Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-02 12:06:12
hjnatdat

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.


There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.


The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.


So:


Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge


Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull


Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!


Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard had given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skilling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes


Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower


John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts. Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT


Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?


Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.


John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & Willoughbys


If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.


To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.


Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.


Hope this helps. H


Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-02 20:27:29
ricard1an
How very interesting. The fact that some of them were stabbed in the back by HT surprise me.
Mary
Who remembers the report in the Bulletin about a very interesting talk at a Triennial Conference by Jenny Powys Lybbe regarding the death of Edward of Middleham.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-02 21:51:17
ricard1an
Should be doesn't surprise me.
Mary

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-03 10:29:45
Hilary Jones
Thanks Mary! In such a long post (sorry) I didn't mention that John Donne(he of the Triptych) began his career as ambassador in France with - John Morton. I'm surprised Horrox never investigated this, some of these folk don't even get a mention. I also think we underestimate the influence of Uncle Jasper, even though he wasn't on the spot so to speak. H
On Friday, 2 November 2018, 21:53:49 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Should be doesn't surprise me.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-03 17:45:50
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Thank you for the listing; I have to admit I'd almost forgotten about it! Some things come to mind: I used modern maps, so they may not exactly match the counties of 1483, but some interesting things popped up. The first was that the counties of the High Sherriffs from southwestern England with the exception of Devonshire and extended eastwards along the Channel coast to Hampshire . Then there's a batch of HS's from the Midlands stretching eastwards to Lincolnshire and Norfolk/Suffolk. There were no defections, apparently, among the HS's of the southeast or Wales. Am I correct in presuming that there were HS's in Wales? London and the southeast apparently remained loyal, as did most of the north. Am I also correct in understanding that it's thought HT's original intention was to land somewhere along the Channel coast and he diverted to Wales because of weather? Seemingly, though, even in those shires where the HS's turned traitor, the troops, if they were mustered at all, were still mustered for Richard. What the defection of the HS's almost certainly did, however, was to throw a spanner in Richard's efforts to muster troops against HT, as replacements, if not for the HS's themselves, then at least to carry out the mustering, had to be found quickly. At any rate, what we have is a very impressive looking map displaying anti-Richard sentiments, but that map doesn't represent the actuality of the numbers of anti-Ricardians under arms. In fact, and compared with what is known of who was at Bosworth, it vastly over-represents apparent anti-Richard sentiment. The thing is, as I understand it, the vast majority of HT's army consisted of French mercenaries, Welsh irregulars (I don't know what else to call them) and, seemingly, a bunch of discontented, traitorous High Sherriffs. But those High Sherriffs didn't, as far as I know, bring many men along with them. Now maybe it's me, what with being from over the pond and not having any emotional stake in the glory, or lack of it, of the Tudor dynasty, but I do find it very interesting that over a period of more than five centuries, the fact that it was only the defection of a group of High Sherriffs that provided HT with a cloak of being invincible and representing English sentiment and not the the actual numbers of Englishmen physically supporting Tudor at Bosworth has been omitted from so many supposedly authoritative histories. Now this is complete conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't look for any direct communications between MB and her son; nor even communications via Bray. I don't doubt that she passed information along to Henry but, other than generalities, I can't see him sending specific information about the invasion to her, even for further dissemination. It would be way too risky as an eye was undoubtedly being kept on her and whomever she contacted, only limited by the conditions of the time. Right now my money would be on someone such as Tocotes. He was apparently considered loyal by Richard and, between his familial and geographical contacts, was in a position to clear the way for Tudor's French mercenaries. I also found it interesting that the areas controlled by these defeccting High Sherriffs included the ports of Bristol, Southampton and the ports along the Norfolk/Suffolk coast. All excellent landing places for an invading army. Doug

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts. Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H


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

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-05 10:58:37
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Thank you for the listing; I have to admit I'd almost forgotten about it! Some things come to mind: I used modern maps, so they may not exactly match the counties of 1483, but some interesting things popped up. The first was that the counties of the High Sherriffs from southwestern England with the exception of Devonshire and extended eastwards along the Channel coast to Hampshire . Then there's a batch of HS's from the Midlands stretching eastwards to Lincolnshire and Norfolk/Suffolk. There were no defections, apparently, among the HS's of the southeast or Wales. Am I correct in presuming that there were HS's in Wales? London and the southeast apparently remained loyal, as did most of the north. Am I also correct in understanding that it's thought HT's original intention was to land somewhere along the Channel coast and he diverted to Wales because of weather? Seemingly, though, even in those shires where the HS's turned traitor, the troops, if they were mustered at all, were still mustered for Richard. What the defection of the HS's almost certainly did, however, was to throw a spanner in Richard's efforts to muster troops against HT, as replacements, if not for the HS's themselves, then at least to carry out the mustering, had to be found quickly. At any rate, what we have is a very impressive looking map displaying anti-Richard sentiments, but that map doesn't represent the actuality of the numbers of anti-Ricardians under arms. In fact, and compared with what is known of who was at Bosworth, it vastly over-represents apparent anti-Richard sentiment. The thing is, as I understand it, the vast majority of HT's army consisted of French mercenaries, Welsh irregulars (I don't know what else to call them) and, seemingly, a bunch of discontented, traitorous High Sherriffs. But those High Sherriffs didn't, as far as I know, bring many men along with them. Now maybe it's me, what with being from over the pond and not having any emotional stake in the glory, or lack of it, of the Tudor dynasty, but I do find it very interesting that over a period of more than five centuries, the fact that it was only the defection of a group of High Sherriffs that provided HT with a cloak of being invincible and representing English sentiment and not the the actual numbers of Englishmen physically supporting Tudor at Bosworth has been omitted from so many supposedly authoritative histories. Now this is complete conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't look for any direct communications between MB and her son; nor even communications via Bray. I don't doubt that she passed information along to Henry but, other than generalities, I can't see him sending specific information about the invasion to her, even for further dissemination. It would be way too risky as an eye was undoubtedly being kept on her and whomever she contacted, only limited by the conditions of the time. Right now my money would be on someone such as Tocotes. He was apparently considered loyal by Richard and, between his familial and geographical contacts, was in a position to clear the way for Tudor's French mercenaries. I also found it interesting that the areas controlled by these defeccting High Sherriffs included the ports of Bristol, Southampton and the ports along the Norfolk/Suffolk coast. All excellent landing places for an invading army. Doug

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts.. Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H


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

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-05 11:57:44
Hilary Jones
Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Thank you for the listing; I have to admit I'd almost forgotten about it! Some things come to mind: I used modern maps, so they may not exactly match the counties of 1483, but some interesting things popped up. The first was that the counties of the High Sherriffs from southwestern England with the exception of Devonshire and extended eastwards along the Channel coast to Hampshire . Then there's a batch of HS's from the Midlands stretching eastwards to Lincolnshire and Norfolk/Suffolk. There were no defections, apparently, among the HS's of the southeast or Wales. Am I correct in presuming that there were HS's in Wales? London and the southeast apparently remained loyal, as did most of the north. Am I also correct in understanding that it's thought HT's original intention was to land somewhere along the Channel coast and he diverted to Wales because of weather? Seemingly, though, even in those shires where the HS's turned traitor, the troops, if they were mustered at all, were still mustered for Richard. What the defection of the HS's almost certainly did, however, was to throw a spanner in Richard's efforts to muster troops against HT, as replacements, if not for the HS's themselves, then at least to carry out the mustering, had to be found quickly. At any rate, what we have is a very impressive looking map displaying anti-Richard sentiments, but that map doesn't represent the actuality of the numbers of anti-Ricardians under arms. In fact, and compared with what is known of who was at Bosworth, it vastly over-represents apparent anti-Richard sentiment. The thing is, as I understand it, the vast majority of HT's army consisted of French mercenaries, Welsh irregulars (I don't know what else to call them) and, seemingly, a bunch of discontented, traitorous High Sherriffs. But those High Sherriffs didn't, as far as I know, bring many men along with them. Now maybe it's me, what with being from over the pond and not having any emotional stake in the glory, or lack of it, of the Tudor dynasty, but I do find it very interesting that over a period of more than five centuries, the fact that it was only the defection of a group of High Sherriffs that provided HT with a cloak of being invincible and representing English sentiment and not the the actual numbers of Englishmen physically supporting Tudor at Bosworth has been omitted from so many supposedly authoritative histories. Now this is complete conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't look for any direct communications between MB and her son; nor even communications via Bray. I don't doubt that she passed information along to Henry but, other than generalities, I can't see him sending specific information about the invasion to her, even for further dissemination. It would be way too risky as an eye was undoubtedly being kept on her and whomever she contacted, only limited by the conditions of the time. Right now my money would be on someone such as Tocotes. He was apparently considered loyal by Richard and, between his familial and geographical contacts, was in a position to clear the way for Tudor's French mercenaries. I also found it interesting that the areas controlled by these defeccting High Sherriffs included the ports of Bristol, Southampton and the ports along the Norfolk/Suffolk coast. All excellent landing places for an invading army. Doug

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H


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

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-08 10:53:39
Nicholas Brown
Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H

The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V? I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion.

Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity. Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart.
I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV. If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.

Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 12:11:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Thank you for the listing; I have to admit I'd almost forgotten about it! Some things come to mind: I used modern maps, so they may not exactly match the counties of 1483, but some interesting things popped up. The first was that the counties of the High Sherriffs from southwestern England with the exception of Devonshire and extended eastwards along the Channel coast to Hampshire . Then there's a batch of HS's from the Midlands stretching eastwards to Lincolnshire and Norfolk/Suffolk. There were no defections, apparently, among the HS's of the southeast or Wales. Am I correct in presuming that there were HS's in Wales? London and the southeast apparently remained loyal, as did most of the north. Am I also correct in understanding that it's thought HT's original intention was to land somewhere along the Channel coast and he diverted to Wales because of weather? Seemingly, though, even in those shires where the HS's turned traitor, the troops, if they were mustered at all, were still mustered for Richard. What the defection of the HS's almost certainly did, however, was to throw a spanner in Richard's efforts to muster troops against HT, as replacements, if not for the HS's themselves, then at least to carry out the mustering, had to be found quickly. At any rate, what we have is a very impressive looking map displaying anti-Richard sentiments, but that map doesn't represent the actuality of the numbers of anti-Ricardians under arms. In fact, and compared with what is known of who was at Bosworth, it vastly over-represents apparent anti-Richard sentiment. The thing is, as I understand it, the vast majority of HT's army consisted of French mercenaries, Welsh irregulars (I don't know what else to call them) and, seemingly, a bunch of discontented, traitorous High Sherriffs. But those High Sherriffs didn't, as far as I know, bring many men along with them. Now maybe it's me, what with being from over the pond and not having any emotional stake in the glory, or lack of it, of the Tudor dynasty, but I do find it very interesting that over a period of more than five centuries, the fact that it was only the defection of a group of High Sherriffs that provided HT with a cloak of being invincible and representing English sentiment and not the the actual numbers of Englishmen physically supporting Tudor at Bosworth has been omitted from so many supposedly authoritative histories. Now this is complete conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't look for any direct communications between MB and her son; nor even communications via Bray. I don't doubt that she passed information along to Henry but, other than generalities, I can't see him sending specific information about the invasion to her, even for further dissemination. It would be way too risky as an eye was undoubtedly being kept on her and whomever she contacted, only limited by the conditions of the time. Right now my money would be on someone such as Tocotes. He was apparently considered loyal by Richard and, between his familial and geographical contacts, was in a position to clear the way for Tudor's French mercenaries. I also found it interesting that the areas controlled by these defeccting High Sherriffs included the ports of Bristol, Southampton and the ports along the Norfolk/Suffolk coast. All excellent landing places for an invading army. Doug

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts.... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H


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

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-08 14:35:49
Hilary Jones
Sorry Nico I meant Edward IV!
I think there is a logic to all of this except Buckingham, who seems to have thrown everything and everyone up in the air. There was a light-hearted discussion on one of the other blogs I found about whether he had a 'crush' on Richard; whether he thought he could become another Gaveston but got slapped down and the rejection was just too much. The more extreme his actions become and the more reckless he becomes I think this is not as daft as it may seem. There's nothing worse I imagine in getting an assumption like that terribly wrong. And of course Richard, who had now lost two brothers, may well have been looking for friendship from the family and unintentionally misled him to thinking he was closer than he really was.
Other than that I can only think he must have been seriously mad. It's interesting how his aunt MB was quick to distance herself from him. He could have done a lot of serious damage to every cause. Participants were lucky that Richard was so generous when it came to punishing most of them. Too generous as it turned out! H
BTW did you ever do a chart on HT? That would indeed be fascinating and I guess rather sad.

On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 10:59:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H

The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V? I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion.

Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity. Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart.
I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV. If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.

Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 12:11:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Thank you for the listing; I have to admit I'd almost forgotten about it! Some things come to mind: I used modern maps, so they may not exactly match the counties of 1483, but some interesting things popped up. The first was that the counties of the High Sherriffs from southwestern England with the exception of Devonshire and extended eastwards along the Channel coast to Hampshire . Then there's a batch of HS's from the Midlands stretching eastwards to Lincolnshire and Norfolk/Suffolk. There were no defections, apparently, among the HS's of the southeast or Wales. Am I correct in presuming that there were HS's in Wales? London and the southeast apparently remained loyal, as did most of the north. Am I also correct in understanding that it's thought HT's original intention was to land somewhere along the Channel coast and he diverted to Wales because of weather? Seemingly, though, even in those shires where the HS's turned traitor, the troops, if they were mustered at all, were still mustered for Richard. What the defection of the HS's almost certainly did, however, was to throw a spanner in Richard's efforts to muster troops against HT, as replacements, if not for the HS's themselves, then at least to carry out the mustering, had to be found quickly. At any rate, what we have is a very impressive looking map displaying anti-Richard sentiments, but that map doesn't represent the actuality of the numbers of anti-Ricardians under arms. In fact, and compared with what is known of who was at Bosworth, it vastly over-represents apparent anti-Richard sentiment. The thing is, as I understand it, the vast majority of HT's army consisted of French mercenaries, Welsh irregulars (I don't know what else to call them) and, seemingly, a bunch of discontented, traitorous High Sherriffs. But those High Sherriffs didn't, as far as I know, bring many men along with them. Now maybe it's me, what with being from over the pond and not having any emotional stake in the glory, or lack of it, of the Tudor dynasty, but I do find it very interesting that over a period of more than five centuries, the fact that it was only the defection of a group of High Sherriffs that provided HT with a cloak of being invincible and representing English sentiment and not the the actual numbers of Englishmen physically supporting Tudor at Bosworth has been omitted from so many supposedly authoritative histories. Now this is complete conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't look for any direct communications between MB and her son; nor even communications via Bray. I don't doubt that she passed information along to Henry but, other than generalities, I can't see him sending specific information about the invasion to her, even for further dissemination. It would be way too risky as an eye was undoubtedly being kept on her and whomever she contacted, only limited by the conditions of the time. Right now my money would be on someone such as Tocotes. He was apparently considered loyal by Richard and, between his familial and geographical contacts, was in a position to clear the way for Tudor's French mercenaries. I also found it interesting that the areas controlled by these defeccting High Sherriffs included the ports of Bristol, Southampton and the ports along the Norfolk/Suffolk coast. All excellent landing places for an invading army. Doug

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts..... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H


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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-08 17:07:36
Doug Stamate
Hilary, The one thing I wonder about is why those HS's who didn't show up at Bosworth failed to do so? We have record of Richard being counseled to not fight at Bosworth, but rather to withdraw and amass a larger army from those who were still mustering, so I'm presuming some of those 10 non-showers would be in that category, but I don't have any idea which or how many. Then there'd be two other groups; the first would be those who'd been gotten at, either by HT or his mother, while the second would consist of those who were sitting on the fence, waiting for some signs as to how things were going for Richard or HT. I presume that those who didn't do particularly well under HT were those who either were still out recruiting for Richard when Bosworth went down or were in that third category of fence-sitters. I'm in full agreement with you when it comes to how historians have so badly failed to research and document the facts about support for/against Richard. Even taking into account the very good possibility that the HS's who defected did represent the popular feeling in their respective counties, it's striking that those HS's who defected didn't bring many men with them when they showed up at Bosworth That HT was supported by so many HS's might be a propaganda coup after Bosworth, but not when what he needed for the battle itself was as many men as he could get! I also noticed something else. Bosworth was fought in the county of Leicestershire. Two of the HS's who fought for HT were those from Staffordshire and Warwickshire, while four who were no-shows were the HS's of Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire (Curson), Lincolnshire (Dymok), Burton (Northamptonshire) and Sherard (Rutland). IOW, in every county that shared a border with Leicestershire, the HS's defected to HT. Why, as far as I can tell, has no one noticed this before? Or have they? Because it certainly appears to me as if HT's likely original plan was to trap Richard between two opposing forces; the mercenaries he brought from France moving northwards from their landing sites along the south coast and the men raised by the HS's of those counties. Had HT landed where he originally planned, Richard would likely have used London or its' environs as his mustering site. However, once the invasion site changed from the south coast to Wales, then Richard changed his mustering site from London to Leicester and loused the plans of those HS's to muster troops and bring them against Richard, attacking Richard's forces from the north as Richard faced HT's army to his south. Even if the HS's of those particular counties didn't manage to gather a substantial number of men, the mere fact that a force was being organized in his rear would have had an impact on any decision Richard made about where and when he fought HT. However, as we know, those particular HS's didn't provide an army in Richard's rear and because HT had to land in Wales and not along the south coast, the original plan failed and Richard was only defeated by the treachery of the Stanleys, assisted possibly that of the Earl of Northumbeland. Doug Who did notice that there wasn't an asterisk next to Northumberland... Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties: Essex (coast)* Surrey & Sussex (coast) Gloucester Hereford Stafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn') Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up) Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered) Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies! Devon (coast)* Northumberland (coast) Westmorland* (coast) Oxon & Berks* York (coast) Kent* (coast) Lancs (coast) The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country. What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so. I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries. I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon. The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony. The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there. I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck. Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-08 17:47:00
ricard1an
Alison Weir maintains that she definitely knows that the Princes were murdered on September 3rd 1483 because James Tyrell was in London that day collecting clothes for Edward of Middleham being made Prince of Wales, however, there is a record of the Princes being alive and at the Tower on September 8th 1483. Also we all know that James Tyrell's "confession" was probably made up by H7. I agree that your other theory, about Buckingham attempting to be Kingmaker, could be a possibility and that Edward's death could have spoilt all his plans.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-08 18:26:56
Paul Trevor bale
Alison Weir says black is white because she knows it is!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 8 nov. 2018 à 18:14, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

Alison Weir maintains that she definitely knows that the Princes were murdered on September 3rd 1483 because James Tyrell was in London that day collecting clothes for Edward of Middleham being made Prince of Wales, however, there is a record of the Princes being alive and at the Tower on September 8th 1483.

