: You seem to have missed a lot from Nico Doug. Doug here: When I realized I wasn't getting all the posts, I went to the Forum site and read through the posts, including the ones on Leslau and his theories. I have to say that, while I do understand that hiding puzzles in paintings was a thing during that period, I find it difficult to believe somebody such as Sir Thomas More would run such risks. Hiding in plain sight could be very dangerous, not only for the individual doing so, but also for anyone that person knew and their families. I can't see Sir Thomas running such risks just for his private amusement and, AFAIK, he wasn't involved in any attempt to overthrow Henry VIII, so what could the reason be for his hiding a person who would represent such a danger to himself and his family? It's only my personal opinion, and subject to change if more information comes to light, but I see no reason for Clement, as the husband of a relative of More's, to not be included. Especially as the woman he married had been not only raised with More's daughters, but seemingly treated as one. Clements being off to one one side might merely represent the less-than-direct familial connection between him and Sir Thomas More. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-16 13:48:01
ricard1an
What if he was the Edward who couldn't tell a goose from a capon?
Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-16 15:42:47
mariewalsh2003

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.


Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:


1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.


2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.


If I had been Rivers, and somewhere round the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.


Marie

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-16 17:47:07
nance@nancecrawford.com
Interesting - but wasn't that George's boy? Confined to the Tower very young, probably with no further education and little, if any, access to companionship of his own age, much less social standing? Any young child would have to find ways of coping with that kind of emotional isolation. Adulthood would have been stunted. (The fate of the Lost Dauphin just came to mind. Horrible.)

Nance

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-17 03:24:26
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Doug, to start with the last first, I think our biggest chance (apart from opening boxes not in our domain) is the more stuff that is put on the web the more opportunity there is to search for it properly. I would never have gone to Devon Record Office! I remember that when they tied in Access to Archives with the National Archives they said that only 30 per cent of stuff had been put on and they didn't know when the rest would be digitised because of lack of resources! I don't know if Marie or anyone knows if this has improved? Doug here: Eventually everything, will likely be available, the problem then will be the search parameters. For example, how does one search for something in Latin when, while the document may be available on line, it's a scan of the original? Hopefully by then the search engines will be able to read Medieval Latin cursive! Hilary continued: Re Mr Russhe and his cohort I actually agree and to some degree admire them. They achieved a lot more than crashing round the countryside in armour like the Wellesbournes. You could rightly say that they, the merchants and the shepherds were what brought us into the modern age. Doug here: Manufacturing and trade has never gotten the praise it deserves; in my opinion anyway. There may be those who would be happy living in the economic equivalent of the early Middle Ages, but they also are likely imagining themselves as <b>not</b> being a serf... Hilary continued: As for the Wykehamists, it's a different sort of power to money. If you founded, supported, went to these establishment it was your path to the King's side in government.. Chicheley, Beckington. Stillington, Russell all went to Oxford (some to Winchester as well). It was the path to the Privy Seal. Remember how Wolsey and Cromwell were mocked because they didn't have the 'right background'. And this was because the study at Oxbridge which had previously been about theology had rapidly become about Civil and Canon Law. It gave these people a path to a high post in the Church, a high post in the Judiciary and with that came a path to Government. Er and it made them rich. Doug here: Gee, and all this time I thought it was the Tudors from Henry VIII on who invented the idea of using University graduates in civil posts; when, in actuality the system simply matured during their reigns! No wonder Starkey doesn't like us! Hilary concluded: Re East Anglia, yes I agree about AW but I've discovered some other connections with the Wingfields and Cloptons which I'm still working on. Will come back of course. (who doesn't think there were 'bad' people at this time. Like you I think more headless-chicken and self-preservation which left them open to manipulation by calm-headed clever people like Morton). Doug here: Considering just how much power a monarch could exercise, I would think that any link to the Royal family would be pursued. I guess that bad might be more appropriate if we knew exactly what Stillington presented to the Council. However, considering that that evidence was enough to convince, first the Council itself, and then the Three Estates and finally a freely elected Parliament, I think one might be forgiven should that word crop up, now and then, when describing the actions of EW or Buckingham. Doug Who wonders if it's the self-centeredness of their actions that I find so off-putting?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-17 09:53:41
Hilary Jones
It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it? We just need to pinpoint Buckingham if we ever can.
How did Richard Haute creep into all this - some 'histories' have him being executed at Pontefract too (ah I see it's More?)? I know there were two BTW.
Also, although two Hautes (Richard and William) were involved in the October rebellions, Richard rewarded James Haute (husband of Katherine)with their confiscated property of Ightham Mote in March 1484. I'm interested because Ightham passed to one Sir Richard Clement, a great buddy of HT in the early sixteenth century. He was married to both Catesby's sister Anne and Anne Barley, daughter of William Barley of Perkin Warbeck fame. Like John Clement, of Thomas More fame, he seems to come out of nowhere and rise very high very fast.
Nice to hear from you. H
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 15:43:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.


Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:


1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.


2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.


If I had been Rivers, and somewhere round the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.


Marie

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-17 11:34:10
Paul Trevor bale
I'll say again that I spent best part of two years trying to track down Buckingham. I trawled my way through so many documents and books he gave me a headache! How could someone who had such an impact, short lived as it was, not have left a stronger print on history? We know more about some of the Britons at the time the Romans came than we do about Harry!Of course I hope one of you has better luck than I had, but his appearances in any extant documents, official or otherwise, is sparse. I did wonder if son Edward had had a clear out before he began his treasonable activity, or somebody destroyed it after his execution to destroy all evidence that he had a better claim to the throne than the Tudors, like so many others who « committed treason » between 1485 and 1530. Making sure no Stafford would crawl out the woodwork to try and sink the Tudor monster!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 mai 2018 à 10:53, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it? We just need to pinpoint Buckingham if we ever can.
How did Richard Haute creep into all this - some 'histories' have him being executed at Pontefract too (ah I see it's More?)? I know there were two BTW.
Also, although two Hautes (Richard and William) were involved in the October rebellions, Richard rewarded James Haute (husband of Katherine)with their confiscated property of Ightham Mote in March 1484. I'm interested because Ightham passed to one Sir Richard Clement, a great buddy of HT in the early sixteenth century. He was married to both Catesby's sister Anne and Anne Barley, daughter of William Barley of Perkin Warbeck fame. Like John Clement, of Thomas More fame, he seems to come out of nowhere and rise very high very fast.
Nice to hear from you. H
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 15:43:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.


Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:


1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.


2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.


If I had been Rivers, and somewhere r ound the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.


Marie

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-17 13:02:00
Nicholas Brown

Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.


Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-17 13:21:18
Nicholas Brown
When I was looking into the Edward V becoming Erasmus theory, I compared their signatures for the possibility that EV's signature may have been an early version of Erasmus' later signature, but found no similarities. I had similar thoughts about Edward V's signature, which doesn't flow very naturally and couldn't have been written in one stroke of the pen. I was surprised that he hadn't had more practice and wonder what a graphologist would make of it.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward5.htm
Nico



On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:02:09 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-05-17 14:52:43
Doug Stamate
Hilary,
To be honest, most of the people I met while at work were either from the military or local people who would be classified as middle-class, both economically and socially. My local pub was definitely working-class with a tinge of middle-class, although there was one frequenter who, for a year or so, was flying to Switzerland off-and-on to work! Apparently he was a very skilled computer programmer! My advancement was via the U.S. military so, other than any input from someone who might have been in the Old Boys Club, I never had much to do with em. Don't know if I really missed anything.
To a certain extent, I can see where the original idea might have made sense; if one had gone to University, then the odds were one had acquired the basic knowledge needed to fill, at least, middle-level posts. Experience and the gaining of further knowledge would then equip a person for advancement. While clerks might only need the ability to read and write, for any other position a well-founded knowledge of law, national and international (possibly even a bit of canon law, too?) was absolutely essential. There were only two places to learn the former, the Inns of Court and Oxford or Cambridge; and the Inns tended to produce practitioners, rather than originators. For the latter there was only Oxford or Cambridge (or a foreign university, but I mean really  foreign?).
FWIW, and as best I can tell, while those graduating from University in our period actually learned something, as the centuries wore on, attending University too often simply became something one did because one's parents were rich enough to afford the costs. So, in order to staff the national government at its' upper levels, one had to rely either on experience, which took time to acquire, or else on some form of vetting  which led back to those one knew at Eton, Winchester or while attending University. Seemingly, what then happened, as it often does, was that simply having attended one of those institutions equated to having passed the modern-day Civil Service Exams. And, once in, barring the commission of treason, one was set for life. After all, I could hardly fire someone in the morning only to meet them later that day at dinner, now could I?
And, of course, Eton and Winchester are still boys only schools, while Oxford and Cambridge only started granting degrees to women in 1920. However, it does appear that as a larger proportion of those in government, whether elected or via the Civil Service, come from sources other than those institutions, it's becoming more and more difficult to justify the idea of an Old Boys Club; which likely also means those already in it will become even more determined to maintain it  and the perquisites it affords them.
The more I find out about AW, the more I really believe he should have stayed out of politics (while admitting it would have been difficult in that day and age and considering his familial relationships).
Doug
Suet pudding? Pardon me, but I have to go take a pill for my cholesterol...
Hilary wrote:
Doug surely if you lived here you bumped into the 'old boys club'? :) :) Old girls can never break into it which is why women PMs meet with such hostility. It's this belief - which has come down from the Wykehamist colleges, that you are born to lead, to rule etc and it's all rather easy. It also manifests itself in indulgence in suet puddings (like they had at their boarding schools) and strange rituals which I won't go into here :) :)
And yes, I'm sure AW would have wanted to be at the leading edge of education/refinement of his day. And of course you could rely on your buddies for help....... H