Also we all know that James Tyrell's "confession" was probably made up by H7. I agree that your other theory, about Buckingham attempting to be Kingmaker, could be a possibility and that Edward's death could have spoilt all his plans.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-09 08:41:13
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, I love your atlas and military acumen! I hadn't noticed the 'border' thing - a good case of familiarity with somewhere can cause you to neglect the obvious.
I'm just rushing off and will come back in more detail but one thing that I think is also a factor is just how dangerous the HT 'invasion' was judged to be. My guess is not very - an exile and a group of mercenaries. Once those mercenaries had landed they would have nowhere to go except fight or back to the continent. If they lost, and I bet everyone thought they would, then in wouldn't take long to make mincemeat of them. So if I were an older HS like Wake I probably wouldn't worry or hurry too much. After all most of Richard's army were his own seasoned soldiers from the Scottish campaign. If they could take Berwick then a few mercenaries shouldn't pose much difficulty should they?
Sadly it's all about that fatal charge. Any other outcome where Richard survived (even if it meant temporary exile) would have almost certainly resulted in him eventually regaining the throne. After all he had Maximilien for support. A real heroic tragedy! For once I agree with Starkey who said that Richard's great failure was his death. H
On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 17:44:40 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The one thing I wonder about is why those HS's who didn't show up at Bosworth failed to do so? We have record of Richard being counseled to not fight at Bosworth, but rather to withdraw and amass a larger army from those who were still mustering, so I'm presuming some of those 10 non-showers would be in that category, but I don't have any idea which or how many. Then there'd be two other groups; the first would be those who'd been gotten at, either by HT or his mother, while the second would consist of those who were sitting on the fence, waiting for some signs as to how things were going for Richard or HT. I presume that those who didn't do particularly well under HT were those who either were still out recruiting for Richard when Bosworth went down or were in that third category of fence-sitters. I'm in full agreement with you when it comes to how historians have so badly failed to research and document the facts about support for/against Richard. Even taking into account the very good possibility that the HS's who defected did represent the popular feeling in their respective counties, it's striking that those HS's who defected didn't bring many men with them when they showed up at Bosworth That HT was supported by so many HS's might be a propaganda coup after Bosworth, but not when what he needed for the battle itself was as many men as he could get! I also noticed something else. Bosworth was fought in the county of Leicestershire. Two of the HS's who fought for HT were those from Staffordshire and Warwickshire, while four who were no-shows were the HS's of Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire (Curson), Lincolnshire (Dymok), Burton (Northamptonshire) and Sherard (Rutland). IOW, in every county that shared a border with Leicestershire, the HS's defected to HT. Why, as far as I can tell, has no one noticed this before? Or have they? Because it certainly appears to me as if HT's likely original plan was to trap Richard between two opposing forces; the mercenaries he brought from France moving northwards from their landing sites along the south coast and the men raised by the HS's of those counties. Had HT landed where he originally planned, Richard would likely have used London or its' environs as his mustering site. However, once the invasion site changed from the south coast to Wales, then Richard changed his mustering site from London to Leicester and loused the plans of those HS's to muster troops and bring them against Richard, attacking Richard's forces from the north as Richard faced HT's army to his south. Even if the HS's of those particular counties didn't manage to gather a substantial number of men, the mere fact that a force was being organized in his rear would have had an impact on any decision Richard made about where and when he fought HT. However, as we know, those particular HS's didn't provide an army in Richard's rear and because HT had to land in Wales and not along the south coast, the original plan failed and Richard was only defeated by the treachery of the Stanleys, assisted possibly that of the Earl of Northumbeland. Doug Who did notice that there wasn't an asterisk next to Northumberland... Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties: Essex (coast)* Surrey & Sussex (coast) Gloucester Hereford Stafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn') Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up) Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered) Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies! Devon (coast)* Northumberland (coast) Westmorland* (coast) Oxon & Berks* York (coast) Kent* (coast) Lancs (coast) The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country. What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.. I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries. I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon. The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony. The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there. I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck. Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-09 12:56:48
Nicholas Brown
I wouldn't rule out the idea of Buckingham having a 'crush' on Richard. I haven't come across that theory before, but who knows. Which blog was this one? People were expected to get married in those days, and if they were gay they just had to go along with that. The only problem with the Gaveston aspiration for me is that Richard was unlikely to have been seen as the sort of person who would be vulnerable to that kind of manipulation. Nor has there been any suggestion that Richard was gay, although Edward II and Gaveston's relationship may not have been sexual.
I have always thought it was mostly a power gripe, with Buckingham unhappy because he wasn't as influential as he thought he would be. Buckingham could also have been jealous because Richard was so much more accomplished than him and that made him feel inadequate. After all, Buckingham had never really held any serious positions of responsibility, which seems unusual for someone in such a high position. Perhaps he had never shown any real aptitude or talent for anything, so he was justifiably overlooked, but he had a deluded notion that he had been held back by Edward IV for his Lancastrian family links, and hoped for a new start under Richard. When he didn't get it, he got angry. He may have been arrogant enough to expect to be promoted beyond his abilities, but I agree with you that there is a chaotic quality about him that suggests that he may also have been a bit mad too. It was probably that this that made MB cautious of him.
Nico




On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 18:55:51 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Alison Weir says black is white because she knows it is!

Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 8 nov. 2018 à 18:14, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

Alison Weir maintains that she definitely knows that the Princes were murdered on September 3rd 1483 because James Tyrell was in London that day collecting clothes for Edward of Middleham being made Prince of Wales, however, there is a record of the Princes being alive and at the Tower on September 8th 1483.

Also we all know that James Tyrell's "confession" was probably made up by H7. I agree that your other theory, about Buckingham attempting to be Kingmaker, could be a possibility and that Edward's death could have spoilt all his plans.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-09 15:23:38
Hilary Jones
I reckon we probably know more about Richard than Buckingham did. We've read the notes in his books, we know he was a religious man (they even said that at his funeral) that he had a high moral code, had at least two illegitimate children and was kind to women.
As far as I know, Buckingham had only spent one substantial time with Richard and that was when they both played a starring role in the wedding of ROS. Other than that, to Buckingham, Richard was a very talented military leader; had been since he was seventeen, a hero even, and what's more we now know he was handsome. I do remember when the reconstruction was revealed being really shocked at how good-looking he was.
So if you put yourself into Buck's head (and that would be dangerous I agree!) you might convince yourself that because you had feelings for him, he feels the same about you. I'm sure in our youth we've all done that at some time - read the wrong signals because we wanted to.
For a start, in producing TR, Richard had to sign up to the notion that Edward had been led astray by women. So Bucks might say 'perhaps Richard doesn't like women' whereas we say it was probably written by the clergy. Then Richard is away a lot on campaigns and has only one child. Bucks might say 'well perhaps he avoids his wife'. We say there is evidence that his wife's family have problems in conceiving children. Richard showers Bucks with gifts to thank him for his loyalty (which is everything to Richard), Bucks thinks it's out of love. That is until after the Coronation there's some sort of embarrassing showdown and they go their separate ways - Bucks humiliated and highly moral Richard furious that such a relationship should have been contemplated. So no, I don't have Richard as gay, more in today's terms old-fashioned in outlook, remember W Stanley called him 'old Dick'.
I do think there was a mental vulnerability about Bucks too. After all, the majority of us recover from such things and Richard had given no indication of revoking any of his powers. Perhaps it was from being married off so young? Perhaps it was from being denied military service or closeness to Edward. Whatever it was it seems (to me that is) that in betraying Richard he was in the territory of a 'crime de passion'. For I see him conceiving no real strategy to secure the throne. For a start he hadn't wooed any supporters.
I doubt we will every know. I'll try to find the blog. H


On Friday, 9 November 2018, 14:48:04 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


I wouldn't rule out the idea of Buckingham having a 'crush' on Richard. I haven't come across that theory before, but who knows. Which blog was this one? People were expected to get married in those days, and if they were gay they just had to go along with that. The only problem with the Gaveston aspiration for me is that Richard was unlikely to have been seen as the sort of person who would be vulnerable to that kind of manipulation. Nor has there been any suggestion that Richard was gay, although Edward II and Gaveston's relationship may not have been sexual.
I have always thought it was mostly a power gripe, with Buckingham unhappy because he wasn't as influential as he thought he would be. Buckingham could also have been jealous because Richard was so much more accomplished than him and that made him feel inadequate. After all, Buckingham had never really held any serious positions of responsibility, which seems unusual for someone in such a high position. Perhaps he had never shown any real aptitude or talent for anything, so he was justifiably overlooked, but he had a deluded notion that he had been held back by Edward IV for his Lancastrian family links, and hoped for a new start under Richard. When he didn't get it, he got angry. He may have been arrogant enough to expect to be promoted beyond his abilities, but I agree with you that there is a chaotic quality about him that suggests that he may also have been a bit mad too. It was probably that this that made MB cautious of him.
Nico




On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 18:55:51 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Alison Weir says black is white because she knows it is!

Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 8 nov. 2018 à 18:14, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

Alison Weir maintains that she definitely knows that the Princes were murdered on September 3rd 1483 because James Tyrell was in London that day collecting clothes for Edward of Middleham being made Prince of Wales, however, there is a record of the Princes being alive and at the Tower on September 8th 1483.

Also we all know that James Tyrell's "confession" was probably made up by H7. I agree that your other theory, about Buckingham attempting to be Kingmaker, could be a possibility and that Edward's death could have spoilt all his plans.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-09 16:35:04
ricard1an
So Nico, looking at your thoughts that Buckingham could have been disgruntled because he wasn't as influential as he thought he might have been, could it have been that it was Buckingham that was jealous of Hastings not the other way around. Yes, Buckingham was given lots of lands etc but if he wasn't capable of high office but Hastings was, then Richard might have turned to Hastings after all it was Hastings that supposedly told him about Edward's death when the Woodvilles had neglected to do so. The Woodvilles were obviously trying to keep Richard away from London until after E5 had been crowned but Hastings ruined their plan. Not sure how this fits in with Rivers keeping Edward at Ludlow until the end of April but it could have been that there were other people in London, apart from Hastings, that might have taken over E5 and not allowed the Coronation to take place before Richard arrived, the members of the Council for instance. Hastings might then have been set up by EW and MB which led to Richard thinking that Hastings was plotting against him. Then afterwards Tudor propaganda gave out the story of Hastings treason and traditionalist historians carried the myth on.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-09 20:30:13
Paul Trevor bale
Envoyé de mon iPad

> Le 9 nov. 2018 à 16:23, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
>
> As far as I know, Buckingham had only spent one substantial time with Richard and that was when they both played a starring role in the wedding of ROS.

This is not actually true. I turned up some interesting facts about Buckingham when researching him, not an easy thing to do. But one has to remember Richard was put into the care of Buckingham's grandfather with his sister when their mother was taken into custody during York's rebellion. The two dukes also went to France with Edwards expedition, and when Richard left in disgust when Edward made a deal with Louis XI, Buckingham went with him. So they knew each other pretty well, family gatherings apart that is. So I have no doubt knew what his cousin was like, but chose unwisely to trust him.
As for the Edward II and Galveston relationship, I've no doubt it was sexual as well as political. Unlike Richard and Buckingham, and in a way I feel it just gives the opposition another stick to beat Richard with by even suggesting it.
Paul

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-10 10:43:55
Hilary Jones
This sounds very reasonable Mary. It wouldn't surprise me at all! And if Rivers was in East Anglia and not in Ludlow then Edward's party might already have set out before he could stop them.
I have always believed Hastings to have been set up. Why in one instance should he warn Richard and support the Council against the Woodvilles and in the next flip over to them? He knew Richard had reason to be grateful to him and needed him - he was the most experienced commander left. No way could Bucks match that. Hastings had been used to Edward occasionally pouring out money and titles on favourites but it never phased him. And Bucks was a cousin and one of the only blood relatives left.
I agree. I think this is yet another story we've been sold about 'Richard's blood-stained path to the throne'. H
On Friday, 9 November 2018, 16:35:27 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

So Nico, looking at your thoughts that Buckingham could have been disgruntled because he wasn't as influential as he thought he might have been, could it have been that it was Buckingham that was jealous of Hastings not the other way around. Yes, Buckingham was given lots of lands etc but if he wasn't capable of high office but Hastings was, then Richard might have turned to Hastings after all it was Hastings that supposedly told him about Edward's death when the Woodvilles had neglected to do so. The Woodvilles were obviously trying to keep Richard away from London until after E5 had been crowned but Hastings ruined their plan. Not sure how this fits in with Rivers keeping Edward at Ludlow until the end of April but it could have been that there were other people in London, apart from Hastings, that might have taken over E5 and not allowed the Coronation to take place before Richard arrived, the members of the Council for instance. Hastings might then have been set up by EW and MB which led to Richard thinking that Hastings was plotting against him. Then afterwards Tudor propaganda gave out the story of Hastings treason and traditionalist historians carried the myth on.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-10 11:55:23
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug I found a bit more information about one of our 'missing' High Sheriffs, Robert Carre.
Now as I said to you earlier, I originally thought that he had just got missed off the Bosworth lists because he was from Alnwick Northumberland and had been put into Hampshire by Richard - Southampton the port of course. Carre is quite difficult to track but he had been a retainer of Warwick, not Percy, and he is thought to have improperly seized some land of the rebel William Ovedale (thanks Horrox) in 1483. He took quite a bit of post-Bosworth chasing but he re-appears as 'Chamberlain for the King's Body' and Bailiff of Berwick upon Tweed in 1487!
It makes me wonder more and more whether these people were targeted for specific reasons, particularly if they had an achilles heel and were in a 'useful' area such as the ever-volatile Hampshire. Burton is another one who I recall had a father or grandfather who was a top servant of Henry VI. I need to look more at Donne, but he had been exposed to Morton on his first mission for Edward IV. I'll come back when I've done more.
With regard to Percy I truly don't think he would have betrayed Richard. He'd been Richard's deputy in Scotland and was so trusted he was allowed to make his own knights. Richard would know him as much as he knew anyone. And what would Percy stand to gain but an uncertain future - which is exactly what happened? He knew Richard would eventually have to delegate his lordship of the North, just as Edward had delegated it to Richard. These were a closed community who knew and trusted one another more than they trusted outsiders. How did Percy know that Uncle Jasper might not be made Lord of the North, or De Vere, or Daubeny? No it was much too much of a risk - in my opinion that is. H
(who is grateful this is distracting me from the 'Elvish' writing!!)
On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 17:44:40 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The one thing I wonder about is why those HS's who didn't show up at Bosworth failed to do so? We have record of Richard being counseled to not fight at Bosworth, but rather to withdraw and amass a larger army from those who were still mustering, so I'm presuming some of those 10 non-showers would be in that category, but I don't have any idea which or how many. Then there'd be two other groups; the first would be those who'd been gotten at, either by HT or his mother, while the second would consist of those who were sitting on the fence, waiting for some signs as to how things were going for Richard or HT. I presume that those who didn't do particularly well under HT were those who either were still out recruiting for Richard when Bosworth went down or were in that third category of fence-sitters. I'm in full agreement with you when it comes to how historians have so badly failed to research and document the facts about support for/against Richard. Even taking into account the very good possibility that the HS's who defected did represent the popular feeling in their respective counties, it's striking that those HS's who defected didn't bring many men with them when they showed up at Bosworth That HT was supported by so many HS's might be a propaganda coup after Bosworth, but not when what he needed for the battle itself was as many men as he could get! I also noticed something else. Bosworth was fought in the county of Leicestershire. Two of the HS's who fought for HT were those from Staffordshire and Warwickshire, while four who were no-shows were the HS's of Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire (Curson), Lincolnshire (Dymok), Burton (Northamptonshire) and Sherard (Rutland). IOW, in every county that shared a border with Leicestershire, the HS's defected to HT. Why, as far as I can tell, has no one noticed this before? Or have they? Because it certainly appears to me as if HT's likely original plan was to trap Richard between two opposing forces; the mercenaries he brought from France moving northwards from their landing sites along the south coast and the men raised by the HS's of those counties. Had HT landed where he originally planned, Richard would likely have used London or its' environs as his mustering site. However, once the invasion site changed from the south coast to Wales, then Richard changed his mustering site from London to Leicester and loused the plans of those HS's to muster troops and bring them against Richard, attacking Richard's forces from the north as Richard faced HT's army to his south. Even if the HS's of those particular counties didn't manage to gather a substantial number of men, the mere fact that a force was being organized in his rear would have had an impact on any decision Richard made about where and when he fought HT. However, as we know, those particular HS's didn't provide an army in Richard's rear and because HT had to land in Wales and not along the south coast, the original plan failed and Richard was only defeated by the treachery of the Stanleys, assisted possibly that of the Earl of Northumbeland. Doug Who did notice that there wasn't an asterisk next to Northumberland... Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties: Essex (coast)* Surrey & Sussex (coast) Gloucester Hereford Stafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn') Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up) Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered) Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies! Devon (coast)* Northumberland (coast) Westmorland* (coast) Oxon & Berks* York (coast) Kent* (coast) Lancs (coast) The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country. What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.. I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries. I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon. The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony. The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there. I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck. Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-10 13:59:59
Nicholas Brown
I definitely think there was a mental vulnerability about Buckingham and it probably explains why he never really made his mark on anything. It is hard to judge him as so little is known about him personally. However, he does have a real arrogance vibe, sort of a hooray Henry type; massive sense of entitlement, but no talent, direction or effort. If he was gay, he could have misread all the signals about Richard, even though common sense would have told him that Richard would never have countenanced such a thing. As Paul mentions, they did meet a few times, and Buckingham may always have felt in Richard's shadow, so not getting what he wanted in 1483 may have been the final straw. However, I have always suspected that the person who knew Buckingham very well was Margaret Beaufort. There must have been substantial contract between her, Buckingham and Henry Stafford. I have even wondered if they helped raise him after his mother remarried. If that was the case, was it Henry Tudor, he was jealous of, and did he feel so threatened by the possibility of his return and rise that he felt the need to have a go at the throne to keep him at bay? All speculation, but what we do know is that MB didn't rate him or take him seriously. If he had anything to offer, I think she would really have courted him.

Nico
On Saturday, 10 November 2018, 10:55:06 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

This sounds very reasonable Mary. It wouldn't surprise me at all! And if Rivers was in East Anglia and not in Ludlow then Edward's party might already have set out before he could stop them.
I have always believed Hastings to have been set up. Why in one instance should he warn Richard and support the Council against the Woodvilles and in the next flip over to them? He knew Richard had reason to be grateful to him and needed him - he was the most experienced commander left. No way could Bucks match that. Hastings had been used to Edward occasionally pouring out money and titles on favourites but it never phased him. And Bucks was a cousin and one of the only blood relatives left.
I agree. I think this is yet another story we've been sold about 'Richard's blood-stained path to the throne'. H
On Friday, 9 November 2018, 16:35:27 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

So Nico, looking at your thoughts that Buckingham could have been disgruntled because he wasn't as influential as he thought he might have been, could it have been that it was Buckingham that was jealous of Hastings not the other way around. Yes, Buckingham was given lots of lands etc but if he wasn't capable of high office but Hastings was, then Richard might have turned to Hastings after all it was Hastings that supposedly told him about Edward's death when the Woodvilles had neglected to do so. The Woodvilles were obviously trying to keep Richard away from London until after E5 had been crowned but Hastings ruined their plan. Not sure how this fits in with Rivers keeping Edward at Ludlow until the end of April but it could have been that there were other people in London, apart from Hastings, that might have taken over E5 and not allowed the Coronation to take place before Richard arrived, the members of the Council for instance. Hastings might then have been set up by EW and MB which led to Richard thinking that Hastings was plotting against him. Then afterwards Tudor propaganda gave out the story of Hastings treason and traditionalist historians carried the myth on.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-10 14:15:24
ricard1an
I have a theory about Percy too. That he was told to guard the road to London and that is why he did not come to Richard's aid. Maybe he wasn't in a position to see what was going on and if Richard had ordered that they guard the road at all costs he would not have moved. I remember seeing a map of his troops stationed across the road. I think it was at a talk given to our R3 Branch by Michael Jones but that it was something he found out after 1485 was published. I might be wrong because it was a long time ago.
If it was indeed correct then it would have been great for the Tudor propaganda machine to be able to say that Percy had deserted Richard.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-10 14:34:22
Hilary Jones
Thanks very much for the info Paul! (You still keep getting trashed - ask Yahoo why)
As far as the Gaveston/Edward II relationship goes, I was thinking more of the influence that Gaveston was deemed to have over Edward rather than the sexual relationship.
I doubt whether Buckingham had really thought it through - I doubt he thought anything through. I reckon we all agree he was unstable, and probably unstable and needy because his parents were 'gone' and his marriage was not ideal (or so we think) and, as Nico says, Auntie Meg had her Henry and his cousin King Edward virtually ignored him. So when, in his head, Richard his idol also became 'needy' because of the death of Edward, Bucks tried to be a sort of substitute but it was doomed not to work out. I think it more a youthful crush (on Buck's part) than an imagined gay relationship, but he still didn't get the power of influence that he'd thought he might. Therefore to such an unstable man it was a dreadful rejection. A rejection that quickly turned to hate.
Hope I've explained that properly!
BTW the blogger didn't have Richard as gay, more the unsuspecting recipient of a cousin's idolatry with which he found it increasingly difficult to deal. So this isn't at all the case of another reason for some 'purists' to beat up Richard. It was actually more a justification for Bucks to have a motive to murder the Princes. And I haven't gone there. H


On Friday, 9 November 2018, 21:43:16 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:



Envoyé de mon iPad

> Le 9 nov. 2018 à 16:23, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :
>
> As far as I know, Buckingham had only spent one substantial time with Richard and that was when they both played a starring role in the wedding of ROS.

This is not actually true. I turned up some interesting facts about Buckingham when researching him, not an easy thing to do. But one has to remember Richard was put into the care of Buckingham's grandfather with his sister when their mother was taken into custody during York's rebellion. The two dukes also went to France with Edwards expedition, and when Richard left in disgust when Edward made a deal with Louis XI, Buckingham went with him. So they knew each other pretty well, family gatherings apart that is. So I have no doubt knew what his cousin was like, but chose unwisely to trust him.
As for the Edward II and Galveston relationship, I've no doubt it was sexual as well as political. Unlike Richard and Buckingham, and in a way I feel it just gives the opposition another stick to beat Richard with by even suggesting it.
Paul

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-10 18:38:03
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I agree that the actual military force HT brought with him wasn't enough to defeat Richard in open battle. However it was large enough to require Richard to move towards wherever that force landed, unless Richard adopted tactics that required HT and his forces to come to him. Militarily speaking, either would have been acceptable, the only question being what would happen in those areas Richard either cleared of supporters by taking them with him or, conversely, in the areas Richard didn't defend by holding back and not meeting HT's troops as near their landing site as possible. AFAIK, we don't have any records of rebellion arising anywhere outside of Wales. While some HS's defected, they didn't bring any substantial number of armed men with them, so the idea that England somehow rejected Richard in favor of HT is, in itself, false to begin with. Of course, that also means that is England didn't reject Richard, then how did HT manage to take the throne? By treachery, of course. And that, I think, is where the idolatry of the Tudor dynasty comes in. Besides the fact that very few people want to be known as traitors or having gotten their position/s via treachery, for some reason the idea that the Tudor dynasty was established on the throne via acts of treason is considered to somehow invalidate the accomplishments of the members of that dynasty. I can understand why the members of the dynasty, from HVII to his grand-daughter, were, um sensitive? about how they got the throne and did all they could to enhance the family's reputation, but once they were gone there was no need for any true historian to aid and abet them in those efforts. For example, HT's only accomplishment that comes to mind is that he managed to keep the throne. H8 made it possible for the Reformation to add England to its' numbers and Elizabeth proved a very competent monarch in very dangerous times. Why that's not enough, I'll never know! To be honest, I've never given any thought to the idea of a second exile for Richard. I agree that, had Richard had to flee, it's almost certain he'd also have returned and tossed HT off the throne. The only complication I can think of would be that Maximilian might be reluctant to risk a war with France, as that country would likely side with the non-aggressive Tudor over the more war-like York. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I love your atlas and military acumen! I hadn't noticed the 'border' thing - a good case of familiarity with somewhere can cause you to neglect the obvious. I'm just rushing off and will come back in more detail but one thing that I think is also a factor is just how dangerous the HT 'invasion' was judged to be. My guess is not very - an exile and a group of mercenaries. Once those mercenaries had landed they would have nowhere to go except fight or back to the continent. If they lost, and I bet everyone thought they would, then in wouldn't take long to make mincemeat of them. So if I were an older HS like Wake I probably wouldn't worry or hurry too much. After all most of Richard's army were his own seasoned soldiers from the Scottish campaign. If they could take Berwick then a few mercenaries shouldn't pose much difficulty should they? Sadly it's all about that fatal charge. Any other outcome where Richard survived (even if it meant temporary exile) would have almost certainly resulted in him eventually regaining the throne. After all he had Maximilien for support. A real heroic tragedy! For once I agree with Starkey who said that Richard's great failure was his death.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-10 21:27:25
Durose David
Doug,I think I can confirm that Wales was the intended landing place. I read (I think it was in the history of the French Navy) that they used detailed charts of the area drawn up by Jean Coatanlem. He was a Breton who operated as a corsair in the service of Louis XI.
He was involved in the so-called Sack of Bristol in 1484. Which was probably more like a sea battle at which several citizens of Bristol were captured.
Regards David
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 18:38, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []<> wrote:

Hilary, I agree that the actual military force HT brought with him wasn't enough to defeat Richard in open battle. However it was large enough to require Richard to move towards wherever that force landed, unless Richard adopted tactics that required HT and his forces to come to him. Militarily speaking, either would have been acceptable, the only question being what would happen in those areas Richard either cleared of supporters by taking them with him or, conversely, in the areas Richard didn't defend by holding back and not meeting HT's troops as near their landing site as possible. AFAIK, we don't have any records of rebellion arising anywhere outside of Wales. While some HS's defected, they didn't bring any substantial number of armed men with them, so the idea that England somehow rejected Richard in favor of HT is, in itself, false to begin with. Of course, that also means that is England didn't reject Richard, then how did HT manage to take the throne? By treachery, of course. And that, I think, is where the idolatry of the Tudor dynasty comes in. Besides the fact that very few people want to be known as traitors or having gotten their position/s via treachery, for some reason the idea that the Tudor dynasty was established on the throne via acts of treason is considered to somehow invalidate the accomplishments of the members of that dynasty. I can understand why the members of the dynasty, from HVII to his grand-daughter, were, um sensitive? about how they got the throne and did all they could to enhance the family's reputation, but once they were gone there was no need for any true historian to aid and abet them in those efforts. For example, HT's only accomplishment that comes to mind is that he managed to keep the throne. H8 made it possible for the Reformation to add England to its' numbers and Elizabeth proved a very competent monarch in very dangerous times. Why that's not enough, I'll never know! To be honest, I've never given any thought to the idea of a second exile for Richard. I agree that, had Richard had to flee, it's almost certain he'd also have returned and tossed HT off the throne. The only complication I can think of would be that Maximilian might be reluctant to risk a war with France, as that country would likely side with the non-aggressive Tudor over the more war-like York. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I love your atlas and military acumen! I hadn't noticed the 'border' thing - a good case of familiarity with somewhere can cause you to neglect the obvious. I'm just rushing off and will come back in more detail but one thing that I think is also a factor is just how dangerous the HT 'invasion' was judged to be. My guess is not very - an exile and a group of mercenaries. Once those mercenaries had landed they would have nowhere to go except fight or back to the continent. If they lost, and I bet everyone thought they would, then in wouldn't take long to make mincemeat of them. So if I were an older HS like Wake I probably wouldn't worry or hurry too much. After all most of Richard's army were his own seasoned soldiers from the Scottish campaign. If they could take Berwick then a few mercenaries shouldn't pose much difficulty should they? Sadly it's all about that fatal charge. Any other outcome where Richard survived (even if it meant temporary exile) would have almost certainly resulted in him eventually regaining the throne. After all he had Maximilien for support. A real heroic tragedy! For once I agree with Starkey who said that Richard's great failure was his death.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-10 23:17:14
ricard1an
Yes Doug I agree Tudor took the throne by treachery and not only the treachery of the Stanleys, he brought a foreign force of French mercenaries to invade England probably with the agreement of the French King. Well he was a quarter French too. So all this nonsense about his Welsh ancestry ( if he ever had any Welsh ancestry) is just a smokescreen to hide his treachery.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-11 05:28:53
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V? I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion. Doug here: My understanding is that the High Sheriffs being referred to were appointed/confirmed by Richard. Hilary mentioned that the term of service one year and I'm presuming the year varied according to when the original appointment was made.
Nico continued: Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity. Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart. Doug here: Personally, I don't believe Buckingham was a member of the original conspiracy. That was, I believe, formed by Elizabeth Woodville and her relatives allied to MB and whomever she could bring in, plus any E4 Yorkists who'd been replaced by Richard's appointees. The whole idea was, I think, to ally whatever remained of the Lancastrians, via HT's proposed marriage to EoY, to the Woodvilles and their adherents and any and all disgruntled Yorkists that could be brought in. The thing is, the rebellion lacked a central figure to gather around. Elizabeth Woodville was still in sanctuary and couldn't adopt a Margaret of Anjou role, Tudor was in Brittany and wasn't that well known, and the subject of the rebellion, was in Richard's keeping. Which is why Morton turned his charms on Buckingham. Buckingham was well-known, or his name was at least. It's quite easy to see why he might have felt Richard had side-lined him; else why was he in Wales and not in attendance on the king? What I think caused the rebellion to fall apart was basically bad luck, or rather bad weather. The only hope the rebels had for success was to strike quickly and that eluded them. Tudor didn't depart on time and when he did leave was held back from landing by adverse winds. Buckingham's attempts to raised troops was severely hampered by the autumn rains, and by Richard's quick actions in stomping on the risings in the southeast. The plan, as best I can make out, was to either get Richard to divide his forces between meeting the risings in the southeast and fending off Buckingham's and Tudor's men in the west/southwest. However, the risings in the southeast failed or were quickly suppressed and Buckingham's and Tudor's groups never got to unite; the first because of the over-flowing rivers and the latter because of his ships couldn't land. I really do think that the rumor about the boys' deaths was just that  a rumor. I can't see Richard being the originator because, at that point in time, the boys were still in the Tower and even if their movements there were more circumscribed than previously, their not being there would be noticed. The only contemporary, or near-contemporary, reference to the rumor (Croyland) states it as being just that  a rumor. There's no mention in Croyland of the rumor having been proven true; well, that I know of. FWIW, I'm still inclined to believe that the rumor was designed to make Buckingham not only the head of the rebellion, but also the one for which it was being carried out. Had the weather cooperated, and the risings in the southeast been more formidable, the ploy might have worked. Nico concluded: I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV. If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.  Doug here: The obsequies for Edward of Middleham may have been low-key, but they were known to have happened. If EV had died, why wouldn't his mother know? Or his grandmother? Or his cousins, the de la Poles? Yet, as far as we do know, none of those people knew whether Edward was alive or dead. While I'm certainly open to the idea that Richard of Eastwell might indeed have been Edward living under an alias, there's also the possibility that, sometime between Bosworth and the appearance of Perkin Warbeck, Edward died. It may have occurred at wherever he was in hiding and been of natural causes. It may have been that he was killed, robbed perhaps for his clothing and money, as he was fleeing to some place of safety. In regards to that mass in Rome, I know just from reading the BBC online that quite often nowadays memorial services for some well-known person may occur quite a lengthy time after that person's actual death. Does anyone know when and how memorial masses for the dead were scheduled? Is it possible that the mass commemorating the death of Edward fits this pattern? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-11 05:51:25
Doug Stamate
Mary, It's only my view, but I think what got Hastings involved with EW and MB was that it appeared that the Council was going to accept the Pre-Contract and all that it meant in debarring Edward IV's children from the throne. As I see it, as long as Edward V was on the throne, there was a place for Hastings in the group that would be running the country. He'd no longer be the Chamberlain to the King, with all the perks that brought, but his support would still be needed on the Council by Richard in order to balance whatever influence the Woodvilles would have in that body. OTOH, if Richard became king in his own right, Hastings' value to Richard would disappear. There's no proof that Richard held Hastings responsible for Edward's less savory activities, but we do know that it was Richard and Buckingham who were together all the time and not Richard and Hastings. Nor do we know what Hastings actually would have done had Edward V remained on the throne. Cut some sort of deal with the Woodvilles if he thought he wasn't being appreciated enough by the Protector? Doug Mary wrote: So Nico, looking at your thoughts that Buckingham could have been disgruntled because he wasn't as influential as he thought he might have been, could it have been that it was Buckingham that was jealous of Hastings not the other way around. Yes, Buckingham was given lots of lands etc but if he wasn't capable of high office but Hastings was, then Richard might have turned to Hastings after all it was Hastings that supposedly told him about Edward's death when the Woodvilles had neglected to do so. The Woodvilles were obviously trying to keep Richard away from London until after E5 had been crowned but Hastings ruined their plan. Not sure how this fits in with Rivers keeping Edward at Ludlow until the end of April but it could have been that there were other people in London, apart from Hastings, that might have taken over E5 and not allowed the Coronation to take place before Richard arrived, the members of the Council for instance. Hastings might then have be en set up by EW and MB which led to Richard thinking that Hastings was plotting against him. Then afterwards Tudor propaganda gave out the story of Hastings treason and traditionalist historians carried the myth on.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-11 05:54:42
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I wonder if your idea of Buckingham having a crush on Richard might not also apply if Buckingham felt he was being, well, ignored? Everything I've read about him leads me to believe that he had an extremely high opinion of himself. If that opinion was based on more than his royal bloodline, mightn't being kept out of Richard's inner circle have produced the same reaction, or nearly so anyway? Doug Hilary wrote: Sorry Nico I meant Edward IV! I think there is a logic to all of this except Buckingham, who seems to have thrown everything and everyone up in the air. There was a light-hearted discussion on one of the other blogs I found about whether he had a 'crush' on Richard; whether he thought he could become another Gaveston but got slapped down and the rejection was just too much. The more extreme his actions become and the more reckless he becomes I think this is not as daft as it may seem. There's nothing worse I imagine in getting an assumption like that terribly wrong. And of course Richard, who had now lost two brothers, may well have been looking for friendship from the family and unintentionally misled him to thinking he was closer than he really was. Other than that I can only think he must have been seriously mad. It's interesting how his aunt MB was quick to distance herself from him. He could have done a lot of serious damage to every cause. Participants were lucky that Richard was so generous when it came to punishing most of them. Too generous as it turned out! H BTW did you ever do a chart on HT? That would indeed be fascinating and I guess rather sad.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-11 08:09:24
Doug Stamate
Hilary You wrote Why in one instance should he [Hastings] warn Richard and support the Council against the Woodvilles and the next flip over to them? Because between those two instances Edward V was being faced with the possibility of being declared a bastard? And possibly more importantly, Richard becoming king in his own right. Other than Hastings alerting Richard that the Woodvilles were up to no good, we really don't have anything that to support the idea that Hastings viewed himself as a supporter of Richard. All that letter demonstrates, to me anyway, is that Hastings, for whatever reason/s, didn't support the Woodville faction. Hastings support of Richard may have been due as much, if not more, to the simple fact that Richard as Protector was more in Hastings' interests than a Woodville-controlled young boy as king. As Protector, even with the power and authority that would go with that position, Richard would still need as much support as he could get. Hastings' support, and the knowledge Hastings possessed about the various London personalities associated with Court and government, would be an asset worth quite a bit to Richard. So, even though Richard spent his time with Buckingham and Hastings was placed on the Coronation Committee, rather than the one that actually governed the country, I can imagine Hastings wasn't too worried. Once EV was crowned, he [Hastings] would return to the Council, play his part in supporting Richard and, or so I imagine Hastings thought, be rewarded as a result of that support. I also tend to believe that even if Hastings knew about how Richard felt about him, Hastings thought the situation was such that his support would still be welcomed. Personally, I think that, had things gone as Hastings imagined, with Richard becoming Protector and EV was crowned, he'd have been disappointed because I don't think Richard would been dealing out rewards and favors to get people to do what he considered to be their duty. At any rate, that didn't happen. What did happen was the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council and, to quote a certain Doctor of Archaeology, That's when everything changes. That bit above where I wrote that it would be hard for me to imagine Richard as Protector handing out rewards applies even more should Richard become king. And I think Hastings recognized that, which is why he ended up involved in a plot to kill Richard. As far as I know, Hastings may have been one of the very first people to think the Pre-Contract was nothing but a swindle put up by Richard in order to grab the throne. But whatever Hastings believed, or didn't believe, he was apparently open to the idea of killing Richard so that Edward V could remain on the throne. With Richard dead, the Pre-Contract could be treated as it has on the whole since 1485  a ploy to remove Edward from the throne so Richard could take it. And without an adult male to step in (I don't count Buckingham, although that may have been when he first got the idea), sticking with the present occupant would be the simplest and most likely course. Which would then place Hastings back into the center of things, just as he'd been with Edward IV. I hope that makes sense? Doug Hilary wrote: This sounds very reasonable Mary. It wouldn't surprise me at all! And if Rivers was in East Anglia and not in Ludlow then Edward's party might already have set out before he could stop them. I have always believed Hastings to have been set up. Why in one instance should he warn Richard and support the Council against the Woodvilles and in the next flip over to them? He knew Richard had reason to be grateful to him and needed him - he was the most experienced commander left. No way could Bucks match that. Hastings had been used to Edward occasionally pouring out money and titles on favourites but it never phased him. And Bucks was a cousin and one of the only blood relatives left. I agree. I think this is yet another story we've been sold about 'Richard's blood-stained path to the throne'.
--
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} [Richard