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



Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-17 16:06:49
Paul Trevor Bale
Oh Nico. How can you soil your hands, let alone your mind, by taking a Hicks book in?

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 mai 2018 à 14:01, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> a écrit :


Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.


Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-17 16:14:11
Stephen
It was obviously overpriced

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 17 May 2018 16:06
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

 
Oh Nico. How can you soil your hands, let alone your mind, by taking a Hicks book in?

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 17 mai 2018 à 14:01, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> a écrit :
 

Hi,

I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.

Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?

The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V.  There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html









On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


 
Mary you've reminded me of one other thing. 

When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long?  It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard?  H

On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:


 
Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

Mary




Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-17 22:45:32
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"William of Wykeham who lived at the cusp of the fourteenth/fifteenth century was the bishop responsible for encouraging the foundation of schools and University colleges. (Big snip)

"These people were also old neighbours of the Woodvilles and we can see that in 1483 the Woodvilles called on them for support. (Big snip)

"What I was saying is that I'm pretty sure AW would have wanted to have been in that 'club'. H (Sorry it's so long)"

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. No need to apologize for the length of the post. You needed that length for clarity.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-17 23:32:04
justcarol67

Doug wrote:

"Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas..."

Carol responds belatedly:

Not so much snobbery as protocol. Royalty, nobility, and gentry were always listed in order of rank in any document. The order applied in other situations, too. Remember Lady Macbeth's "Stand not upon the order of your going?" Even the order in which they left the room after a banquet was evidently prescribed by protocol (or etiquette).

Carol

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-18 09:19:13
Hilary Jones
Yes I agree, there's something not right is there? How much of Perkin Warbeck's writing do we have? I doubt ROS would have been better educated than his brother who followed a very strict regime. In fact if you look at EOY's signature (I know she was a woman) it's as bad or worse than Edward's. H
On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:21:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

When I was looking into the Edward V becoming Erasmus theory, I compared their signatures for the possibility that EV's signature may have been an early version of Erasmus' later signature, but found no similarities. I had similar thoughts about Edward V's signature, which doesn't flow very naturally and couldn't have been written in one stroke of the pen. I was surprised that he hadn't had more practice and wonder what a graphologist would make of it.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward5.htm
Nico



On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:02:09 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-05-18 09:34:08
Hilary Jones
Spot on! it's essentially about money these days Doug. Oxford and Cambridge have been 'diluted' over the past hundred years by entrants from state schools, let alone women! So the network comes from schools which are so expensive that only the top few can get there (and daddy went there too). It isn't just Eton and Winchester it's Harrow, Marlborough, Rugby, Oundle and lesser-known ones like Ampleforth and Ardingley. If, after Oxbridge, you aren't astute enough to get a career in the City, then you go back into teaching at these institutions and perpetuate the system - or you may dabble in politics. Interestingly, we did trips round some of the battlefields of the Amercan Civil War and one of the guys there pointed to the predominance of Freemansonry in the American system. Apparently they used to 'swap back' prisoners who showed their masonic badge - it considerably prolonged the war. So you have a bit of a parallel there.
You're right about the syllabus changing in the fifteenth century. Divinity as a preference was already dying in the fourteenth century. I get so cross when we're told the Tudors invented everything. There was even a programme on last week claiming they invented the Wool Trade. It'll be printing next. H
On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 14:52:46 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Hilary,
To be honest, most of the people I met while at work were either from the military or local people who would be classified as middle-class, both economically and socially. My local pub was definitely working-class with a tinge of middle-class, although there was one frequenter who, for a year or so, was flying to Switzerland off-and-on to work! Apparently he was a very skilled computer programmer! My advancement was via the U.S. military so, other than any input from someone who might have been in the Old Boys Club, I never had much to do with em. Don't know if I really missed anything.
To a certain extent, I can see where the original idea might have made sense; if one had gone to University, then the odds were one had acquired the basic knowledge needed to fill, at least, middle-level posts. Experience and the gaining of further knowledge would then equip a person for advancement. While clerks might only need the ability to read and write, for any other position a well-founded knowledge of law, national and international (possibly even a bit of canon law, too?) was absolutely essential. There were only two places to learn the former, the Inns of Court and Oxford or Cambridge; and the Inns tended to produce practitioners, rather than originators. For the latter there was only Oxford or Cambridge (or a foreign university, but I mean really  foreign?).
FWIW, and as best I can tell, while those graduating from University in our period actually learned something, as the centuries wore on, attending University too often simply became something one did because one's parents were rich enough to afford the costs. So, in order to staff the national government at its' upper levels, one had to rely either on experience, which took time to acquire, or else on some form of vetting  which led back to those one knew at Eton, Winchester or while attending University. Seemingly, what then happened, as it often does, was that simply having attended one of those institutions equated to having passed the modern-day Civil Service Exams. And, once in, barring the commission of treason, one was set for life. After all, I could hardly fire someone in the morning only to meet them later that day at dinner, now could I?
And, of course, Eton and Winchester are still boys only schools, while Oxford and Cambridge only started granting degrees to women in 1920. However, it does appear that as a larger proportion of those in government, whether elected or via the Civil Service, come from sources other than those institutions, it's becoming more and more difficult to justify the idea of an Old Boys Club; which likely also means those already in it will become even more determined to maintain it  and the perquisites it affords them.
The more I find out about AW, the more I really believe he should have stayed out of politics (while admitting it would have been difficult in that day and age and considering his familial relationships).
Doug
Suet pudding? Pardon me, but I have to go take a pill for my cholesterol...
Hilary wrote:
Doug surely if you lived here you bumped into the 'old boys club'? :) :) Old girls can never break into it which is why women PMs meet with such hostility. It's this belief - which has come down from the Wykehamist colleges, that you are born to lead, to rule etc and it's all rather easy. It also manifests itself in indulgence in suet puddings (like they had at their boarding schools) and strange rituals which I won't go into here :) :)
And yes, I'm sure AW would have wanted to be at the leading edge of education/refinement of his day. And of course you could rely on your buddies for help....... H

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



Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-18 11:41:34
Nicholas Brown
There are a few samples of Perkin's writing in Ann Wroe's book. The best is probably the letter to Isabella (1493), which is in the British Library collection. In the link you can find it 3 lines down. In one chapter, she discussed his handwriting and thought that he was more likely to have had a clerical education rather than a traditionally royal one, and made some comparisons to Anthony Woodville. I can't remember offhand exactly what she said, but I think it may have had something to do with precision with grammar and form. As you can see, his handwriting was tidier than Edwards.
As for Hicks, if I remember rightly, he was quite good on the pre 1483 sections, but became quite annoying in the later chapters where I recall him going on about 'wicked uncles.'
Nico

https://imagesonline.bl.uk/en/asset/show_zoom_window_popup.html?asset=22900&location=grid&asset_list=22880,22881,22882,22883,22884,22885,22886,22887,22888,228 On Friday, 18 May 2018, 09:19:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree, there's something not right is there? How much of Perkin Warbeck's writing do we have? I doubt ROS would have been better educated than his brother who followed a very strict regime. In fact if you look at EOY's signature (I know she was a woman) it's as bad or worse than Edward's. H
On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:21:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

When I was looking into the Edward V becoming Erasmus theory, I compared their signatures for the possibility that EV's signature may have been an early version of Erasmus' later signature, but found no similarities. I had similar thoughts about Edward V's signature, which doesn't flow very naturally and couldn't have been written in one stroke of the pen. I was surprised that he hadn't had more practice and wonder what a graphologist would make of it.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward5.htm
Nico



On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:02:09 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.