2018-11-11 16:34:06
Doug Stamate
David wrote: I think I can confirm that Wales was the intended landing place. I read (I think it was in the history of the French Navy) that they used detailed charts of the area drawn up by Jean Coatanlem. He was a Breton who operated as a corsair in the service of Louis XI. He was involved in the so-called Sack of Bristol in 1484. Which was probably more like a sea battle at which several citizens of Bristol were captured. Doug here: Thank you for that information! However, I think my original idea still has military merit in that, even if Tudor planned all along to land in Wales, if he could distract Richard's attention by gaining the support of HS's along the south coast, Richard could be expected to even further divide his forces between putting down the uprisings in the southeast, forming up a force to protect the southern ports and still provide an army to defeat Tudor's main force as it made its' way eastwards into central England. Divide and conquer, is the phrase, I believe. As it was, even though the HS's in central England did defect, they didn't bring many men with them so, instead of Tudor marching into a region where he might expect a reasonable amount of military support, he marched into an area where the troops had mustered for Richard. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-12 10:18:15
nico11238
Hi Doug,
I agree with you that the weather was a big factor in the rebellion falling apart. HT couldn't even land and Buckingham was stranded. Where Buckingham came into the rebellion is the question, but the Woodvilles may have sought his support at an early stage through Katherine Woodville. He probably wasn't interested in the beginning, as he set his sights on Richard, but when that was unsatisfactory, he switched. Alternatively, he could have been a fence sitter like Stanley, and never ruled out the Woodvilles if Richard proved unsatisfactory. I could also see Morton working on him, but later getting cold feet when he knew the rebellion would fail.
I am in two minds as to whether Buckingham would support Edward V, as he had a better legal claim for himself. Even if he supported the idea of his restoration, there was a self importance about him that suggests that he would struggle with playing second fiddle to a royal bastard. Alternatively, Edward died and he jumped in to fill the gap, but he wasn't met with any enthusiasm.
I get the impression that Edward may well have died at some point before Perkin Warbeck came on the scene. However, it wasn't impossible that Edward had no desire to pursue his own claims, so PW had to say he was dead or his own claim wouldn't be valid. If the obsequies for Edward of Middleham were low key, then anything for a royal bastard would be lower still. Actually, when we were trying to date EofM's passing last year, we struggled to find any evidence for his death besides Rous and Croyland writing at least a year later, although I think Marie came up with a contemporary record. J-AH mentions the papal mass for King Edward,and there is an old Ricardian article on it, where the author concludes that it could also have been for Edward IV. It is: CSL Davies, A Requiem for King Edward, The Ricardian, September 1991
I wouldn't rule out the idea that EV was sickly. That signature looks like he can't write properly. Was it physical weakness or was he mentally defective? Either one would have caused consternation for the Woodvilles and an anxiety in their quest to get him crowned, as if it were known that he would have difficultly governing he was at risk of being pushed aside in favour of a capable adult. They may have known he wouldn't be king for long, but once he was crowned they could consolidate their power base, and prepare young Richard to succeed him.
Croyland says the Princes were still in the Tower in September, but was he sure? I have always thought it possible that they were moved as soon as possible after the rescue attempt. FWIW, in his manifesto before the Scottish invasion, PW says that they were both taken abroad, and then Edward died.
Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-12 10:25:48
Hilary Jones
Hi both and thanks David!
I think, given the difficulties of navigating the channel, that HT would have to have quite a few places (like Southampton) in reserve. For example, in 1471 MOA chose to land at Weymouth (Lancastrian territory) but another ship carrying Anne Beauchamp was forced to land on the Hampshire coast. Even the Conqueror was forced to launch his attack from France (St Valery), not Normandy, because his fleet had been blown back there on a first attempt.
I would agree though that in terms of on the ground support and the chance to gather a few more men in Wales Milford Haven was a good choice. But it's an awful long way - even by road today. Lovell of course was guarding the south coast was he not? H
On Sunday, 11 November 2018, 16:35:40 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

David wrote: I think I can confirm that Wales was the intended landing place. I read (I think it was in the history of the French Navy) that they used detailed charts of the area drawn up by Jean Coatanlem. He was a Breton who operated as a corsair in the service of Louis XI. He was involved in the so-called Sack of Bristol in 1484. Which was probably more like a sea battle at which several citizens of Bristol were captured. Doug here: Thank you for that information! However, I think my original idea still has military merit in that, even if Tudor planned all along to land in Wales, if he could distract Richard's attention by gaining the support of HS's along the south coast, Richard could be expected to even further divide his forces between putting down the uprisings in the southeast, forming up a force to protect the southern ports and still provide an army to defeat Tudor's main force as it made its' way eastwards into central England. Divide and conquer, is the phrase, I believe. As it was, even though the HS's in central England did defect, they didn't bring many men with them so, instead of Tudor marching into a region where he might expect a reasonable amount of military support, he marched into an area where the troops had mustered for Richard. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-12 13:03:22
Hilary Jones
Just to chip in, the other thing that makes me think that EV didn't last long was that certainly by 1487 he would be on the verge of manhood - getting on for the age when Richard fought at Barnet and Edward took the throne. Potential kings were still in those days brought up foremost to be warriors yet we never actually hear of the young Edward participating in anything like that, even as a child, do we? Or having a junior suit of armour? That writing is not right for a potential renaissance king. Young Edward had an undefeated warrior father. Surely by the late 1480s he'd have appeared on the European scene with the backing of Maximilen?
BTW Doug on the subject of Maximilien, Flanders and the Low Countries were well aware of French ambitions way before 1483. He would probably like nothing better than to kick the French in the teeth by restoring Richard. And of course no doubt part of the French strategy of supporting HT was to divert warrior king Richard away from French ambitions in Europe. And of course it so badly backfired. H
On Monday, 12 November 2018, 10:48:27 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I agree with you that the weather was a big factor in the rebellion falling apart. HT couldn't even land and Buckingham was stranded. Where Buckingham came into the rebellion is the question, but the Woodvilles may have sought his support at an early stage through Katherine Woodville. He probably wasn't interested in the beginning, as he set his sights on Richard, but when that was unsatisfactory, he switched. Alternatively, he could have been a fence sitter like Stanley, and never ruled out the Woodvilles if Richard proved unsatisfactory. I could also see Morton working on him, but later getting cold feet when he knew the rebellion would fail.
I am in two minds as to whether Buckingham would support Edward V, as he had a better legal claim for himself. Even if he supported the idea of his restoration, there was a self importance about him that suggests that he would struggle with playing second fiddle to a royal bastard. Alternatively, Edward died and he jumped in to fill the gap, but he wasn't met with any enthusiasm.
I get the impression that Edward may well have died at some point before Perkin Warbeck came on the scene. However, it wasn't impossible that Edward had no desire to pursue his own claims, so PW had to say he was dead or his own claim wouldn't be valid. If the obsequies for Edward of Middleham were low key, then anything for a royal bastard would be lower still. Actually, when we were trying to date EofM's passing last year, we struggled to find any evidence for his death besides Rous and Croyland writing at least a year later, although I think Marie came up with a contemporary record. J-AH mentions the papal mass for King Edward,and there is an old Ricardian article on it, where the author concludes that it could also have been for Edward IV. It is: CSL Davies, A Requiem for King Edward, The Ricardian, September 1991
I wouldn't rule out the idea that EV was sickly. That signature looks like he can't write properly. Was it physical weakness or was he mentally defective? Either one would have caused consternation for the Woodvilles and an anxiety in their quest to get him crowned, as if it were known that he would have difficultly governing he was at risk of being pushed aside in favour of a capable adult. They may have known he wouldn't be king for long, but once he was crowned they could consolidate their power base, and prepare young Richard to succeed him.
Croyland says the Princes were still in the Tower in September, but was he sure? I have always thought it possible that they were moved as soon as possible after the rescue attempt. FWIW, in his manifesto before the Scottish invasion, PW says that they were both taken abroad, and then Edward died.
Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-12 13:22:31
Hilary Jones
I think it could have been something as simple as Richard saying that Bucks wasn't needed on the Progress - something which would make 'normal' courtiers sigh with relief! But to Bucks that was rejection most terrible; he wasn't needed to sit next to Richard, to offer his invaluable advice etc etc. It's often the simple things which can inadvertently cause the most trouble. H
On Sunday, 11 November 2018, 05:56:16 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I wonder if your idea of Buckingham having a crush on Richard might not also apply if Buckingham felt he was being, well, ignored? Everything I've read about him leads me to believe that he had an extremely high opinion of himself. If that opinion was based on more than his royal bloodline, mightn't being kept out of Richard's inner circle have produced the same reaction, or nearly so anyway? Doug Hilary wrote: Sorry Nico I meant Edward IV! I think there is a logic to all of this except Buckingham, who seems to have thrown everything and everyone up in the air. There was a light-hearted discussion on one of the other blogs I found about whether he had a 'crush' on Richard; whether he thought he could become another Gaveston but got slapped down and the rejection was just too much. The more extreme his actions become and the more reckless he becomes I think this is not as daft as it may seem.. There's nothing worse I imagine in getting an assumption like that terribly wrong. And of course Richard, who had now lost two brothers, may well have been looking for friendship from the family and unintentionally misled him to thinking he was closer than he really was. Other than that I can only think he must have been seriously mad. It's interesting how his aunt MB was quick to distance herself from him. He could have done a lot of serious damage to every cause. Participants were lucky that Richard was so generous when it came to punishing most of them. Too generous as it turned out! H BTW did you ever do a chart on HT? That would indeed be fascinating and I guess rather sad.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-12 13:29:28
Hilary Jones
Strangely enough Doug I've never had the impression that Hastings was that ambitious. Yes he had the captaincy of Calais - but that got him into trouble for disobeying Edward. Other than that I reckon he enjoyed the life he had and 'ruling' wasn't part of it. Unless that life was threatened if the Woodvilles took over.
If you look at peoples' families you can often spot the ambitious. The Stanleys never missed a marriage trick which is why they had so many affinities. Apart from his heir, Hastings's family on the other hand married into the usual local gentry - no great ambition there.
But, silly H, I did spot his brother-in-law - Sir John Donne! That being said the rest of his family turned out for Richard at Bosworth - which actually says something - I think! H

On Sunday, 11 November 2018, 05:55:53 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, It's only my view, but I think what got Hastings involved with EW and MB was that it appeared that the Council was going to accept the Pre-Contract and all that it meant in debarring Edward IV's children from the throne. As I see it, as long as Edward V was on the throne, there was a place for Hastings in the group that would be running the country. He'd no longer be the Chamberlain to the King, with all the perks that brought, but his support would still be needed on the Council by Richard in order to balance whatever influence the Woodvilles would have in that body. OTOH, if Richard became king in his own right, Hastings' value to Richard would disappear. There's no proof that Richard held Hastings responsible for Edward's less savory activities, but we do know that it was Richard and Buckingham who were together all the time and not Richard and Hastings. Nor do we know what Hastings actually would have done had Edward V remained on the throne. Cut some sort of deal with the Woodvilles if he thought he wasn't being appreciated enough by the Protector? Doug Mary wrote: So Nico, looking at your thoughts that Buckingham could have been disgruntled because he wasn't as influential as he thought he might have been, could it have been that it was Buckingham that was jealous of Hastings not the other way around. Yes, Buckingham was given lots of lands etc but if he wasn't capable of high office but Hastings was, then Richard might have turned to Hastings after all it was Hastings that supposedly told him about Edward's death when the Woodvilles had neglected to do so. The Woodvilles were obviously trying to keep Richard away from London until after E5 had been crowned but Hastings ruined their plan. Not sure how this fits in with Rivers keeping Edward at Ludlow until the end of April but it could have been that there were other people in London, apart from Hastings, that might have taken over E5 and not allowed the Coronation to take place before Richard arrived, the members of the Council for instance. Hastings might then have be en set up by EW and MB which led to Richard thinking that Hastings was plotting against him. Then afterwards Tudor propaganda gave out the story of Hastings treason and traditionalist historians carried the myth on.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-12 16:40:51
ricard1an
Just googled Sir John Donne and came up with an interesting article on Wiki, well if you can trust Wiki. Apparently his family were ardent Yorkists, he was quite close to Edward and may have gone into exile with him. He also had a close connection to Margaret of Burgundy and her step daughter Marie. It also mentions his connection to Morton.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-12 18:57:36
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Yes Doug I agree Tudor took the throne by treachery and not only the treachery of the Stanleys, he brought a foreign force of French mercenaries to invade England probably with the agreement of the French King. Well he was a quarter French too. So all this nonsense about his Welsh ancestry ( if he ever had any Welsh ancestry) is just a smokescreen to hide his treachery. Doug here: As I wrote, I can easily see why Tudor wanted to downplay the treason that got him the throne, and I can understand why the Tudor chroniclers went along with it. After all, in order to get their books published, they had to get Royal permission via, I think, the Lord Chancellor. However, we have plenty of evidence that, once Elizabeth I died, amateur antiquaries started digging and began producing contrary evidence, evidence backed up by solid research too! I suppose that it was just easier to go along with the chroniclers in their glorification of the Tudor dynasty, but it certainly doesn't reflect well on those who did. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-12 20:44:17
Doug Stamate
Hilary, The more I think on it, the more it starts to look as if Tudor was the bait designed to draw Richard away from his support in the east and London. It would also mean that Tudor expected a fairly substantial force to be assembled to either meet up with him or else to force Richard to divide his own forces. That's almost certainly what, IMO anyway, the risings in the southeast were designed to do. If they also managed to defeat any forces sent against them, all the better, but as long as they forced Richard to subtract forces from those he would lead against Tudor  that was the main point. That Richard didn't have to split his forces, that he had more than enough support to simultaneously send man against the risings and collect a large force to meet Tudor almost scuppered Tudor's plans. Or, more likely, the plans of his advisors, because it also looks to me as if much of what occurred in 1485 was based on the advice of exiles who were over-estimating the support Tudor actually had in England. However, if what I'm proposing is anywhere near the truth, then that also means that Tudor expected substantial reinforcements as he made his way eastwards, and not just in the form of Welsh irregulars, but from those HS's (and possibly Stanley?). Doug Hilary wrote: Hi both and thanks David! I think, given the difficulties of navigating the channel, that HT would have to have quite a few places (like Southampton) in reserve. For example, in 1471 MOA chose to land at Weymouth (Lancastrian territory) but another ship carrying Anne Beauchamp was forced to land on the Hampshire coast. Even the Conqueror was forced to launch his attack from France (St Valery), not Normandy, because his fleet had been blown back there on a first attempt. I would agree though that in terms of on the ground support and the chance to gather a few more men in Wales Milford Haven was a good choice. But it's an awful long way - even by road today. Lovell of course was guarding the south coast was he not?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-13 09:45:24
Hilary Jones
It's also interesting that he must have not fallen foul of HT who let him and his wife be buried at St George's Windsor. I wonder if that was to be near Edward and Hastings? H
(And of course we have his picture in the tryptich)
On Monday, 12 November 2018, 17:05:57 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just googled Sir John Donne and came up with an interesting article on Wiki, well if you can trust Wiki. Apparently his family were ardent Yorkists, he was quite close to Edward and may have gone into exile with him. He also had a close connection to Margaret of Burgundy and her step daughter Marie. It also mentions his connection to Morton.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-13 10:08:35
Hilary Jones
You know if in 1483 you were to advertise for a king HT wouldn't even make the interview stage. He had no training, no reputation, no love of the wider things such as the Arts, no charisma and most of all - absolutely no entitlement. So the trappings of kingship had to be re-invented, like the Imperial Crown and the use of the term 'Majesty'. And of course the Welsh prince legends. There are so many out there claiming links to King Arthur and the Knights of Glamorgan that it makes Welsh genealogy really hard - I don't think the Heralds had the staying power to dig back, they'd be there for years. HT might have lacked a lot of qualities but he was certainly not stupid. Look at his effigy and you see a townsman, not a king. HT knew as well as anyone who he really was. And that of course created problems for his descendants.
There are a couple of questions which are rarely asked but which I'd like the answer to.
Firstly, despite his 'oath' did HT really ever expect to be king? Personally I doubt it. I reckon the aim, obviously not disclosed to his followers, was to get Richard in a position where he could force a few concessions out of him - starting with reversal of attainder and then, possibly, a place in government. Instead he found himself on a battlefield, having been unable to restrain his mercenaries from killing an anointed King, facing a future where he'd always remember that moment and where he'd never even be able to even walk through a door without thinking a similar thing would one day happen to him.
Secondly, what did MB really think of her son? She loved him as a mother of course, but did she like him when she at last met him after Bosworth? His formative years had been spent away from her. She had been embraced by the Yorkist court and had seen the talents of the Brothers York - their qualities as warriors, their patronage of education and the arts, their charisma, their ability to command loyalty (even Clarence). In the twenty plus years she was forced to observe the rule of her son there must have been moments when she knew full well that the man he displaced had been far more suitable for kingship than this paranoid, friendless, obsessive loner? H


On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:33:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary wrote: Yes Doug I agree Tudor took the throne by treachery and not only the treachery of the Stanleys, he brought a foreign force of French mercenaries to invade England probably with the agreement of the French King. Well he was a quarter French too. So all this nonsense about his Welsh ancestry ( if he ever had any Welsh ancestry) is just a smokescreen to hide his treachery. Doug here: As I wrote, I can easily see why Tudor wanted to downplay the treason that got him the throne, and I can understand why the Tudor chroniclers went along with it. After all, in order to get their books published, they had to get Royal permission via, I think, the Lord Chancellor. However, we have plenty of evidence that, once Elizabeth I died, amateur antiquaries started digging and began producing contrary evidence, evidence backed up by solid research too! I suppose that it was just easier to go along with the chroniclers in their glorification of the Tudor dynasty, but it certainly doesn't reflect well on those who did. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-13 10:24:08
Hilary Jones
I agree entirely Doug. I live about half an hour from Bosworth Field and it's pretty much in the centre of England (well Meriden has that accolade but it's not far out). Milford Haven is about as far away as you can get, I know I've been there. I suppose the only thing which equates is the south of Cornwall, but in those days the Welsh journey would have been much more rigorous and extremely risky if Richard had sent a force into Wales to meet him. Very wisely he didn't. And it's so easy to become trapped by the Severn, as was MOA before Tewkesbury when she was trying to go the other way.
So I agree, there must have been others along and surrounding the route on standby. A lot of them must have been the 1483 rebels as is evidenced by their being given HS positions in November 1485. Almost certainly Tocotes - did he turn up for Richard then change side when given the signal by the Stanleys - and Humphrey Stanley. Was Robert Carre in Hampshire on standby if HT needed to make a dash for Southampton? And of course this points to the re-activation of the Woodville network - passed to MB by EW and much more carefully used?
Like everything else the history of this period had to be re-invented. Richard had to be made to look bad, unpopular, a child murderer. How else can you justify killing a competent King who had been chosen by Parliament. What really disappoints me is that the excellent historians like Horrox, Carpenter and dare I say it even Hicks, have actually fallen for this. But then 'bad' people are always more interesting than good ones and that is what the media of its day has ever thought. H
On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:47:28 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The more I think on it, the more it starts to look as if Tudor was the bait designed to draw Richard away from his support in the east and London. It would also mean that Tudor expected a fairly substantial force to be assembled to either meet up with him or else to force Richard to divide his own forces. That's almost certainly what, IMO anyway, the risings in the southeast were designed to do. If they also managed to defeat any forces sent against them, all the better, but as long as they forced Richard to subtract forces from those he would lead against Tudor  that was the main point. That Richard didn't have to split his forces, that he had more than enough support to simultaneously send man against the risings and collect a large force to meet Tudor almost scuppered Tudor's plans. Or, more likely, the plans of his advisors, because it also looks to me as if much of what occurred in 1485 was based on the advice of exiles who were over-estimating the support Tudor actually had in England. However, if what I'm proposing is anywhere near the truth, then that also means that Tudor expected substantial reinforcements as he made his way eastwards, and not just in the form of Welsh irregulars, but from those HS's (and possibly Stanley?). Doug Hilary wrote: Hi both and thanks David! I think, given the difficulties of navigating the channel, that HT would have to have quite a few places (like Southampton) in reserve. For example, in 1471 MOA chose to land at Weymouth (Lancastrian territory) but another ship carrying Anne Beauchamp was forced to land on the Hampshire coast. Even the Conqueror was forced to launch his attack from France (St Valery), not Normandy, because his fleet had been blown back there on a first attempt. I would agree though that in terms of on the ground support and the chance to gather a few more men in Wales Milford Haven was a good choice. But it's an awful long way - even by road today. Lovell of course was guarding the south coast was he not?
--
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} [Richard

2018-11-13 11:24:16
Paul Trevor Bale
I like you thinking here Hilary! Especially the question did MB actually like her son? He might have been king, and given her much she could never have hoped for, but he must have seemed a real disappointment in comparison as you say to the charismatic and talented York boys!Pail

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 nov. 2018 à 11:08, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

You know if in 1483 you were to advertise for a king HT wouldn't even make the interview stage. He had no training, no reputation, no love of the wider things such as the Arts, no charisma and most of all - absolutely no entitlement. So the trappings of kingship had to be re-invented, like the Imperial Crown and the use of the term 'Majesty'. And of course the Welsh prince legends. There are so many out there claiming links to King Arthur and the Knights of Glamorgan that it makes Welsh genealogy really hard - I don't think the Heralds had the staying power to dig back, they'd be there for years. HT might have lacked a lot of qualities but he was certainly not stupid. Look at his effigy and you see a townsman, not a king. HT knew as well as anyone who he really was. And that of course created problems for his descendants.
There are a couple of questions which are rarely asked but which I'd like the answer to.
Firstly, despite his 'oath' did HT really ever expect to be king? Personally I doubt it. I reckon the aim, obviously not disclosed to his followers, was to get Richard in a position where he could force a few concessions out of him - starting with reversal of attainder and then, possibly, a place in government. Instead he found himself on a battlefield, having been unable to restrain his mercenaries from killing an anointed King, facing a future where he'd always remember that moment and where he'd never even be able to even walk through a door without thinking a similar thing would one day happen to him.
Secondly, what did MB really think of her son? She loved him as a mother of course, but did she like him when she at last met him after Bosworth? His formative years had been spent away from her. She had been embraced by the Yorkist court and had seen the talents of the Brothers York - their qualities as warriors, their patronage of education and the arts, their charisma, their ability to command loyalty (even Clarence). In the twenty plus years she was forced to observe the rule of her son there must have been moments when she knew full well that the man he displaced had been far more suitable for kingship than this paranoid, friendless, obsessive loner? H


On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:33:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary wrote: Yes Doug I agree Tudor took the throne by treachery and not only the treachery of the Stanleys, he brought a foreign force of French mercenaries to invade England probably with the agreement of the French King. Well he was a quarter French too. So all this nonsense about his Welsh ancestry ( if he ever had any Welsh ancestry) is just a smokescreen to hide his treachery. Doug here: As I wrote, I can easily see why Tudor wanted to downplay the treason that got him the throne, and I can understand why the Tudor chroniclers went along with it. After all, in order to get their books published, they had to get Royal permission via, I think, the Lord Chancellor. However, we have plenty of evidence that, once Elizabeth I died, amateur antiquaries started digging and began producing contrary evidence, evidence backed up by solid research too! I suppose that it was just easier to go along with the chroniclers in their glorification of the Tudor dynasty, but it certainly doesn't reflect well on those who did. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-13 11:28:51
Paul Trevor Bale
Even Hicks? Why do you think this when most of his writings have been anti Richard, and often guilty of using the worst of the Tudor slanders. I'll never forgive him for his Anne Neville book alleging rape and such nonsense. Hicks should have been thrown into a deep hole with Alison Weir after that monstrosity of a publication!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 nov. 2018 à 11:23, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