Mary

Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

2018-05-18 11:55:13
Hilary Jones
Thanks so much Nico. I'll look.
As we've said on here before no-one every claimed to be Edward did they? To be outrageous, all sorts of things seem to spring to mind. Was the Edward Richard met at Stony Stratford really Edward, and was the signature page a test? After all, Richard hadn't seen the boy since his wedding in 1478 had he? The similarities to Edward Warwick's reputed learning difficulties spring to mind. Was Edward Warwick in the Tower really Edward Warwick, or Edward V? You could write some good fiction on this. Oh for Poirot to sort it all out!
Re Hicks I know I'll get booed but I actually think he's a pretty good authority on the fifteenth century - that is until he starts lashing out at Richard. And I just skip those bits. After all we have to read everything, otherwise we might just miss something. He's certainly more knowledgeable than Amy Licence who now seems to be wheeled into 'history' TV as an expert. H
On Friday, 18 May 2018, 11:41:40 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

There are a few samples of Perkin's writing in Ann Wroe's book. The best is probably the letter to Isabella (1493), which is in the British Library collection. In the link you can find it 3 lines down. In one chapter, she discussed his handwriting and thought that he was more likely to have had a clerical education rather than a traditionally royal one, and made some comparisons to Anthony Woodville. I can't remember offhand exactly what she said, but I think it may have had something to do with precision with grammar and form. As you can see, his handwriting was tidier than Edwards.
As for Hicks, if I remember rightly, he was quite good on the pre 1483 sections, but became quite annoying in the later chapters where I recall him going on about 'wicked uncles.'
Nico

https://imagesonline.bl.uk/en/asset/show_zoom_window_popup.html?asset=22900&location=grid&asset_list=22880,22881,22882,22883,22884,22885,22886,22887,22888,228 On Friday, 18 May 2018, 09:19:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree, there's something not right is there? How much of Perkin Warbeck's writing do we have? I doubt ROS would have been better educated than his brother who followed a very strict regime. In fact if you look at EOY's signature (I know she was a woman) it's as bad or worse than Edward's. H
On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:21:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

When I was looking into the Edward V becoming Erasmus theory, I compared their signatures for the possibility that EV's signature may have been an early version of Erasmus' later signature, but found no similarities. I had similar thoughts about Edward V's signature, which doesn't flow very naturally and couldn't have been written in one stroke of the pen. I was surprised that he hadn't had more practice and wonder what a graphologist would make of it.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward5.htm
Nico



On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:02:09 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-05-18 15:51:22
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I think the point is that the figure who is supposedly John Clement (or John Harris) is all wrong. For a start he's in the clothes of an earlier era and he is not well drawn. I agree entirely with your view that this could never have been commissioned by More; it would have been pure stupidity. We now know that Lockey (who did the final version) was also deeply into allegory. But why did he do it? Doug here: I suppose my question is: Why has no one noticed that by the time Lockey, who was born around 1565, did his copy of the Holbein original and included Dr. John Clement in it, being related to Sir Thomas More might no longer be a danger, but might actually be something one would want to have known? I couldn't find a date, but do we know when the Lockey made his copy? But for whom? Might the old-fashioned clothes, which to me don't look that much different but definitely plainer, simply be because Lockey was making his copy fifty years, or more, later? As I understand it, Clement married a Margaret Giggs who, while she had been more or less adopted by the Mores, strictly speaking wasn't a member of the family. There were names allotted to individuals in the painting, but I couldn't make them out. Was Margaret Giggs included? Can anyone identify the woman on the far left? She is dressed much more simply, in my view anyway. Could she be Margaret Giggs? If so, could the allegory simply be that while she, and her husband John, were considered members of their family by the Mores, through adoption and marriage, they weren't directly related? Wikipedia tells me that about a decade after More's execution the Clement family moved to what is now Belgium to escape persecution for their Catholicism. Although they seem to have returned to England for a short period after Mary became Queen, they eventually returned to the Continent, where they remained until their deaths. I must admit that I remain very skeptical of the idea that squiggles that need to be differently colored actually form a message. Even if those squiggles are visible in the original without added emphasis, it seems to me that only way to read them would be to remove the painting from wherever it's hanging and study it very, very, closely using some sort of magnification. What good is that? Even for those supposedly in the know? I do know there is a well-known habit amongst us humans to try and find things that aren't there, to take chaos and try and make sense of it. Could a painter's brush-strokes, especially the brush-strokes in a copy, produce that sense of chaos in a viewer? Doug
--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-20 16:29:48
Doug Stamate
Marie, My apologies for taking so long to reply, but I've had to do a lot of thinking! I think my reasoning makes sense, but I've typed it out below to see if it does. 1. The treason wouldn't have been their heading up the three contingents, it would have been the purpose for which those contingents were being gathered. 2. If the purpose of those contingents was treasonous, just what was that purpose? 3) Simply trying to get Edward quickly crowned, with the likely aim of remaking the Council membership, in and of itself wouldn't be treason, would it? Certainly not enough to warrant execution which is, I believe, the general pro-Woodville argument? 4) If my reasoning in 3) is correct, and the executions of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were both legal and justified, then it follows that the Woodvilles planned from the start, to either place Richard under some sort of restraint, or kill him. And doing either, because of Richard's position as Constable, would constitute treason. Would that be correct? A thought that also occurred to me concerned the letter Richard sent to York on, I believe, 10 June 1483. I've always presumed the letter was the result of Richard having discovered some sort of separately-devised plot by Hastings' to kill him. Could I be mistaken (as if that's something new!)? Could Hastings' planned actions in the Tower on that day have simply been a follow-on to the original Woodville plans? If I'm not mistaken, Mary Stuart of Scotland was likely involved in several plots against her cousin before enough evidence to warrant an execution was obtained. Perhaps the same in the this case? I know the idea that Hastings and the Woodvilles were in cahoots doesn't have a lot of supporters. But the major reason so often given for Hastings not working with the Woodvilles is usually presumed to be the bad feelings between Hastings and Dorset. However, if my list below is correct, those differences may not have been that great an obstacle: First, with the death of Edward IV, Hastings was no longer Chamberlain to the King, with all the perquisites that position entailed. Second, all of the other positions to which Hastings had been appointed by Edward IV were no longer secure. I assume he held them until being replaced, but how long would that be? Third, Since his arrival in London, Richard had shown that if anyone was to be his confidante, that person was likely to be Buckingham, not Hastings. Fourth, with Stillington's disclosure of the Pre-Contract to the Council, Hastings was no longer faced with only being on the edge of things for a few years, but permanently if Richard became king. Fifth, we know from what happened to him later that, somehow or other, Morton was involved in the 13 June plot. We also know that Morton is usually given pride of place in turning Buckingham actively against Richard, to the extent of open rebellion. Finally, what if Morton had already managed something of the same sort with Hastings in May/June of 1483? If, somehow or other, Morton managed to get Hastings to support the Woodvilles in returning Edward V to the throne; or more accurately, not being dethroned, might that better explain not only Hastings' execution, but those of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan? One failed attempt on his life might be, if not forgiven, at least not acted on by Richard. However, two... Doug

Marie wrote:

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.

Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:

1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.

2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.

If I had been Rivers, and somewhere round the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.


--
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] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-20 17:11:17
mariewalsh2003
Hi Doug,
I've actually deliberately steered clear of pronouncing on whether there was a conspiracy. What I meant in terms of the starting points of the three arrestees is simply that it explains why Vaughan and Grey were held equally culpable with Rivers.

As for the charges, the indictments don't survive but Mancini's information is that when Richard reached London he told the council that AW and Co had planned an armed attack to ambush and kill him. Hence Richard's display in the city of the confiscated weapon carts with the Woodville arms. It's often insinuated that Richard was simply accusing them of racing ahead without him, but this doesn't seem to tally with early sources. And, as you say, it wouldn't have been treason if they had.

I'll come back later on the rest of your comments if I may.

Marie

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-21 00:22:49
mariewalsh2003

Contd. . . .