I agree entirely Doug. I live about half an hour from Bosworth Field and it's pretty much in the centre of England (well Meriden has that accolade but it's not far out). Milford Haven is about as far away as you can get, I know I've been there. I suppose the only thing which equates is the south of Cornwall, but in those days the Welsh journey would have been much more rigorous and extremely risky if Richard had sent a force into Wales to meet him. Very wisely he didn't. And it's so easy to become trapped by the Severn, as was MOA before Tewkesbury when she was trying to go the other way.
So I agree, there must have been others along and surrounding the route on standby. A lot of them must have been the 1483 rebels as is evidenced by their being given HS positions in November 1485. Almost certainly Tocotes - did he turn up for Richard then change side when given the signal by the Stanleys - and Humphrey Stanley. Was Robert Carre in Hampshire on standby if HT needed to make a dash for Southampton? And of course this points to the re-activation of the Woodville network - passed to MB by EW and much more carefully used?
Like everything else the history of this period had to be re-invented. Richard had to be made to look bad, unpopular, a child murderer. How else can you justify killing a competent King who had been chosen by Parliament. What really disappoints me is that the excellent historians like Horrox, Carpenter and dare I say it even Hicks, have actually fallen for this. But then 'bad' people are always more interesting than good ones and that is what the media of its day has ever thought. H
On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:47:28 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The more I think on it, the more it starts to look as if Tudor was the bait designed to draw Richard away from his support in the east and London. It would also mean that Tudor expected a fairly substantial force to be assembled to either meet up with him or else to force Richard to divide his own forces. That's almost certainly what, IMO anyway, the risings in the southeast were designed to do. If they also managed to defeat any forces sent against them, all the better, but as long as they forced Richard to subtract forces from those he would lead against Tudor  that was the main point. That Richard didn't have to split his forces, that he had more than enough support to simultaneously send man against the risings and collect a large force to meet Tudor almost scuppered Tudor's plans. Or, more likely, the plans of his advisors, because it also looks to me as if much of what occurred in 1485 was based on the advice of exiles who were over-estimating the support Tudor actually had in England. However, if what I'm proposing is anywhere near the truth, then that also means that Tudor expected substantial reinforcements as he made his way eastwards, and not just in the form of Welsh irregulars, but from those HS's (and possibly Stanley?). Doug Hilary wrote: Hi both and thanks David! I think, given the difficulties of navigating the channel, that HT would have to have quite a few places (like Southampton) in reserve. For example, in 1471 MOA chose to land at Weymouth (Lancastrian territory) but another ship carrying Anne Beauchamp was forced to land on the Hampshire coast. Even the Conqueror was forced to launch his attack from France (St Valery), not Normandy, because his fleet had been blown back there on a first attempt. I would agree though that in terms of on the ground support and the chance to gather a few more men in Wales Milford Haven was a good choice. But it's an awful long way - even by road today. Lovell of course was guarding the south coast was he not?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-13 16:12:37
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I agree with you that the weather was a big factor in the rebellion falling apart. HT couldn't even land and Buckingham was stranded. Where Buckingham came into the rebellion is the question, but the Woodvilles may have sought his support at an early stage through Katherine Woodville. He probably wasn't interested in the beginning, as he set his sights on Richard, but when that was unsatisfactory, he switched. Alternatively, he could have been a fence sitter like Stanley, and never ruled out the Woodvilles if Richard proved unsatisfactory. I could also see Morton working on him, but later getting cold feet when he knew the rebellion would fail. Doug here: For right now, I tend to view Buckingham's actions as being divided into two periods; the first would be when he was being loaded with honors by Richard and seemingly, had the world by the tail, the second would be when he realized that he wasn't going to be included in Richard's inner governing circle. Of course, just where the dividing line between the two is the crux. I rather think his switching began in late August 1483 and was then encouraged by Morton once the two were at Brecon. I don't know of anything that could define more precisely just when and how, darn it! Nico continued: I am in two minds as to whether Buckingham would support Edward V, as he had a better legal claim for himself. Even if he supported the idea of his restoration, there was a self importance about him that suggests that he would struggle with playing second fiddle to a royal bastard. Alternatively, Edward died and he jumped in to fill the gap, but he wasn't met with any enthusiasm. Doug here: Buckingham's claim was only better if one accepted the claim of a Pre-Contract as being true and, AFAIK, that was never the position of the Woodville party. So when Buckingham joined up, it would have been on the basis of restoring the rightful and true king to his throne with Buckingham replacing Richard as Protector. I think where the Woodville plan fell apart was actually Morton's fault in that the good bishop oversold Stafford on the latter being so perfectly positioned to replace Richard because of Buckingham's royal descent. And I think Morton realized exactly what he'd done, which is why, when the two parted, Morton immediately made for cover and, again as far as I know, made absolutely no attempt to raise the countryside in favor of Edward V. I agree that replacing Edward V with a potential Henry VII from the House of Stafford, was a no go, which is why Morton acted as he did. I'm torn between the tow possibilities that it was Buckingham's idea to base his claim to the throne on the boys being dead or Morton attempting to squash the rebellion before too many future potential supporters came out only to be defeated. For the present, I m going with the supposition that Buckingham, with Morton emphasizing how fitted Stafford was to replace Richard as Protector, got the brilliant idea that, if Richard could step from being Protector to becoming King, then so could he. If that is the case, then it follows that the rumor about the boys' deaths originated with Buckingham. Nor can I imagine how Stafford expected to get throne unless the boys were dead... Nico continued: I get the impression that Edward may well have died at some point before Perkin Warbeck came on the scene. However, it wasn't impossible that Edward had no desire to pursue his own claims, so PW had to say he was dead or his own claim wouldn't be valid. If the obsequies for Edward of Middleham were low key, then anything for a royal bastard would be lower still. Actually, when we were trying to date EofM's passing last year, we struggled to find any evidence for his death besides Rous and Croyland writing at least a year later, although I think Marie came up with a contemporary record. J-AH mentions the papal mass for King Edward,and there is an old Ricardian article on it, where the author concludes that it could also have been for Edward IV. It is: CSL Davies, A Requiem for Kin g Edward, The Ricardian, September 1991. I wouldn't rule out the idea that EV was sickly. That signature looks like he can't write properly. Was it physical weakness or was he mentally defective? Either one would have caused consternation for the Woodvilles and an anxiety in their quest to get him crowned, as if it were known that he would have difficultly governing he was at risk of being pushed aside in favour of a capable adult. They may have known he wouldn't be king for long, but once he was crowned they could consolidate their power base, and prepare young Richard to succeed him. Doug here: I quite agree that any funeral for a royal bastard, even if he'd once been proclaimed king, would be much more private than that of his father, but it still doesn't explain HT's post-Bosworth actions. As best we can determine, even by the time Tyrrell was executed, Tudor didn't know what had happened to his wife's brothers. If Edward had died while Richard was king, there was no reason his mother and grandmother wouldn't have known. Even if his death/funeral wasn't generally known, Richard would certainly have informed those two. Yet, as far as is known, neither ever told Tudor he didn't have to worry about Edward trying to regain the throne because he was dead. Barring any more evidence, I don't think Edward was sickly. It's true he had Argentine (sp?) in attendance when he moved into the Tower in May 1483, but Argentine was removed from his position around the time the Pre-Contract was announced and accepted by the Three Estates as the basis of their petition to Richard. If Edward really had been sickly, there was no reason for Richard to not keep a doctor in attendance, even if that doctor wasn't Argentine. As for that shaky signature, FWIW, it reminds me of my first writing, attempts. Or my first attempts at printing, for that matter. Is there any record of Edward needing to write any responses to questions from his tutor/s while he was in Wales? And we have to remember that, as far as we know, there was no urgency placed on his tutor/s in preparing him for his eventual duties as king. Nico concluded: Croyland says the Princes were still in the Tower in September, but was he sure? I have always thought it possible that they were moved as soon as possible after the rescue attempt. FWIW, in his manifesto before the Scottish invasion, PW says that they were both taken abroad, and then Edward died. Doug here: There's also that reference to the boys not being seen in the Tower after Easter. Neither was in the Tower until May 1483, well after Easter that year, so it can't refer to that year as they wouldn't be seen in the Tower until after Easter anyway. That leaves the Easters of 1484 and 1485 as the time referenced. My preference is for Easter 1484 as their mother had finally left sanctuary in, I believe, March of that year. The first problem I have with that statement about both being taken abroad is that, presuming your and Hilary's investigations concerning Brampton are as accurate as they appear, that would mean that Edward was with Richard when Brampton took Richard abroad, but I've never seen any suggestion that was the case. What I think that manifesto meant was that the intention was that both would taken abroad and Richard issued the manifesto based on the presumption that Edward had also been taken overseas, but had died. BTW, ss there any mention by Richard of where his brother died? Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-13 16:22:36
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Apologies for taking so long to reply! It does rather look as if the idea was to secure those ports by getting the HS's on board, doesn't it? It also occurred to me that, among the no-shows, the reason for their slowness in, or lack of, responding may have been due to two factors. The first would have been lingering feelings of resentment against any punishment/s received if they'd participated in the 1483 rebellion, with the second being, as you phrased it, their being gotten at by MB. Not knowing the personal lives and quirks of those involved makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to determine just how that could be managed, but it's rare that someone doesn't have an Achille's heel of some sort: pride, ambition, fear of losing status. Which in turn would mean that it was MB, or her servants, who were active in this, as Tudor himself, being overseas for so long, wouldn't have the necessary knowledge. As for Northumberland, do we have any indication of who Richard was considering for that lordship of the North? Could de la Pole have been in the running? Is it possible that all those rumors that Richard made John de la Pole his heir actually instead referred to Richard considering his nephew for the position of lord of the North? Even if the decision hadn't yet been made, any rumor of such an action on Richard's part could have given Northumberland a reason for staying out of the battle. The major reason I have for thinking that Northumberland betrayed Richard is based on Richard's proven ability as a commander. In another post, Mary mentioned the possibility that the Earl had been delegated to guard the road to London, but neither Richard's army nor those troops under Tudor were capable of an organized retreat such as, for example, Wellington managed in Spain/Portugal. Retreating troops, especially those that had been in a battle, didn't march off the field, they scattered. Which says to me that Northumberland was placed where he was so as to prevent someone from moving into a position to attack Richard's main forces from the rear or flank. And, as the latter is exactly what happened, the question then becomes: Why didn't Northumberland react? Why didn't he carry out the task he'd been assigned, to protect the main army from an attack on its' flank/rear? And the only answer I come up with is that he, in your phrase, had been gotten at. Either that or he was incredibly incompetent. I've not found any evidence to support that idea, but it's always a possibility, I suppose. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug I found a bit more information about one of our 'missing' High Sheriffs, Robert Carre. Now as I said to you earlier, I originally thought that he had just got missed off the Bosworth lists because he was from Alnwick Northumberland and had been put into Hampshire by Richard - Southampton the port of course. Carre is quite difficult to track but he had been a retainer of Warwick, not Percy, and he is thought to have improperly seized some land of the rebel William Ovedale (thanks Horrox) in 1483. He took quite a bit of post-Bosworth chasing but he re-appears as 'Chamberlain for the King's Body' and Bailiff of Berwick upon Tweed in 1487! It makes me wonder more and more whether these people were targeted for specific reasons, particularly if they had an achilles heel and were in a 'useful' area such as the ever-volatile Hampshire. Burton is another one who I recall had a father or grandfather who was a top servant of Henry VI. I need to look more at Donne, but he had been exposed to Morton on his first mission for Edward IV. I'll come back when I've done more. With regard to Percy I truly don't think he would have betrayed Richard. He'd been Richard's deputy in Scotland and was so trusted he was allowed to make his own knights. Richard would know him as much as he knew anyone. And what would Percy stand to gain but an uncertain future - which is exactly what happened? He knew Richard would eventually have to delegate his lordship of the North, just as Edward had delegated it to Richard. These were a closed community who knew and trusted one another more than they trusted outsiders. How did Percy know that Uncle Jasper might not be made Lord of the North, or De Vere, or Daubeny? No it was much too much of a risk - in my opinion that is. H (who is grateful this is distracting me from the 'Elvish' writing!!)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-13 16:37:36
Doug Stamate
Mary, I can see Richard wanting the road to London being guarded, but the question would then be Why?. There was no reason to guard the London road so Richard's army could, if defeated, retreat via it because medieval armies such as Richard's and Tudor's didn't retreat, they either died where they stood or ran. So the only conceivable reason to guard the London road would be to prevent anyone from attacking Richard's army via that route. Such as, say, the Stanleys? There'd have been absolutely no reason for Richard to place Percy's men so far away that they couldn't come to his [Richard's] aid if needed. And we have to remember that that Stanley forces made their appearance well before the battle ever started, so it's not as if they suddenly appeared and Percy had to make a decision on his because Richard was down fighting with his men. It may just be me, but I simply cannot imagine that Richard, knowing where the Stanley forces were, wouldn't make some sort of arrangement to counter those forces should they be brought into the battle against him. This is not to say that it might have been that Northumberland himself was a complete loss as a military commander; even so, he'd have had (or so one presumes) more experienced men in his retinue to advise him. However, the final decision would have been his and his alone, so whatever did or didn't happen, and why, has to be laid, IMO anyway, at Percy's feet. Doug Mary wrote: I have a theory about Percy too. That he was told to guard the road to London and that is why he did not come to Richard's aid. Maybe he wasn't in a position to see what was going on and if Richard had ordered that they guard the road at all costs he would not have moved. I remember seeing a map of his troops stationed across the road. I think it was at a talk given to our R3 Branch by Michael Jones but that it was something he found out after 1485 was published. I might be wrong because it was a long time ago. If it was indeed correct then it would have been great for the Tudor propaganda machine to be able to say that Percy had deserted Richard.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-13 21:38:24
Durose David
Nico
Have you got a source / text for the Scottish manifesto?
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 20:11, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []<> wrote:

Nico wrote: I agree with you that the weather was a big factor in the rebellion falling apart. HT couldn't even land and Buckingham was stranded. Where Buckingham came into the rebellion is the question, but the Woodvilles may have sought his support at an early stage through Katherine Woodville. He probably wasn't interested in the beginning, as he set his sights on Richard, but when that was unsatisfactory, he switched. Alternatively, he could have been a fence sitter like Stanley, and never ruled out the Woodvilles if Richard proved unsatisfactory. I could also see Morton working on him, but later getting cold feet when he knew the rebellion would fail. Doug here: For right now, I tend to view Buckingham's actions as being divided into two periods; the first would be when he was being loaded with honors by Richard and seemingly, had the world by the tail, the second would be when he realized that he wasn't going to be included in Richard's inner governing circle. Of course, just where the dividing line between the two is the crux. I rather think his switching began in late August 1483 and was then encouraged by Morton once the two were at Brecon. I don't know of anything that could define more precisely just when and how, darn it! Nico continued: I am in two minds as to whether Buckingham would support Edward V, as he had a better legal claim for himself. Even if he supported the idea of his restoration, there was a self importance about him that suggests that he would struggle with playing second fiddle to a royal bastard. Alternatively, Edward died and he jumped in to fill the gap, but he wasn't met with any enthusiasm. Doug here: Buckingham's claim was only better if one accepted the claim of a Pre-Contract as being true and, AFAIK, that was never the position of the Woodville party. So when Buckingham joined up, it would have been on the basis of restoring the rightful and true king to his throne with Buckingham replacing Richard as Protector. I think where the Woodville plan fell apart was actually Morton's fault in that the good bishop oversold Stafford on the latter being so perfectly positioned to replace Richard because of Buckingham's royal descent. And I think Morton realized exactly what he'd done, which is why, when the two parted, Morton immediately made for cover and, again as far as I know, made absolutely no attempt to raise the countryside in favor of Edward V. I agree that replacing Edward V with a potential Henry VII from the House of Stafford, was a no go, which is why Morton acted as he did. I'm torn between the tow possibilities that it was Buckingham's idea to base his claim to the throne on the boys being dead or Morton attempting to squash the rebellion before too many future potential supporters came out only to be defeated. For the present, I m going with the supposition that Buckingham, with Morton emphasizing how fitted Stafford was to replace Richard as Protector, got the brilliant idea that, if Richard could step from being Protector to becoming King, then so could he. If that is the case, then it follows that the rumor about the boys' deaths originated with Buckingham. Nor can I imagine how Stafford expected to get throne unless the boys were dead... Nico continued: I get the impression that Edward may well have died at some point before Perkin Warbeck came on the scene. However, it wasn't impossible that Edward had no desire to pursue his own claims, so PW had to say he was dead or his own claim wouldn't be valid. If the obsequies for Edward of Middleham were low key, then anything for a royal bastard would be lower still. Actually, when we were trying to date EofM's passing last year, we struggled to find any evidence for his death besides Rous and Croyland writing at least a year later, although I think Marie came up with a contemporary record. J-AH mentions the papal mass for King Edward,and there is an old Ricardian article on it, where the author concludes that it could also have been for Edward IV. It is: CSL Davies, A Requiem for Kin g Edward, The Ricardian, September 1991. I wouldn't rule out the idea that EV was sickly. That signature looks like he can't write properly. Was it physical weakness or was he mentally defective? Either one would have caused consternation for the Woodvilles and an anxiety in their quest to get him crowned, as if it were known that he would have difficultly governing he was at risk of being pushed aside in favour of a capable adult. They may have known he wouldn't be king for long, but once he was crowned they could consolidate their power base, and prepare young Richard to succeed him. Doug here: I quite agree that any funeral for a royal bastard, even if he'd once been proclaimed king, would be much more private than that of his father, but it still doesn't explain HT's post-Bosworth actions. As best we can determine, even by the time Tyrrell was executed, Tudor didn't know what had happened to his wife's brothers. If Edward had died while Richard was king, there was no reason his mother and grandmother wouldn't have known. Even if his death/funeral wasn't generally known, Richard would certainly have informed those two. Yet, as far as is known, neither ever told Tudor he didn't have to worry about Edward trying to regain the throne because he was dead. Barring any more evidence, I don't think Edward was sickly. It's true he had Argentine (sp?) in attendance when he moved into the Tower in May 1483, but Argentine was removed from his position around the time the Pre-Contract was announced and accepted by the Three Estates as the basis of their petition to Richard. If Edward really had been sickly, there was no reason for Richard to not keep a doctor in attendance, even if that doctor wasn't Argentine. As for that shaky signature, FWIW, it reminds me of my first writing, attempts. Or my first attempts at printing, for that matter. Is there any record of Edward needing to write any responses to questions from his tutor/s while he was in Wales? And we have to remember that, as far as we know, there was no urgency placed on his tutor/s in preparing him for his eventual duties as king. Nico concluded: Croyland says the Princes were still in the Tower in September, but was he sure? I have always thought it possible that they were moved as soon as possible after the rescue attempt. FWIW, in his manifesto before the Scottish invasion, PW says that they were both taken abroad, and then Edward died. Doug here: There's also that reference to the boys not being seen in the Tower after Easter. Neither was in the Tower until May 1483, well after Easter that year, so it can't refer to that year as they wouldn't be seen in the Tower until after Easter anyway. That leaves the Easters of 1484 and 1485 as the time referenced. My preference is for Easter 1484 as their mother had finally left sanctuary in, I believe, March of that year. The first problem I have with that statement about both being taken abroad is that, presuming your and Hilary's investigations concerning Brampton are as accurate as they appear, that would mean that Edward was with Richard when Brampton took Richard abroad, but I've never seen any suggestion that was the case. What I think that manifesto meant was that the intention was that both would taken abroad and Richard issued the manifesto based on the presumption that Edward had also been taken overseas, but had died. BTW, ss there any mention by Richard of where his brother died? Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-14 14:46:47
Doug Stamate
Hilary, The only counter to your excellent summation of what was expected of a king in those days is: Edward II. I'm not referring to his sex life, but rather to the interest he displayed in many activities that were considered demeaning to a king, but it had been a century and a half since since his reign and times had changed somewhat. Lacking any evidence, and considering that Anthony, Lord Rivers was our Edward's governor, I wonder just how much war-like activities would have been emphasized at Ludlow? If the reports about he and his brother while they were in the Tower are accurate, we know they were seen practicing archery. That would leave being trained in the use of a sword, how to ride well and possibly even some jousting. The last though, with its' dangers, even when practiced against inanimate objects, might not have yet begun. Does anyone know, with any exactness, just what Edward's curriculum there was? Regarding Maximilian, I know it's Wikipedia, but the article there for Richard de la Pole has Maximilian agreeing to support his brother Edmund in 1501, only to make a deal with Henry VII in 1502 about not supporting any claimants to the English throne. I didn't find anything about Maximilian's support, or refusal of support, for any earlier attempts to oust Tudor. Doug Here's the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole Hilary wrote: Just to chip in, the other thing that makes me think that EV didn't last long was that certainly by 1487 he would be on the verge of manhood - getting on for the age when Richard fought at Barnet and Edward took the throne. Potential kings were still in those days brought up foremost to be warriors yet we never actually hear of the young Edward participating in anything like that, even as a child, do we? Or having a junior suit of armour? That writing is not right for a potential renaissance king. Young Edward had an undefeated warrior father. Surely by the late 1480s he'd have appeared on the European scene with the backing of Maximilen? BTW Doug on the subject of Maximilien, Flanders and the Low Countries were well aware of French ambitions way before 1483. He would probably like nothing better than to kick the French in the teeth by restoring Richard. And of course no doubt part of the French strategy of supporting HT was to divert warri or king Richard away from French ambitions in Europe. And of course it so badly backfired.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-14 15:05:18
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I think your phrases ...he was needed to sit next to Richard, to offer his invaluable advice... are probably the emotions Morton worked on while in Buckingham's custody. As a Royal duke, Stafford may have expected greater involvement in the governing of England simply because of his position/bloodline. I know I wrote that, during the brief period of Richard's Protectorate, the two of them were often in each others' company and Buckingham may have expected that association, that likely developed solely to meet the exigencies of that time, would carry over after Richard became king. And, if he did have as well-developed ego as has been reported, that would make his not being included rankle even more; one does not drop Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham! Doug Hilary wrote: I think it could have been something as simple as Richard saying that Bucks wasn't needed on the Progress - something which would make 'normal' courtiers sigh with relief! But to Bucks that was rejection most terrible; he wasn't needed to sit next to Richard, to offer his invaluable advice etc etc. It's often the simple things which can inadvertently cause the most trouble.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-14 15:15:45
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, I base my view of why Hastings did what he did on his actions prior to the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council. He was Edward IV's Lord chamberlain, as well as holding several other posts both responsible and lucrative. He was also, as best we can tell, Edward's Doug Hilary wrote: Strangely enough Doug I've never had the impression that Hastings was that ambitious. Yes he had the captaincy of Calais - but that got him into trouble for disobeying Edward. Other than that I reckon he enjoyed the life he had and 'ruling' wasn't part of it. Unless that life was threatened if the Woodvilles took over. If you look at peoples' families you can often spot the ambitious. The Stanleys never missed a marriage trick which is why they had so many affinities. Apart from his heir, Hastings's family on the other hand married into the usual local gentry - no great ambition there. But, silly H, I did spot his brother-in-law - Sir John Donne! That being said the rest of his family turned out for Richard at Bosworth - which actually says something - I think!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-14 15:53:54
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, I base my view of why Hastings did what he did on his actions prior to the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council. He was Edward IV's Lord chamberlain, as well as holding several other posts both responsible and lucrative. He was also, as best we can tell, Edward's friend, but I don't know how much of what he later did can be based on that last. So we have someone who supported Edward IV, supported a non-Woodville dominated Edward V, supported Richard as Protector, but when the Pre-Contract appears, he moved from that latter to becoming involved in a plot to kill Richard. Now, Hastings may not have been overtly ambitious, but he does seem to have angled for a political situation where his support would be necessary. If the Woodvilles weren't to dominate young Edward, then there'd have to be a group of people, a majority on the Council, to counter-balance them. Which would drive up the value of Hastings' support. If Richard was to be a successful Protector and not go the way of his namesake Duke Humphrey, Richard would also need the support of a majority of the Council. However, if the Pre-Contract was accepted as being valid, then Richard would become king. Should Richard become king, though, then the value of Hastings' support would diminish drastically. Not supporting the king could easily be viewed as treason, leaving retirement to his estates as Hastings only other option. IOW, the value of position on the Council would be gone; he would no longer be able to use his support, or threat of non-support, as a bargaining chip. And then, as I mentioned in a different post, Hastings may have actually believed that the Pre-Contract was a put-up job just to get Richard the throne. Hastings may have used that last as his justification for his actions, but I can't really say. If, on the other hand, Richard was removed from the scene, then it's entirely likely that the Pre-Contract would be treated as it has since by a majority of historians as being a fake and, or so I would imagine, Edward V would remain on the throne (with Buckingham filling in for the murdered Richard?) and the non-Woodville Council would still need Hastings' help in counter-balancing the Woodvilles. So what I'm left with is someone who, as I wrote, seemed determined to maintain a political situation where his support was necessary and I can only come up with two possibilities to explain his actions. Either he was more ambitious than has come down to us, or else all his political maneuverings were done only to maintain the son of friend on the throne he'd inherited. To be honest, though, even if the second explanation is the correct one, it still wouldn't completely rule out the first. I think. Doug My apologies, I hit send before I completed the post! Hilary wrote: Strangely enough Doug I've never had the impression that Hastings was that ambitious. Yes he had the captaincy of Calais - but that got him into trouble for disobeying Edward. Other than that I reckon he enjoyed the life he had and 'ruling' wasn't part of it. Unless that life was threatened if the Woodvilles took over. If you look at peoples' families you can often spot the ambitious. The Stanleys never missed a marriage trick which is why they had so many affinities. Apart from his heir, Hastings's family on the other hand married into the usual local gentry - no great ambition there. But, silly H, I did spot his brother-in-law - Sir John Donne! That being said the rest of his family turned out for Richard at Bosworth - which actually says something - I think!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-14 16:38:12
Hilary Jones
Yep since I wrote this Doug I realised that Buckingham's problem was that he never read Horrox :) :)
You see Richard - a very modern king - worked on a rota system for his Court; and as a lot of them were from the North it was a very popular idea. So when they'd done their stint he'd "say thanks William or Marmaduke, now go off and see your wife and kids and make sure your property's OK". And they'd breathe a sigh of relief and head up to God's Country. You know I go to York a lot and when you're there London could be as far away as Paris. I think Richard understood that (of course he did) and it also stopped them wondering what was going on at home and kept their mind on the job in hand.
And of course it saved him money ...... Wages were mainly based around attendance.
So I reckon after the Coronation he would have said something like "you've been working continuously now since April, Harry. Take a break, go and see your wife and kids. Lovell and Catesby can look after me. I'm not even taking Anne for the first stint."
But of course he didn't know he was dealing with a meglomaniac! H