Doug wrote:

A thought that also occurred to me concerned the letter Richard sent to York on, I believe, 10 June 1483. I've always presumed the letter was the result of Richard having discovered some sort of separately-devised plot by Hastings' to kill him. Could I be mistaken (as if that's something new!)? Could Hastings' planned actions in the Tower on that day have simply been a follow-on to the original Woodville plans? If I'm not mistaken, Mary Stuart of Scotland was likely involved in several plots against her cousin before enough evidence to warrant an execution was obtained. Perhaps the same in the this case?


Marie replies:

I think so. Both because it was after Friday 13th that the Council agreed to proceed against Rivers & Co, and because I don't think the Queen would have thrown in the towel, either (assuming there had been a plot) after one setback, or (assuming the Woodvilles were innocent) immediately Richard had grabbed her son. She refused to come out of sanctuary during May despite being given sworn assurances by Richard and the Council. Dorset, on the other hand, slipped sanctuary and disappeared, presumably with some purpose in mind. So, yes, I believe the Woodvilles would have moved on to Plan B, or devised a Plan B if they hadn't had one. Also, even leaving aside More's claims about witchcraft accusations, remember that letter begs for help against 'the quene, her blode. adherentes and affinitie'.

It wasn't, on 10 June at least, entirely, or even mainly, about Hastings.


Doug wrote:I know the idea that Hastings and the Woodvilles were in cahoots doesn't have a lot of supporters. But the major reason so often given for Hastings not working with the Woodvilles is usually presumed to be the bad feelings between Hastings and Dorset. However, if my list below is correct, those differences may not have been that great an obstacle:First, with the death of Edward IV, Hastings was no longer Chamberlain to the King, with all the perquisites that position entailed.Second, all of the other positions to which Hastings had been appointed by Edward IV were no longer secure. I assume he held them until being replaced, but how long would that be?Third, Since his arrival in London, Richard had shown that if anyone was to be his confidante, that person was likely to be Buckingham, not Hastings.Fourth, with Stillington's disclosure of the Pre-Contract to the Council, Hastings was no longer faced with only being on the edge of things for a few years, but permanently if Richard became king.

Marie replies:-1. Although I don't know of any confirmation of Hastings' position as chamberlain, I 'm not aware of any grant replacing him. My guess is that Sir Thomas Vaughan might have hoped to continue as chamberlain to Prince Edward now he was king, but that clearly wasn't going to be happening any time soon.2. How long it would be would obviously depend on whether anyone who was in greater royal favour had their eye on these posts for themselves. Security of tenure in all these positions is obviously something the Queen could have offered Hastings.3. Absolutely. Although Buckingham's posts so far didn't threaten Hastings' positions, he had obviously ousted Hastings in a more personal sense, and Buckingham's opinions would I'm sure have now been more influential than Hastings'.4. Indeed. And Hastings had a personal sense of loyalty to Edward IV and his line.6. (if I may). Although Mancini's discussion of Hastings' rift with Dorset is usually what preoccupies historians, M. also says it was all over a girl, and that they had made it up on King Edward's dying wish. They are also father-in-law and son-in-law to all intents and purposes. There was, however, another member of the Woodville family with whom Hastings had been quarrelling, and that is Rivers. Amongst the Dymmok Papers are several copies of a fascinating confession, in which a man withdraws unspecified allegations he had made against Rivers whilst in Calais in 1482 - in this retraction the man excuses himself by saying that Hastings had threatened him with the rack if he didn't make these false allegations against Rivers. I imagine that Dymmok, Rivers' attorney, was keeping multiple copies of the retraction to hand out as needed. I think the general idea is that Rivers had wanted the captainship of Calais for himself, and had been trying to bring Hastings down. This would certainly explain why Hastings led the anti-Woodville faction after Edward IV's death; but in the situation of June 1483, where Rivers was in prison, he might well have made Hastings a tempting offer if he were to change sides, perhaps guaranteeing his tenure of Calais for life, or even beyond, to his heirs after his death. Possibly an offer like that, plus the worry about Edward V, plus finding himself snubbed by Buckingham, might have been just enough to turn Hastings.But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence to get Hastings' name included, and that this actually was just another Woodville plot. I think it's very hard to know. And, to be honest, we don't actually know for sure whether the Precontract had been divulged at that point. It's usually claimed, but the evidence isn't strong other than as an explanation for Hastings' rift with Richard.
Doug wrote:Fifth, we know from what happened to him later that, somehow or other, Morton was involved in the 13 June plot. We also know that Morton is usually given pride of place in turning Buckingham actively against Richard, to the extent of open rebellion.Finally, what if Morton had already managed something of the same sort with Hastings in May/June of 1483? If, somehow or other, Morton managed to get Hastings to support the Woodvilles in returning Edward V to the throne; or more accurately, not being dethroned, might that better explain not only Hastings' execution, but those of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan? One failed attempt on his life might be, if not forgiven, at least not acted on by Richard. However, two...
Marie replies:Yes, indeed, that is possible. Hastings certainly had had dealings with Morton in the past, and trusted him enough, in 1481, to appoint him as supervisor of his will. Quite what motivated Morton himself isn't clear, but his wish to see a Lancastrian line re-established may have been paramount, and may have meant that (at that time) his real aims were different than those of the other conspirators. A witness at the enquiry leading up to the granting of Henry and Elizabeth's dispensation in January 1486 rather interestingly claimed to have once heard the impediment to their marriage being discussed by Morton and Archbishop Rotherham. Could that have been in June 1483? Where would that aim fit into a world in which Edward V and his brother were clearly still alive and well? As always, for me at least, more questions than answers.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Grafton Regis amb

2018-05-22 15:23:49
Doug Stamate
Marie,
I really should have used a conditional (?) framing in my points to better
illustrate that they were ideas rather than facts; my apologies!
I find It very interesting, and not in a good way, to see how the
chroniclers and later historians made no effort to discover whether or not
Richard's allegations had any basis in fact. Part of that is certainly due
to the danger involved in casting any doubts on the received, Tudor version
of events, but the last Tudor died in 1603 and, Starkey notwithstanding, I
don't see how the events of 1483-85 would have had any effect on Elizabeth
I, either on her claim to the throne or her abilities.
Buck, as far as I know, made no attempt to publish during his own lifetime,
so perhaps there was still some danger? In my searches I discovered that
Arthur Kincaid edited the original manuscript, which was published by Alan
Sutton. Do you, or anyone, know if it's still in print?
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Hi Doug,
I've actually deliberately steered clear of pronouncing on whether there was
a conspiracy. What I meant in terms of the starting points of the three
arrestees is simply that it explains why Vaughan and Grey were held equally
culpable with Rivers.
As for the charges, the indictments don't survive but Mancini's information
is that when Richard reached London he told the council that AW and Co had
planned an armed attack to ambush and kill him. Hence Richard's display in
the city of the confiscated weapon carts with the Woodville arms. It's often
insinuated that Richard was simply accusing them of racing ahead without
him, but this doesn't seem to tally with early sources. And, as you say, it
wouldn't have been treason if they had.
I'll come back later on the rest of your comments if I may."



--
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: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-05-23 13:40:50
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Sounds suspiciously to me as if what's developed is a self-perpetuating upper-class welfare system! Unfortunately, by not allowing the incompetent ones to sink, all that will happen is that the entire group will become tarred with that same brush (see: French Revolution). If I understand it correctly, Free Masonry is supposed to be a non-denominational social organization with aims that include both good works and good government. Nowadays the former is what's most heard of, but in earlier times, it was the latter. I hadn't know about the prisoner swapping; I do know that about half-way through the conflict, all prisoner swapping was supposedly stopped, with horrific results in the camps in the north. Perhaps this was in reaction to that decision? Something else to Google, I guess... When it comes to the Tudors, I view Elizabeth as the best of the bunch, intellectually and politically. I get the sense that her ego was up to the job, but that, unlike her father, she didn't allow it to rule her actions. Henry VIII gets a little slack cut, but only because of the near necessity in those days of having a male heir. Or, rather, the general belief in that necessity. As for inventing the wool trade, unless everything I've read is completely wrong, the differences between how the wool trade was conducted in the late 15th and early 16th centuries was almost exactly the same as it was under Edward I! The Tudors did try for greater regularization of both the trade itself and the taxing of it, but that's not inventing it! Honestly... Doug Hilary wrote: Spot on! it's essentially about money these days Doug. Oxford and Cambridge have been 'diluted' over the past hundred years by entrants from state schools, let alone women! So the network comes from schools which are so expensive that only the top few can get there (and daddy went there too). It isn't just Eton and Winchester it's Harrow, Marlborough, Rugby, Oundle and lesser-known ones like Ampleforth and Ardingley. If, after Oxbridge, you aren't astute enough to get a career in the City, then you go back into teaching at these institutions and perpetuate the system - or you may dabble in politics. Interestingly, we did trips round some of the battlefields of the Amercan Civil War and one of the guys there pointed to the predominance of Freemansonry in the American system. Apparently they used to 'swap back' prisoners who showed their masonic badge - it considerably prolonged the war. So you have a bit of a parallel there. You're right about the syllabus changing in the fifteenth century. Divinity as a preference was already dying in the fourteenth century. I get so cross when we're told the Tudors invented everything. There was even a programme on last week claiming they invented the Wool Trade. It'll be printing next.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-24 14:53:19
Doug Stamate

Marie,

A couple of things popped up when I read your reply. The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?