On Wednesday, 14 November 2018, 15:27:51 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
<> wrote:

Hilary, I think your phrases ...he was needed to sit next to Richard, to offer his invaluable advice... are probably the emotions Morton worked on while in Buckingham's custody. As a Royal duke, Stafford may have expected greater involvement in the governing of England simply because of his position/bloodline. I know I wrote that, during the brief period of Richard's Protectorate, the two of them were often in each others' company and Buckingham may have expected that association, that likely developed solely to meet the exigencies of that time, would carry over after Richard became king. And, if he did have as well-developed ego as has been reported, that would make his not being included rankle even more; one does not drop Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham! Doug Hilary wrote: I think it could have been something as simple as Richard saying that Bucks wasn't needed on the Progress - something which would make 'normal' courtiers sigh with relief! But to Bucks that was rejection most terrible; he wasn't needed to sit next to Richard, to offer his invaluable advice etc etc. It's often the simple things which can inadvertently cause the most trouble.
--
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

2018-11-14 16:56:40
Hilary Jones
I do agree with that Paul. I hate that book. Perhaps I went too far in including him but, being selfish, his work on IPMs is very useful to me.
I apologise :) And agree about Weir, though FWIW, I never had her as a serious historian. Perhaps I should have said Pollard, who comes across to me as a good (but mislead) bloke. H
On Tuesday, 13 November 2018, 11:39:31 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Even Hicks? Why do you think this when most of his writings have been anti Richard, and often guilty of using the worst of the Tudor slanders. I'll never forgive him for his Anne Neville book alleging rape and such nonsense. Hicks should have been thrown into a deep hole with Alison Weir after that monstrosity of a publication!

Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 nov. 2018 à 11:23, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

I agree entirely Doug. I live about half an hour from Bosworth Field and it's pretty much in the centre of England (well Meriden has that accolade but it's not far out). Milford Haven is about as far away as you can get, I know I've been there. I suppose the only thing which equates is the south of Cornwall, but in those days the Welsh journey would have been much more rigorous and extremely risky if Richard had sent a force into Wales to meet him. Very wisely he didn't. And it's so easy to become trapped by the Severn, as was MOA before Tewkesbury when she was trying to go the other way.
So I agree, there must have been others along and surrounding the route on standby. A lot of them must have been the 1483 rebels as is evidenced by their being given HS positions in November 1485. Almost certainly Tocotes - did he turn up for Richard then change side when given the signal by the Stanleys - and Humphrey Stanley. Was Robert Carre in Hampshire on standby if HT needed to make a dash for Southampton? And of course this points to the re-activation of the Woodville network - passed to MB by EW and much more carefully used?
Like everything else the history of this period had to be re-invented. Richard had to be made to look bad, unpopular, a child murderer. How else can you justify killing a competent King who had been chosen by Parliament. What really disappoints me is that the excellent historians like Horrox, Carpenter and dare I say it even Hicks, have actually fallen for this. But then 'bad' people are always more interesting than good ones and that is what the media of its day has ever thought. H
On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:47:28 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The more I think on it, the more it starts to look as if Tudor was the bait designed to draw Richard away from his support in the east and London. It would also mean that Tudor expected a fairly substantial force to be assembled to either meet up with him or else to force Richard to divide his own forces. That's almost certainly what, IMO anyway, the risings in the southeast were designed to do. If they also managed to defeat any forces sent against them, all the better, but as long as they forced Richard to subtract forces from those he would lead against Tudor  that was the main point. That Richard didn't have to split his forces, that he had more than enough support to simultaneously send man against the risings and collect a large force to meet Tudor almost scuppered Tudor's plans. Or, more likely, the plans of his advisors, because it also looks to me as if much of what occurred in 1485 was based on the advice of exiles who were over-estimating the support Tudor actually had in England. However, if what I'm proposing is anywhere near the truth, then that also means that Tudor expected substantial reinforcements as he made his way eastwards, and not just in the form of Welsh irregulars, but from those HS's (and possibly Stanley?). Doug Hilary wrote: Hi both and thanks David! I think, given the difficulties of navigating the channel, that HT would have to have quite a few places (like Southampton) in reserve. For example, in 1471 MOA chose to land at Weymouth (Lancastrian territory) but another ship carrying Anne Beauchamp was forced to land on the Hampshire coast. Even the Conqueror was forced to launch his attack from France (St Valery), not Normandy, because his fleet had been blown back there on a first attempt. I would agree though that in terms of on the ground support and the chance to gather a few more men in Wales Milford Haven was a good choice. But it's an awful long way - even by road today. Lovell of course was guarding the south coast was he not?
--
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} [Richard

2018-11-14 16:57:29
Hilary Jones
Thanks Paul! H
On Tuesday, 13 November 2018, 11:31:06 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

I like you thinking here Hilary! Especially the question did MB actually like her son? He might have been king, and given her much she could never have hoped for, but he must have seemed a real disappointment in comparison as you say to the charismatic and talented York boys!

Pail

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 13 nov. 2018 à 11:08, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

You know if in 1483 you were to advertise for a king HT wouldn't even make the interview stage. He had no training, no reputation, no love of the wider things such as the Arts, no charisma and most of all - absolutely no entitlement. So the trappings of kingship had to be re-invented, like the Imperial Crown and the use of the term 'Majesty'. And of course the Welsh prince legends. There are so many out there claiming links to King Arthur and the Knights of Glamorgan that it makes Welsh genealogy really hard - I don't think the Heralds had the staying power to dig back, they'd be there for years. HT might have lacked a lot of qualities but he was certainly not stupid. Look at his effigy and you see a townsman, not a king. HT knew as well as anyone who he really was. And that of course created problems for his descendants.
There are a couple of questions which are rarely asked but which I'd like the answer to.
Firstly, despite his 'oath' did HT really ever expect to be king? Personally I doubt it. I reckon the aim, obviously not disclosed to his followers, was to get Richard in a position where he could force a few concessions out of him - starting with reversal of attainder and then, possibly, a place in government. Instead he found himself on a battlefield, having been unable to restrain his mercenaries from killing an anointed King, facing a future where he'd always remember that moment and where he'd never even be able to even walk through a door without thinking a similar thing would one day happen to him.
Secondly, what did MB really think of her son? She loved him as a mother of course, but did she like him when she at last met him after Bosworth? His formative years had been spent away from her. She had been embraced by the Yorkist court and had seen the talents of the Brothers York - their qualities as warriors, their patronage of education and the arts, their charisma, their ability to command loyalty (even Clarence). In the twenty plus years she was forced to observe the rule of her son there must have been moments when she knew full well that the man he displaced had been far more suitable for kingship than this paranoid, friendless, obsessive loner? H


On Monday, 12 November 2018, 21:33:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary wrote: Yes Doug I agree Tudor took the throne by treachery and not only the treachery of the Stanleys, he brought a foreign force of French mercenaries to invade England probably with the agreement of the French King. Well he was a quarter French too. So all this nonsense about his Welsh ancestry ( if he ever had any Welsh ancestry) is just a smokescreen to hide his treachery. Doug here: As I wrote, I can easily see why Tudor wanted to downplay the treason that got him the throne, and I can understand why the Tudor chroniclers went along with it. After all, in order to get their books published, they had to get Royal permission via, I think, the Lord Chancellor. However, we have plenty of evidence that, once Elizabeth I died, amateur antiquaries started digging and began producing contrary evidence, evidence backed up by solid research too! I suppose that it was just easier to go along with the chroniclers in their glorification of the Tudor dynasty, but it certainly doesn't reflect well on those who did. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-15 05:33:18
4197096485
A chart on HT, EOY, Queen Anne, Buckingham, and, of course Richard would be very well received here.
On Nov 8, 2018 9:35 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Sorry Nico I meant Edward IV!
I think there is a logic to all of this except Buckingham, who seems to have thrown everything and everyone up in the air. There was a light-hearted discussion on one of the other blogs I found about whether he had a 'crush' on Richard; whether he thought he could become another Gaveston but got slapped down and the rejection was just too much. The more extreme his actions become and the more reckless he becomes I think this is not as daft as it may seem. There's nothing worse I imagine in getting an assumption like that terribly wrong. And of course Richard, who had now lost two brothers, may well have been looking for friendship from the family and unintentionally misled him to thinking he was closer than he really was.
Other than that I can only think he must have been seriously mad. It's interesting how his aunt MB was quick to distance herself from him. He could have done a lot of serious damage to every cause. Participants were lucky that Richard was so generous when it came to punishing most of them. Too generous as it turned out! H
BTW did you ever do a chart on HT? That would indeed be fascinating and I guess rather sad.

On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 10:59:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@yahoo.co.uk [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H

The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V?  I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year.. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion.

Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity.  Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart.
I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV.  If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.

Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 12:11:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@yahoo.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H 
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@yahoo.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex    (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so. 
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there. 
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@kconline.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

    Hilary, Thank you for the listing; I have to admit I'd almost forgotten about it! Some things come to mind: I used modern maps, so they may not exactly match the counties of 1483, but some interesting things popped up. The first was that the counties of the High Sherriffs from southwestern England with the exception of Devonshire and extended eastwards along the Channel coast to Hampshire . Then there's a batch of HS's from the Midlands stretching eastwards to Lincolnshire and Norfolk/Suffolk. There were no defections, apparently, among the HS's of the southeast or Wales. Am I correct in presuming that there were HS's in Wales? London and the southeast apparently remained loyal, as did most of the north. Am I also correct in understanding that it's thought HT's original intention was to land somewhere along the Channel coast and he diverted to Wales because of weather? Seemingly, though, even in those shires where the HS's turned traitor, the troops, if they were mustered at all, were still mustered for Richard. What the defection of the HS's almost certainly did, however, was to throw a spanner in Richard's efforts to muster troops against HT, as replacements, if not for the HS's themselves, then at least to carry out the mustering, had to be found quickly. At any rate, what we have is a very impressive looking map displaying anti-Richard sentiments, but that map doesn't represent the actuality of the numbers of anti-Ricardians under arms. In fact, and compared with what is known of who was at Bosworth, it vastly over-represents apparent anti-Richard sentiment. The thing is, as I understand it, the vast majority of HT's army consisted of French mercenaries, Welsh irregulars (I don't know what else to call them) and, seemingly, a bunch of discontented, traitorous High Sherriffs. But those High Sherriffs didn't, as far as I know, bring many men along with them. Now maybe it's me, what with being from over the pond and not having any emotional stake in the glory, or lack of it, of the Tudor dynasty, but I do find it very interesting that over a period of more than five centuries, the fact that it was only the defection of a group of High Sherriffs that provided HT with a cloak of being invincible and representing English sentiment and not the the actual numbers of Englishmen physically supporting Tudor at Bosworth has been omitted from so many supposedly authoritative histories. Now this is complete conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't look for any direct communications between MB and her son; nor even communications via Bray. I don't doubt that she passed information along to Henry but, other than generalities, I can't see him sending specific information about the invasion to her, even for further dissemination. It would be way too risky as an eye was undoubtedly being kept on her and whomever she contacted, only limited by the conditions of the time. Right now my money would be on someone such as Tocotes. He was apparently considered loyal by Richard and, between his familial and geographical contacts, was in a position to clear the way for Tudor's French mercenaries. I also found it interesting that the areas controlled by these defeccting High Sherriffs included the ports of Bristol, Southampton and the ports along the Norfolk/Suffolk coast. All excellent landing places for an invading army. Doug

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts...... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford,  Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels -  Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H

 


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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-15 12:08:27
Nicholas Brown
David,
The Scottish Manifesto is printed in the Arthurson book. Here is another link:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_xXTtRHBjBkC&pg=PR4-IA1&lpg=PR4-#v=onepage&q&f=false
When he says that "we, in our tender age, escaped by God's great might, out of the Tower of London, and were secretly conveyed over the sea to other divers countries...,' he must be referring to both himself and Edward. If it was only him, he would have said I.
If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, then both boys were probably taken abroad and Edward probably died before 1491, most likely in Flanders.
Nico
On Wednesday, 14 November 2018, 15:54:00 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, FWIW, I base my view of why Hastings did what he did on his actions prior to the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council. He was Edward IV's Lord chamberlain, as well as holding several other posts both responsible and lucrative. He was also, as best we can tell, Edward's friend, but I don't know how much of what he later did can be based on that last. So we have someone who supported Edward IV, supported a non-Woodville dominated Edward V, supported Richard as Protector, but when the Pre-Contract appears, he moved from that latter to becoming involved in a plot to kill Richard. Now, Hastings may not have been overtly ambitious, but he does seem to have angled for a political situation where his support would be necessary. If the Woodvilles weren't to dominate young Edward, then there'd have to be a group of people, a majority on the Council, to counter-balance them. Which would drive up the value of Hastings' support. If Richard was to be a successful Protector and not go the way of his namesake Duke Humphrey, Richard would also need the support of a majority of the Council. However, if the Pre-Contract was accepted as being valid, then Richard would become king. Should Richard become king, though, then the value of Hastings' support would diminish drastically. Not supporting the king could easily be viewed as treason, leaving retirement to his estates as Hastings only other option. IOW, the value of position on the Council would be gone; he would no longer be able to use his support, or threat of non-support, as a bargaining chip. And then, as I mentioned in a different post, Hastings may have actually believed that the Pre-Contract was a put-up job just to get Richard the throne. Hastings may have used that last as his justification for his actions, but I can't really say. If, on the other hand, Richard was removed from the scene, then it's entirely likely that the Pre-Contract would be treated as it has since by a majority of historians as being a fake and, or so I would imagine, Edward V would remain on the throne (with Buckingham filling in for the murdered Richard?) and the non-Woodville Council would still need Hastings' help in counter-balancing the Woodvilles. So what I'm left with is someone who, as I wrote, seemed determined to maintain a political situation where his support was necessary and I can only come up with two possibilities to explain his actions. Either he was more ambitious than has come down to us, or else all his political maneuverings were done only to maintain the son of friend on the throne he'd inherited. To be honest, though, even if the second explanation is the correct one, it still wouldn't completely rule out the first. I think. Doug My apologies, I hit send before I completed the post! Hilary wrote: Strangely enough Doug I've never had the impression that Hastings was that ambitious. Yes he had the captaincy of Calais - but that got him into trouble for disobeying Edward. Other than that I reckon he enjoyed the life he had and 'ruling' wasn't part of it. Unless that life was threatened if the Woodvilles took over. If you look at peoples' families you can often spot the ambitious. The Stanleys never missed a marriage trick which is why they had so many affinities. Apart from his heir, Hastings's family on the other hand married into the usual local gentry - no great ambition there. But, silly H, I did spot his brother-in-law - Sir John Donne! That being said the rest of his family turned out for Richard at Bosworth - which actually says something - I think!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-15 12:23:43
Nicholas Brown
I will get on with that, but I will have to take some time to write up my notes. I'm not quite sure what format to use. The Edward IV one (which is still in the files as far as I know) was very long because I wanted to cover everything, especially some of the question marks about his reign like the precontract and what he died of. I may do a shorter one in note form, which may be easier to follow. I have only had a brief look at Buckingham's chart, but I'll what I can for him. I may do HT and EoY as a couple. Astrologically, she doesn't resemble the rather passive character that history books traditionally depict, and HT has an unexpected vulnerable edge. Great that the interest is there.
Nico



On Thursday, 15 November 2018, 05:33:25 GMT, 4197096485 cmasters1335@... [] <> wrote:

A chart on HT, EOY, Queen Anne, Buckingham, and, of course Richard would be very well received here.
On Nov 8, 2018 9:35 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Sorry Nico I meant Edward IV!
I think there is a logic to all of this except Buckingham, who seems to have thrown everything and everyone up in the air. There was a light-hearted discussion on one of the other blogs I found about whether he had a 'crush' on Richard; whether he thought he could become another Gaveston but got slapped down and the rejection was just too much. The more extreme his actions become and the more reckless he becomes I think this is not as daft as it may seem. There's nothing worse I imagine in getting an assumption like that terribly wrong. And of course Richard, who had now lost two brothers, may well have been looking for friendship from the family and unintentionally misled him to thinking he was closer than he really was.
Other than that I can only think he must have been seriously mad. It's interesting how his aunt MB was quick to distance herself from him. He could have done a lot of serious damage to every cause. Participants were lucky that Richard was so generous when it came to punishing most of them. Too generous as it turned out! H
BTW did you ever do a chart on HT? That would indeed be fascinating and I guess rather sad.