I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?

In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?

When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility.

I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?

He apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?

Doug

Who's left your post (including my posts to which you responded) below in its' entirety.

Marie wrote:

Contd. . . .

Doug wrote:

A thought that also occurred to me concerned the letter Richard sent to York on, I believe, 10 June 1483. I've always presumed the letter was the result of Richard having discovered some sort of separately-devised plot by Hastings' to kill him. Could I be mistaken (as if that's something new!)? Could Hastings' planned actions in the Tower on that day have simply been a follow-on to the original Woodville plans? If I'm not mistaken, Mary Stuart of Scotland was likely involved in several plots against her cousin before enough evidence to warrant an execution was obtained. Perhaps the same in the this case?

Marie replies:

I think so. Both because it was after Friday 13th that the Council agreed to proceed against Rivers & Co, and because I don't think the Queen would have thrown in the towel, either (assuming there had been a plot) after one setback, or (assuming the Woodvilles were innocent) immediately Richard had grabbed her son. She refused to come out of sanctuary during May despite being given sworn assurances by Richard and the Council. Dorset, on the other hand, slipped sanctuary and disappeared, presumably with some purpose in mind. So, yes, I believe the Woodvilles would have moved on to Plan B, or devised a Plan B if they hadn't had one. Also, even leaving aside More's claims about witchcraft accusations, remember that letter begs for help against 'the quene, her blode. adherentes and affinitie'.

It wasn't, on 10 June at least, entirely, or even mainly, about Hastings.

Doug wrote: I know the idea that Hastings and the Woodvilles were in cahoots doesn't have a lot of supporters. But the major reason so often given for Hastings not working with the Woodvilles is usually presumed to be the bad feelings between Hastings and Dorset. However, if my list below is correct, those differences may not have been that great an obstacle: First, with the death of Edward IV, Hastings was no longer Chamberlain to the King, with all the perquisites that position entailed. Second, all of the other positions to which Hastings had been appointed by Edward IV were no longer secure. I assume he held them until being replaced, but how long would that be? Third, Since his arrival in London, Richard had shown that if anyone was to be his confidante, that person was likely to be Buckingham, not Hastings. Fourth, with Stillington's disclosure of the Pre-Contract to the Council, Hastings was no longer faced with only being on the edge of things for a few years, but permanently if Richard became king. Marie replies:- 1. Although I don't know of any confirmation of Hastings' position as chamberlain, I 'm not aware of any grant replacing him. My guess is that Sir Thomas Vaughan might have hoped to continue as chamberlain to Prince Edward now he was king, but that clearly wasn't going to be happening any time soon. 2. How long it would be would obviously depend on whether anyone who was in greater royal favour had their eye on these posts for themselves. Security of tenure in all these positions is obviously something the Queen could have offered Hastings. 3. Absolutely. Although Buckingham's posts so far didn't threaten Hastings' positions, he had obviously ousted Hastings in a more personal sense, and Buckingham's opinions would I'm sure have now been more influential than Hastings'. 4. Indeed. And Hastings had a personal sense of loyalty to Edward IV and his line. 6. (if I may). Although Mancini's discussion of Hastings' rift with Dorset is usually what preoccupies historians, M. also says it was all over a girl, and that they had made it up on King Edward's dying wish. They are also father-in-law and son-in-law to all intents and purposes. There was, however, another member of the Woodville family with whom Hastings had been quarrelling, and that is Rivers. Amongst the Dymmok Papers are several copies of a fascinating confession, in which a man withdraws unspecified allegations he had made against Rivers whilst in Calais in 1482 - in this retraction the man excuses himself by saying that Hastings had threatened him with the rack if he didn't make these false allegations against Rivers. I imagine that Dymmok, Rivers' attorney, was keeping multiple copies of the retraction to hand out as needed. I think the general idea is that Rivers had wanted the captainship of Calais for himself, and had been trying to bring Hastings down. This would certainly explain why Hastings led the anti-Woodville faction after Edward IV's death; but in the situation of June 1483, where Rivers was in prison, he might well have made Hastings a tempting offer if he were to change sides, perhaps guaranteeing his tenure of Calais for life, or even beyond, to his heirs after his death. Possibly an offer like that, plus the worry about Edward V, plus finding himself snubbed by Buckingham, might have been just enough to turn Hastings. But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence to get Hastings' name included, and that this actually was just another Woodville plot. I think it's very hard to know. And, to be honest, we don't actually know for sure whether the Precontract had been divulged at that point. It's usually claimed, but the evidence isn't strong other than as an explanation for Hastings' rift with Richard. Doug wrote: Fifth, we know from what happened to him later that, somehow or other, Morton was involved in the 13 June plot. We also know that Morton is usually given pride of place in turning Buckingham actively against Richard, to the extent of open rebellion. Finally, what if Morton had already managed something of the same sort with Hastings in May/June of 1483? If, somehow or other, Morton managed to get Hastings to support the Woodvilles in returning Edward V to the throne; or more accurately, not being dethroned, might that better explain not only Hastings' execution, but those of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan? One failed attempt on his life might be, if not forgiven, at least not acted on by Richard. However, two... Marie replies: Yes, indeed, that is possible. Hastings certainly had had dealings with Morton in the past, and trusted him enough, in 1481, to appoint him as supervisor of his will. Quite what motivated Morton himself isn't clear, but his wish to see a Lancastrian line re-established may have been paramount, and may have meant that (at that time) his real aims were different than those of the other conspirators. A witness at the enquiry leading up to the granting of Henry and Elizabeth's dispensation in January 1486 rather interestingly claimed to have once heard the impediment to their marriage being discussed by Morton and Archbishop Rotherham. Could that have been in June 1483? Where would that aim fit into a world in which Edward V and his brother were clearly still alive and well? As always, for me at least, more questions than answers.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-25 09:51:59
Hilary Jones
I apologise for butting in but, on the subject of Hastings, I would have thought that his Calais post alone was sufficient reason for any ambitious person to want to get rid of him. We've said several times on here that Plantagenet kings gave away lots of titles but very little power Calais was different. In an age when the king had no standing army the Calais garrison (and the English and foreign mercenaries who gathered there) was the nearest you'd get to a very powerful and trained military base. The High Sheriffs could of course recruit but I do get the impression that it was more like Falstaff's exercise in Henry IV. Cities like Coventry did better but their men, although practised archers, were nowhere near as experienced and up to date as those who gathered at Calais.
And Calais was a very good location on the international politics scene - look how Hastings tried to help Margaret - and also for gathering information on that scene. The Constable of England might in theory be in charge of all armies but if one fell out with the person in charge at Calais things could get very difficult indeed. So yes I can see Buckingham hankering after that post, either to give him more kudos, or to use it to help others (Woodvilles, Morton, MB) gain their aims? H
On Thursday, 24 May 2018, 14:53:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,

A couple of things popped up when I read your reply. The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?

I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?

In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?

When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility.

I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?

He apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?

Doug

Who's left your post (including my posts to which you responded) below in its' entirety.

Marie wrote:

Contd. . . .

Doug wrote:

A thought that also occurred to me concerned the letter Richard sent to York on, I believe, 10 June 1483. I've always presumed the letter was the result of Richard having discovered some sort of separately-devised plot by Hastings' to kill him. Could I be mistaken (as if that's something new!)? Could Hastings' planned actions in the Tower on that day have simply been a follow-on to the original Woodville plans? If I'm not mistaken, Mary Stuart of Scotland was likely involved in several plots against her cousin before enough evidence to warrant an execution was obtained. Perhaps the same in the this case?

Marie replies:

I think so. Both because it was after Friday 13th that the Council agreed to proceed against Rivers & Co, and because I don't think the Queen would have thrown in the towel, either (assuming there had been a plot) after one setback, or (assuming the Woodvilles were innocent) immediately Richard had grabbed her son. She refused to come out of sanctuary during May despite being given sworn assurances by Richard and the Council. Dorset, on the other hand, slipped sanctuary and disappeared, presumably with some purpose in mind. So, yes, I believe the Woodvilles would have moved on to Plan B, or devised a Plan B if they hadn't had one. Also, even leaving aside More's claims about witchcraft accusations, remember that letter begs for help against 'the quene, her blode. adherentes and affinitie'.

It wasn't, on 10 June at least, entirely, or even mainly, about Hastings..

Doug wrote: I know the idea that Hastings and the Woodvilles were in cahoots doesn't have a lot of supporters. But the major reason so often given for Hastings not working with the Woodvilles is usually presumed to be the bad feelings between Hastings and Dorset. However, if my list below is correct, those differences may not have been that great an obstacle: First, with the death of Edward IV, Hastings was no longer Chamberlain to the King, with all the perquisites that position entailed. Second, all of the other positions to which Hastings had been appointed by Edward IV were no longer secure. I assume he held them until being replaced, but how long would that be? Third, Since his arrival in London, Richard had shown that if anyone was to be his confidante, that person was likely to be Buckingham, not Hastings. Fourth, with Stillington's disclosure of the Pre-Contract to the Council, Hastings was no longer faced with only being on the edge of things for a few years, but permanently if Richard became king. Marie replies:- 1. Although I don't know of any confirmation of Hastings' position as chamberlain, I 'm not aware of any grant replacing him. My guess is that Sir Thomas Vaughan might have hoped to continue as chamberlain to Prince Edward now he was king, but that clearly wasn't going to be happening any time soon. 2. How long it would be would obviously depend on whether anyone who was in greater royal favour had their eye on these posts for themselves. Security of tenure in all these positions is obviously something the Queen could have offered Hastings. 3. Absolutely. Although Buckingham's posts so far didn't threaten Hastings' positions, he had obviously ousted Hastings in a more personal sense, and Buckingham's opinions would I'm sure have now been more influential than Hastings'. 4. Indeed. And Hastings had a personal sense of loyalty to Edward IV and his line. 6. (if I may). Although Mancini's discussion of Hastings' rift with Dorset is usually what preoccupies historians, M. also says it was all over a girl, and that they had made it up on King Edward's dying wish. They are also father-in-law and son-in-law to all intents and purposes. There was, however, another member of the Woodville family with whom Hastings had been quarrelling, and that is Rivers. Amongst the Dymmok Papers are several copies of a fascinating confession, in which a man withdraws unspecified allegations he had made against Rivers whilst in Calais in 1482 - in this retraction the man excuses himself by saying that Hastings had threatened him with the rack if he didn't make these false allegations against Rivers. I imagine that Dymmok, Rivers' attorney, was keeping multiple copies of the retraction to hand out as needed. I think the general idea is that Rivers had wanted the captainship of Calais for himself, and had been trying to bring Hastings down. This would certainly explain why Hastings led the anti-Woodville faction after Edward IV's death; but in the situation of June 1483, where Rivers was in prison, he might well have made Hastings a tempting offer if he were to change sides, perhaps guaranteeing his tenure of Calais for life, or even beyond, to his heirs after his death. Possibly an offer like that, plus the worry about Edward V, plus finding himself snubbed by Buckingham, might have been just enough to turn Hastings. But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence to get Hastings' name included, and that this actually was just another Woodville plot. I think it's very hard to know. And, to be honest, we don't actually know for sure whether the Precontract had been divulged at that point. It's usually claimed, but the evidence isn't strong other than as an explanation for Hastings' rift with Richard. Doug wrote: Fifth, we know from what happened to him later that, somehow or other, Morton was involved in the 13 June plot. We also know that Morton is usually given pride of place in turning Buckingham actively against Richard, to the extent of open rebellion. Finally, what if Morton had already managed something of the same sort with Hastings in May/June of 1483? If, somehow or other, Morton managed to get Hastings to support the Woodvilles in returning Edward V to the throne; or more accurately, not being dethroned, might that better explain not only Hastings' execution, but those of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan? One failed attempt on his life might be, if not forgiven, at least not acted on by Richard. However, two... Marie replies: Yes, indeed, that is possible. Hastings certainly had had dealings with Morton in the past, and trusted him enough, in 1481, to appoint him as supervisor of his will. Quite what motivated Morton himself isn't clear, but his wish to see a Lancastrian line re-established may have been paramount, and may have meant that (at that time) his real aims were different than those of the other conspirators. A witness at the enquiry leading up to the granting of Henry and Elizabeth's dispensation in January 1486 rather interestingly claimed to have once heard the impediment to their marriage being discussed by Morton and Archbishop Rotherham. Could that have been in June 1483? Where would that aim fit into a world in which Edward V and his brother were clearly still alive and well? As always, for me at least, more questions than answers.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-25 16:33:53
mariewalsh2003

Just to say, if anyone is interested, the correspondence Hastings had with Louis and his ministers during that crisis year of 1477 has recently been published by the RIII & Yorkist History Trust. Hastings copied all the letters he sent to the French into a notebook.

I think it helps make Hastings come alive more as an individual, particularly the bit where he forces Louis' messenger to personally write down the rather explosive verbal message from Louis which he had given Hastings to pass on to King Edward, then sign it and date it; and refused to give it back to the messenger when said messenger had second thoughts.


http://www.richardiiiandyht.org.uk/wordpress/?page_id=506



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gr

2018-05-25 16:40:12
mariewalsh2003

Hi Doug,


Re your questions:


1) "The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?"


The text of the letter to York, plus the gist of the messenger's verbal 'credence', were written into the council's house book. fortunately, I copied the text of it up years ago, so here is a copy and paste:

"The Duce of Glocestre, broder and uncle of kynges, protectour, defender, gret chamberleyn, constabill and admirall of England

Right trusty and welbelovyd we grete you well, and as ye love the wele of us and the wele and surtie of your own selff, we hertely pray you to come unto us to London in all the diligence ye can possible, aftir the sight herof, with as mony as ye can make defensibly arraied, there to eide and assiste us ayanst the quene, her blode adherentes and affinitie, which have entended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly distroy us and our cousyn the duc of Bukkyngham and the old royall blode of this realme, and as it is now openly knowen by their subtile and dampnabill wais forcasted the same, and also the finall distruccion and disheryson of you and all odir inheritourz and men of haner, as weile of the north parties as odir countries that belongen to us, as our trusty servant this berer shall mor at large shew you, to whom we pray you geve credence, and as evyr we may do for you in tym commyng faille not but hast you to us hidir. Yovyn under our signet at London the xth day of Juyn.

To our right trusty and welbelovyd John Newton, mair of York and his bredir and the communs of the same and every of thame.

The credence of the which lettre is that such felichip as the citie may make defensably arraid as wele of hors as of ffute, be one Wendynsday at evyn next cummyng at Powmfret, their attendyng apon my lord of Northumberland and so to go up to London thar to attend upon my said lordes gud grace"


In addition, by an even stranger chance the text of the letter Richard wrote to Lord Neville of Raby the next day also survived to find its way into the Paston Letters. According to my notes, the letter was found at Raby Castle after a rebellion and was copied into an antiquarian MS which was later owned by the Blackett family of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This was in turn copied for Fenn, the Paston Letters' original editor, by the then president of the Society of Antiquaries. It goes as follows:-

"My Lorde Nevyll, I recommaunde me to you as hartely as I can; and as ever ye love me, and your awne weale and securty and this Realme, that ye come to me with that ye may make, defensably arrayde, in all the hast that ys possyble; and that ye give credence to . . . . . Richarde Ratclyff, thys beerrer, whom I nowe do sende to you, enstructed with all my mynde and entent.

And, my lord, do me nowe gode servyce, as ye have always befor don, and I trust nowe so to remember you as shalbe the makyng of you and yours. And God sende you goode fortunes.

Wrytten att London, xj. day of Jun, with the hande of your hertely lovyng cousyn and master,

R. Gloucester.



2) "I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?"


Doesn't really matter. Lieutenant, of course, means something like deputy. He was the King's lieutenant general in Calais and its marches, and also captain of the town. The terms tend to get used interchangeably.



3) "In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?"


Not my own discovery, in that the Dymmok Papers have been looked at before, most notably by Ives, who wrote a paper based on the information in them which included the information about the retracted accusation. But Ives was chiefly interested in Andrew Dymmok and his career so didn't dwell all that much on what the Papers reveal about Rivers' lifestyle, and so maybe less has been made of this quarrel than it merits. When you see the multiple copies first hand it really does hit home what a nasty relationship the two men had with each other.

I imagine Lynda Pidgeon will also have used the Dymmok Papers for her forthcoming book on the Woodvilles, but everyone looks at a set of documents for slightly different reasons, and mines them for different information. I very quickly ordered them up and took hasty photos with a hand-held camera once at the end of a session at the National Archives.

Some of my copies are a bit blurred, and many of the originals are faded, smudgy and torn, so there was a limit to the information I could glean from them, but the dating clauses of most of Rivers' letters proved to be quite legible, and I like making timelines of people's movements - you can't know who might have done what till you know where they were. So as far as I'm aware, although people have picked up from Ives Rivers' being in Kings' Lynn in January and early March 1483, I don't believe anyone has previously used the original papers to determine Rivers' movements throughout the period covered, but that may well be just because there's not been a proper modern biography of Rivers until now. It's not until you look at the collection in toto that it becomes clear just how unlikely it is that Rivers would have been in Ludlow when Edward IV died.


4) "When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility."


Yes, I meant that Buckingham could have fabricated evidence against Hastings in order to bring him down, using Catesby, who was supposedly the informant. Both Mancini and Rous indicate that Buckingham was very involved in Hastings' despatch - Mancini has Buckingham's men cut him down, and Rous has Buckingham as the persuader behind Hastings' summary execution. Or, of course, Catesby, as a midlands landowner, may have seen a chance for his own advancement in Hastings' downfall, and so made up evidence on his own account of which Buck. simply made enthusiastic use. Or Hastings may genuinely have been won over by the Woodville side, either by promises of better career prospects or through worries about what might otherwise lie in store for Edward IV's children. We'll almost certainly never know.



5) "I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?"


I don't see Margaret Beaufort as the originator, as the way I see it the Woodvilles were already in there, anxious to bring Richard down and restore their own positions. There was, in that sense, nothing for MB to originate. Also, no suspicion seems to have fallen on her at this time, and she was simultaneously negotiating with Richard. What is quite possible, I think, is that she was cleverly playing both sides so that whichever came out on top would be grateful for her support.



6) Morton "apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?"


I'm not sure about Morton. I see no reason to suppose his career couldn't have continued successfully under Richard. Perhaps Richard didn't like him, but we just don't have the evidence. He's a clever and intriguing individual, and ripe for a proper biography.





















Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2018-05-29 16:30:48
Doug Stamate
Marie, 1) Sorry about the delay in replying, but the letters from 10 and 11 June raised a question for which I can't think of an answer; namely, why so late? Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been arrested on 30 April. Richard, Edward and Buckingham had entered London a few days later, the Council had apparently accepted Richard's version of what had happened at Northampton and preparations were going ahead for Edward's coronation. So why the need for troops; by the letters' wordings, quite an urgent need? According to Williamson, there was a Council meeting on 8 June, which Richard didn't attend, and she considered that meeting to be the one where Stillington revealed the existence of the Pre-Contract. Now, I've always worked on the presumption that the Pre-Contract hadn't been known, as a certainty anyway, by the Duke of Clarence, but I'm starting to waver. And, of course, if George had heard rumors about the Pre-Contract, then others almost certainly had as well. Now the (presumed) rumors about a Pre-Contract invalidating Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville are substantiated by whatever evidence Stillington presented to the Council. Richard wasn't stupid. He now knows that rumors about the Pre-Contract were floating around, quite possibly before George was executed. And, if he hadn't already known it, I find it difficult to believe that people wouldn't now be crawling out of the woodwork, only trying to be helpful of course, to inform Richard of that. Which would put a completely different complexion on what Richard likely already knew about the Woodvilles actions regarding George's execution. There'd already been the attempt on Richard's life at Northampton, and that had been just to prevent him becoming Protector. With the knowledge that it was likely that Edward IV's children were illegitimate, what sort of reaction from the Woodvilles could Richard expect? I do find it interesting that both attempts on Richard's life were planned as ambushes; the first on the road from Northampton to Stony Stratford as Richard went to meet the new king and the second apparently in the Council chambers. FWIW, I don't think the call for military support was made to provide protection for Richard, and seemingly Buckingham, from any plot, but more as insurance against any attempt to foment violence when the plot was foiled. I think... 3) In a previous post you had Rivers at Walsingham on 25 March so, while he could have made it to Ludlow after hearing of Edward IV's death, like you I doubt he made the effort. 4) To say that I'm going to have to look into Buckingham is putting it mildly. If Hastings was executed, then Mancini's report can be disregarded  for now, anyway. Rous' version is more problematic. My impression has been that Richard, faced with a definite attempt on his life (even to the extent of drawn weapons?), responded promptly, and legally, by condemning the criminal caught red-handed to death. I also have to admit that I've never considered the possibility that actions by Buckingham, or Catesby, may have led Hastings to side with the Woodvilles. Oi! 5) Your view that, at least at that point in time, MB wasn't likely to have initiated any contacts with Elizabeth Woodville, makes more sense than my previous idea that she saw an opening for getting Henry back. Until things settled down a bit, there wasn't any need for her to put all her eggs, so to speak, into either Richard's or EW's basket. Especially as she was negotiating with Richard about that very subject  something I also hadn't known (Chalk up yet another one...). 6) Currently, the only thing I come with for Morton's actions in May/June of 1483 is that he, a with Hastings I think, felt that Richard, as Protector, would need all the support he (Richard) could get; especially with the Woodvilles prowling around. However, Richard as king in his own right, was an entirely different matter. If nothing else, Morton could play off Richard, and any offers he might make for support, against the Woodvilles, and any offers they might make. As king, OTOH, opposition to Richard could be fatal, literally. Any decent biography, other than the potted ones available that only seem to regurgitate Tudor spin, would definitely end up on my Must have list. Might get a few pointers, even... Doug Marie wrote:

Re your questions:

1) "The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?"

The text of the letter to York, plus the gist of the messenger's verbal 'credence', were written into the council's house book. fortunately, I copied the text of it up years ago, so here is a copy and paste:

"The Duce of Glocestre, broder and uncle of kynges, protectour, defender, gret chamberleyn, constabill and admirall of England

Right trusty and welbelovyd we grete you well, and as ye love the wele of us and the wele and surtie of your own selff, we hertely pray you to come unto us to London in all the diligence ye can possible, aftir the sight herof, with as mony as ye can make defensibly arraied, there to eide and assiste us ayanst the quene, her blode adherentes and affinitie, which have entended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly distroy us and our cousyn the duc of Bukkyngham and the old royall blode of this realme, and as it is now openly knowen by their subtile and dampnabill wais forcasted the same, and also the finall distruccion and disheryson of you and all odir inheritourz and men of haner, as weile of the north parties as odir countries that belongen to us, as our trusty servant this berer shall mor at large shew you, to whom we pray you geve credence, and as evyr we may do for you in tym commyng faille not but hast you to us hidir. Yovyn under our signet at London the xth day of Juyn.

To our right trusty and welbelovyd John Newton, mair of York and his bredir and the communs of the same and every of thame.

The credence of the which lettre is that such felichip as the citie may make defensably arraid as wele of hors as of ffute, be one Wendynsday at evyn next cummyng at Powmfret, their attendyng apon my lord of Northumberland and so to go up to London thar to attend upon my said lordes gud grace"

In addition, by an even stranger chance the text of the letter Richard wrote to Lord Neville of Raby the next day also survived to find its way into the Paston Letters. According to my notes, the letter was found at Raby Castle after a rebellion and was copied into an antiquarian MS which was later owned by the Blackett family of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This was in turn copied for Fenn, the Paston Letters' original editor, by the then president of the Society of Antiquaries. It goes as follows:-

"My Lorde Nevyll, I recommaunde me to you as hartely as I can; and as ever ye love me, and your awne weale and securty and this Realme, that ye come to me with that ye may make, defensably arrayde, in all the hast that ys possyble; and that ye give credence to . . . . . Richarde Ratclyff, thys beerrer, whom I nowe do sende to you, enstructed with all my mynde and entent.

And, my lord, do me nowe gode servyce, as ye have always befor don, and I trust nowe so to remember you as shalbe the makyng of you and yours. And God sende you goode fortunes.

Wrytten att London, xj. day of Jun, with the hande of your hertely lovyng cousyn and master,

R. Gloucester.

2) "I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?"


Doesn't really matter. Lieutenant, of course, means something like deputy. He was the King's lieutenant general in Calais and its marches, and also captain of the town. The terms tend to get used interchangeably.



3) "In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?"


Not my own discovery, in that the Dymmok Papers have been looked at before, most notably by Ives, who wrote a paper based on the information in them which included the information about the retracted accusation. But Ives was chiefly interested in Andrew Dymmok and his career so didn't dwell all that much on what the Papers reveal about Rivers' lifestyle, and so maybe less has been made of this quarrel than it merits. When you see the multiple copies first hand it really does hit home what a nasty relationship the two men had with each other.

I imagine Lynda Pidgeon will also have used the Dymmok Papers for her forthcoming book on the Woodvilles, but everyone looks at a set of documents for slightly different reasons, and mines them for different information. I very quickly ordered them up and took hasty photos with a hand-held camera once at the end of a session at the National Archives.

Some of my copies are a bit blurred, and many of the originals are faded, smudgy and torn, so there was a limit to the information I could glean from them, but the dating clauses of most of Rivers' letters proved to be quite legible, and I like making timelines of people's movements - you can't know who might have done what till you know where they were. So as far as I'm aware, although people have picked up from Ives Rivers' being in Kings' Lynn in January and early March 1483, I don't believe anyone has previously used the original papers to determine Rivers' movements throughout the period covered, but that may well be just because there's not been a proper modern biography of Rivers until now. It's not until you look at the collection in toto that it becomes clear just how unlikely it is that Rivers would have been in Ludlow when Edward IV died.

4) "When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility."

Yes, I meant that Buckingham could have fabricated evidence against Hastings in order to bring him down, using Catesby, who was supposedly the informant. Both Mancini and Rous indicate that Buckingham was very involved in Hastings' despatch - Mancini has Buckingham's men cut him down, and Rous has Buckingham as the persuader behind Hastings' summary execution. Or, of course, Catesby, as a midlands landowner, may have seen a chance for his own advancement in Hastings' downfall, and so made up evidence on his own account of which Buck. simply made enthusiastic use. Or Hastings may genuinely have been won over by the Woodville side, either by promises of better career prospects or through worries about what might otherwise lie in store for Edward IV's children. We'll almost certainly never know.

5) "I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?"

I don't see Margaret Beaufort as the originator, as the way I see it the Woodvilles were already in there, anxious to bring Richard down and restore their own positions. There was, in that sense, nothing for MB to originate. Also, no suspicion seems to have fallen on her at this time, and she was simultaneously negotiating with Richard. What is quite possible, I think, is that she was cleverly playing both sides so that whichever came out on top would be grateful for her support.

6) Morton "apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?"

I'm not sure about Morton. I see no reason to suppose his career couldn't have continued successfully under Richard. Perhaps Richard didn't like him, but we just don't have the evidence. He's a clever and intriguing individual, and ripe for a proper biography.


--
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: [Richard III Societ

2018-05-30 22:03:55
mariewalsh2003

The Council on 8 June was attended by Richard/ Williamson seems to have been relying on Halsted (?) who assumed Richard wasn't there because she noticed he issued a few letters that day and assumed he couldn't have done both. In fact, the source is a letter from Simon Stallworthe to Sir W. Stonor, and it says:

"My Lord Protector, my Lord Buckingham, with all other lords as well temporal as spiritual, were at Westminster in the Council Chamber from 10am to 2pm , but there was none that spoke with the Queen."

There's no evidence that the precontract was revealed to the lords at that meeting, although it's often said that it was. Stallworthe thought the meeting had to do with plans for the coronation. We don't know when the precontract claim surfaced, and I wish historians would be honest about it. Place it wrongly and the whole interpretation of events is skewed.

It's possible that the Queen learned of something (the precontract?) discussed at that meeting which caused her to start plotting against Richard again, but if so then Richard found out about it pretty damned quick. My own feeling is that she had refused to come out of sanctuary, and Sir Edward and Dorset had continued in opposition to Richard, because one setback at Northampton was not the end of it for her and never had been. The London journal records that on 23 May "was read out the oath lately made to our lord King by Richard Duke of Gloucester, Protector of England, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Archbishop of York, Henry Duke of Buckingham and the lords. Also an oath that the said lords would make to the Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England, now being in the Sanctuary of St. Peter, Westminster, if that lady would relinquish that place." Elizabeth took no notice, and stayed in sanctuary. She can only have done so because she had alternative plans. The only question was how long it would take her and her family to bring Plan B to fruition. That's why I say that Margaret Beaufort cannot have been the instigator of the June plot.




Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2018-05-31 17:37:14
Doug Stamate
Marie, So what we do know is: 29/30 April - Richard arrests Rivers, Grey and Vaughan in Northampton/Stony Stratford. 4 May - Richard, accompanied by his nephew, enters London. 23 May - Richard and others swear an oath to Edward V. 8 June - There's a meeting at Westminster, attended by Richard and all other lords as well temporal as spiritual. 10 June - Richard writes to York for armed support from the city. 11 June - Richard writes to Lord Neville also requesting military support. 13 June - Hastings executed after an attempt on Richard's life is discovered and foiled. 22 June - Originally scheduled date for coronation of Edward V. 25 June - Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed. 6 July - Richard crowned king. That first date means that my original idea that the Council was informed of the Pre-Contract in late May is, while still possible, very, very unlikely. Oh well... Also, we have Elizabeth Woodville being referred to as Queen on 23 May and 8 June and yet again by Richard himself in his letter of 10 June, but I don't how much can really be made of that. However, the one date that's I'm missing is when the Three Estates requested Richard take the throne. If we knew the date of that request, it would further narrow down the time frame, wouldn't it? Do we know when the Three Estates requested Richard take the throne? I haven't done a complete search, but I can't find any reference to a date for the request; or its acceptance. I must admit that I hadn't considered, at least not recently anyway, that Hastings' participation in a plot to kill Richard wasn't connected with the Pre-Contract and was, in some way or another, related to preventing Richard from becoming Protector. Of course, there is one person who, if they did know about the Pre-Contract, we could be certain wouldn't gossip about it and that's Elizabeth Woodvile. Well, her and her relatives. And just because Hastings may not have known about the Pre-Contract, doesn't mean that it wasn't the main reason for the 13 June attempt on Richard; only that there was more than one reason for that attempt. Yep, more answers, more questions! Doug Marie wrote:  The Council on 8 June was attended by Richard/ Williamson seems to have been relying on Halsted (?) who assumed Richard wasn't there because she noticed he issued a few letters that day and assumed he couldn't have done both. In fact, the source is a letter from Simon Stallworthe to Sir W. Stonor, and it says:

"My Lord Protector, my Lord Buckingham, with all other lords as well temporal as spiritual, were at Westminster in the Council Chamber from 10am to 2pm , but there was none that spoke with the Queen."

There's no evidence that the precontract was revealed to the lords at that meeting, although it's often said that it was. Stallworthe thought the meeting had to do with plans for the coronation. We don't know when the precontract claim surfaced, and I wish historians would be honest about it. Place it wrongly and the whole interpretation of events is skewed.

It's possible that the Queen learned of something (the precontract?) discussed at that meeting which caused her to start plotting against Richard again, but if so then Richard found out about it pretty damned quick. My own feeling is that she had refused to come out of sanctuary, and Sir Edward and Dorset had continued in opposition to Richard, because one setback at Northampton was not the end of it for her and never had been. The London journal records that on 23 May "was read out the oath lately made to our lord King by Richard Duke of Gloucester, Protector of England, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Archbishop of York, Henry Duke of Buckingham and the lords. Also an oath that the said lords would make to the Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England, now being in the Sanctuary of St. Peter, Westminster, if that lady would relinquish that place." Elizabeth took no notice, and stayed in sanctuary. She can only have done so because she had alternative plans. The only question was how long it would take her and her family to bring Plan B to fruition. That's why I say that Margaret Beaufort cannot have been the instigator of the June plot.


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