On Thursday, 8 November 2018, 10:59:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H

The High Sheriff discussion is interesting. Is this Edward IV or V? I am leaning towards the theory that EV probably died during the summer or autumn of 1483. The handwriting and the fact that he was so seldom seen raises suspicion of illness. This brings us back to the discussion we had about Buckingham and the Woodvilles earlier in the year.. That could give and explanation for the chaotic mystery of Buckingham's rebellion.

Perhaps the initial idea was to restore EV, and Buckingham was aware of the Woodville's intentions or even actively plotting with them. MB joins the conspiracy with EW with the objective of HT's return with potential rewards and marriage to EofY. EV is still the focus, and Buckigham's early involvement was in a Kingmaker capacity. Then EV died. Buckingham took over, but the plot had lost its momentum, Morton distanced him, and it all fell apart.
I used to think that if EV died, there would have been more publicity. If he had been murdered, there would have been no point in not showing the body, but if he died of natural causes or even an accident, possibly far away from London, he may have been buried without too much ceremony. After all, we knew very little about what happened to Edward of Middleham, and he was the Prince of Wales and legal heir to the throne, whereas EV was at this stage a bastard son of EIV. If this is correct, I would place his death around August, maybe September if the Papal Mass was for EIV not him.

Nico
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 12:11:30 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add, I don't think the 1483 'list' was compiled as part of some grand plot. I think it was more an insurance policy on the part of the Woodvilles who were aware of Edward's declining health. Even so, when he did die, the suddenness did take them by surprise, as is evident from the 'headless-chicken' actions. H
On Monday, 5 November 2018, 10:58:44 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, I'll try and answer one bit at a time. The HS who fought were for the following counties:
Essex (coast)*Surrey & Sussex (coast)GloucesterHerefordStafford (well at what point did Humphrey Stanley 'turn')Salop (if Marmaduke Constable turned up)Warks (intended to if hadn't been murdered)Wilts (at what point did Tocotes 'turn') - sorry makes them sound like zombies!Devon (coast)*Northumberland (coast)Westmorland* (coast)Oxon & Berks*York (coast)Kent* (coast)Lancs (coast)
The ones with an asterick are Richard's men, Percy, Ratcliffe, Franke, Brackenbury, Thomas Mauleverer (though Halnath had been HS of Cornwall for years). Four Mauleverers fought for Richard at Bosworth. Several of these of course were Richard's personal bodyguard and died with him at Bosworth. I truly don't know about who rallied troups from London - does anyone? One assumes that in earlier days it would have been someone like Hastings or the Constable? But it's crucial because London had about a third of the population of the whole country.
What's also very misleading is that the HS held the post for a year and it usually rotated amongst families. So although John Curzon HS for Notts & Derby didn't turn up, a previous HS, John Babington did, and a lot of the gentry similarly turned up without the necessities of office causing them to do so.
I think the reason this bit is nearly always neglected it because it spoils the narrative of an argument which is centred round Richard's unpopularity, even Horrox falls for this. Looking at those who did turn up, there is more than enough evidence to point to the fact that his popularity wasn't waning. In fact it is the HT 'list' which reads like a last chance saloon of rebels, not high-minded visionaries.
I think your point about the coast is very good. It would have been much easier for HT to land at Kent or Southampton or anywhere along the south coast rather than going all the way round to Milford Haven (albeit to recruit a few Welsh). So one can't blame Richard for putting Brackenbury in charge of Kent, or a Mauleverer in charge of Devon.
The more I look at the list of dissenting HS, the more I think it's strangely disjointed compared with the 1483 rebels. That is beautifully targeted and compiled - blood relatives, whole areas (Kent), trade comrades. All these people have a 'reason' for being in regular contact with each other - think of William Stonor's contacts in Hampshire for instance. No need for messages in barrels! Which is why I think this list was a long time in the compiling and dates from before Richard's time. It has the hand of the cleverer Woodvilles, such as Anthony.
The missing HS list, on the other hand, appears to be totally random targets, done with some speed. It has the mark of HT the loner whose strategy is to keep people divided. And of course in the final year Morton is no longer there.
I agree with your comments about Tocotes. My other money would be on Oliver King, the late Edward's secretary 'in the Gallic tongue'. He would know all the workings of the Yorkist household. I reckon he needs looking at in greater depth. He was one of very few who remained 'friendly' with HT till his death and was a potential informer on the movements of Warbeck.
Sorry this is such a long reply.... H
On Saturday, 3 November 2018, 18:26:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Thank you for the listing; I have to admit I'd almost forgotten about it! Some things come to mind: I used modern maps, so they may not exactly match the counties of 1483, but some interesting things popped up. The first was that the counties of the High Sherriffs from southwestern England with the exception of Devonshire and extended eastwards along the Channel coast to Hampshire . Then there's a batch of HS's from the Midlands stretching eastwards to Lincolnshire and Norfolk/Suffolk. There were no defections, apparently, among the HS's of the southeast or Wales. Am I correct in presuming that there were HS's in Wales? London and the southeast apparently remained loyal, as did most of the north. Am I also correct in understanding that it's thought HT's original intention was to land somewhere along the Channel coast and he diverted to Wales because of weather? Seemingly, though, even in those shires where the HS's turned traitor, the troops, if they were mustered at all, were still mustered for Richard. What the defection of the HS's almost certainly did, however, was to throw a spanner in Richard's efforts to muster troops against HT, as replacements, if not for the HS's themselves, then at least to carry out the mustering, had to be found quickly. At any rate, what we have is a very impressive looking map displaying anti-Richard sentiments, but that map doesn't represent the actuality of the numbers of anti-Ricardians under arms. In fact, and compared with what is known of who was at Bosworth, it vastly over-represents apparent anti-Richard sentiment. The thing is, as I understand it, the vast majority of HT's army consisted of French mercenaries, Welsh irregulars (I don't know what else to call them) and, seemingly, a bunch of discontented, traitorous High Sherriffs. But those High Sherriffs didn't, as far as I know, bring many men along with them. Now maybe it's me, what with being from over the pond and not having any emotional stake in the glory, or lack of it, of the Tudor dynasty, but I do find it very interesting that over a period of more than five centuries, the fact that it was only the defection of a group of High Sherriffs that provided HT with a cloak of being invincible and representing English sentiment and not the the actual numbers of Englishmen physically supporting Tudor at Bosworth has been omitted from so many supposedly authoritative histories. Now this is complete conjecture on my part, but I wouldn't look for any direct communications between MB and her son; nor even communications via Bray. I don't doubt that she passed information along to Henry but, other than generalities, I can't see him sending specific information about the invasion to her, even for further dissemination. It would be way too risky as an eye was undoubtedly being kept on her and whomever she contacted, only limited by the conditions of the time. Right now my money would be on someone such as Tocotes. He was apparently considered loyal by Richard and, between his familial and geographical contacts, was in a position to clear the way for Tudor's French mercenaries. I also found it interesting that the areas controlled by these defeccting High Sherriffs included the ports of Bristol, Southampton and the ports along the Norfolk/Suffolk coast. All excellent landing places for an invading army. Doug

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I promised to come back to you on this. It proved to be quite a useful exercise, given that Horrox doesn't seem to have gone there in detail which does rather surprise me.

There were 26 High Sheriff posts renewable annually except some in the North East which were held by families for life. At the time of Bosworth there was one vacancy, Cumberland. Fourteen High Sheriffs turned up at Bosworth, one other Richard Boughton of Warks & Leics had been murdered the day before by HT's scouts whilst out recruiting. Of the fourteen, you would expect all to be supporting Richard but Roger Tocotes of Wiltshire (a pardoned 1483 rebel) and Humphrey Stanley (Staffs) went over to the 'other side' - at what point isn't known but they were well rewarded. There's also some doubt about the presence of Sir Marmaduke Constable (Salop) but his loyalty is more likely to have been to Richard as a Yorkshireman.

The 10 who didn't turn up are, I think, rather surprising - they certainly weren't too old or too distant.

So:

Richard Burton (Northants) and Geoffrey Sherard (Rutland). Burton claims the dubious glory of 'defecting' the day before and advising HT's scouts on the choice of battlefield. He came from Rutland as did Sherard. He probably had some hand in the murder of Boughton, who was the only other man with local knowledge.

Sir William Houghton (Worcs & Cornwall). Came originally from Lancashire but had Cornish connections through his wife Jane Coleshull

Thomas Fulford (Somerset & Dorset). Like Tocotes another 1483 rebel whose attainder had been reversed - oh Richard !!

Richard Pole (Norfolk & Suffolk). Richard ha d given him the Wiltshire lands of rebel Michael Skil ling and he was himself was from Wiltshire and a neighbour of Tocotes.

Sir John Donne (Beds & Bucks) - stalwart Yorkist but Welsh and a direct descendant of Owen Glendower.

John Wake (Cambs & Hunts) from Blisworth & Stoughton Hunts...... Came from a strong Yorkist family. Perhaps the only one who was getting on for 60. He certainly got no reward or office under HT.

Robert Carre (Hants) - from Alnwick Northumberland, a supporter of Richard who had helped suppress the rebels in Hants. His lack of presence is unexplained. Perhaps he got missed off the Bosworth lists?

Robert Dymoke (Lincs) - King's Champion (to HT as well). His father had been a supporter of Warwick and Clarence in 1470.

John Curson (Notts & Derby) - from Kedleston. Links with the Staffords & amp; Willoughbys.

If one gets any impressions from this it's of Reggie Bray and MB consulting their 'lists' and scurrying round with the odd 'backhander'. It's certainly not of resistance to Richard because of the 'princes',other politics.or a longing for the good old days.

To complete the exercise I looked at the future of these individuals under HT. He made two lots of HS appointments in 1485 - one in September, no doubt in a hurry, and another on 5 November which was more permanent.

Of the appointments in September only three, Fulford, Donne and Burton, maintained their positions. By November only Fulford remained, along with a new clutch of 1483 rebels - Greenfeld, Cheney, Fortescue, Gainsford, Poyntz and of course Humphrey Stanley, Roger Tocotes and Gilbert Talbot. So had some of these 10 people been used and disposed of (not literally) once HT could put in his more trusted followers? It's almost undoubtedly the transposition of strategy from the unsuccessful Woodvilles in 1483 to MB and Bray but at what point did this start? It would be interesting to know if it coincided with the death of Richard's son - not that I'm necessarily inferring anything there.

Hope this helps. H


--
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

2018-11-15 18:20:13
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I really think that Richard should have listened to those who urged him to retire a bit further and join up with those still mustering? That list of those HS's who weren't at Bosworth almost certainly includes some who were doing just that And, considering their standard operating procedures, I also tend to think the Stanleys, seeing Tudor opposed by an overwhelming force would either not have intervened at all or, if they did, on Richard's side. I'm also starting to wonder about the real value of any Woodville network, at least at that point in time. I think most of those HS's who defected were already in either Tudor's camp or his mother's, with the possibility that some of the latter may not have been so wholeheartedly in support as those in the former. It's also interesting to note that, presuming Tudor's overall plan was to force Richard to divide his forces to suppress uprisings around England, it's only in the southeast that any occurred. Any of the HS's along the south coast or in the southwest who defected, didn't seem able to stir up anything. At any rate, it does seem as if Tudor's plan was to land in Wales and march eastwards, all the while augmenting his French mercenaries with Welsh irregulars. Simultaneously, or nearly so, uprisings were to occur in the southeast, southwest and possibly the Midlands, but any rising in that last was scuppered by Richard choosing to muster his army in that region. I would think someone might have noticed this before but, as you say, too often attention gets diverted... Doug Hilary wrote: I agree entirely Doug. I live about half an hour from Bosworth Field and it's pretty much in the centre of England (well Meriden has that accolade but it's not far out). Milford Haven is about as far away as you can get, I know I've been there. I suppose the only thing which equates is the south of Cornwall, but in those days the Welsh journey would have been much more rigorous and extremely risky if Richard had sent a force into Wales to meet him. Very wisely he didn't. And it's so easy to become trapped by the Severn, as was MOA before Tewkesbury when she was trying to go the other way. So I agree, there must have been others along and surrounding the route on standby. A lot of them must have been the 1483 rebels as is evidenced by their being given HS positions in November 1485. Almost certainly Tocotes - did he turn up for Richard then change side when given the signal by the Stanleys - and Humphrey Stanley. Was Robert Carre in Hampshire on standby if HT needed to make a dash for Southampton? And of course this points to the re-activation of the Woodville network - passed to MB by EW and much more carefully used? Like everything else the history of this period had to be re-invented. Richard had to be made to look bad, unpopular, a child murderer. How else can you justify killing a competent King who had been chosen by Parliament. What really disappoints me is that the excellent historians like Horrox, Carpenter and dare I say it even Hicks, have actually fallen for this. But then 'bad' people are always more interesting than good ones and that is what the media of its day has ever thought.
--
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] High Sheriffs who did

2018-11-15 18:28:20
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Don't know if I'd go so far as him being a megalomaniac, but it certainly appears that his ego, and its' effect on history, hasn't really been given due consideration. FWIW, it's Buckingham's ego that prevents me believing he authored a letter begging Tudor to come and be king. I'd believe something more on the lines of Tudor as the king? Over my dead body! or its 14th century equivalent. Doug Hilary wrote: Yep since I wrote this Doug I realised that Buckingham's problem was that he never read Horrox :) :) You see Richard - a very modern king - worked on a rota system for his Court; and as a lot of them were from the North it was a very popular idea. So when they'd done their stint he'd "say thanks William or Marmaduke, now go off and see your wife and kids and make sure your property's OK". And they'd breathe a sigh of relief and head up to God's Country. You know I go to York a lot and when you're there London could be as far away as Paris. I think Richard understood that (of course he did) and it also stopped them wondering what was going on at home and kept their mind on the job in hand. And of course it saved him money ...... Wages were mainly based around attendance. So I reckon after the Coronation he would have said something like "you've been working continuously now since April, Harry. Take a break, go and see your wife and kids. Lovell and Catesby can look after me. I'm not even taking Anne for the first stint." But of course he didn't know he was dealing with a meglomaniac!
--
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} [Richard

2018-11-15 19:00:44
Doug Stamate
Nico, Apologies for butting in, but I rather think this is a case of royalty using we where everyone else would use I. Later in the proclamation, our is used when it's obvious the reference is to Richard/Perkin only. The link is very interesting, thank you! Doug Nico wrote: David, The Scottish Manifesto is printed in the Arthurson book. Here is another link: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_xXTtRHBjBkC&pg=PR4-IA1&lpg=PR4-#v=onepage&q&f=false When he says that "we, in our tender age, escaped by God's great might, out of the Tower of London, and were secretly conveyed over the sea to other divers countries...,' he must be referring to both himself and Edward. If it was only him, he would have said I. If Perkin was Richard of Shrewsbury, then both boys were probably taken abroad and Edward probably died before 1491, most likely in Flanders.
--
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

2018-11-16 11:27:55
Hilary Jones
Doug I think the 'list' is yet another example of carefully targeted people. Where would you start if you were MB and Bray? Well obviously there are those who had already upped sticks and joined HT in the last chance saloon but there weren't actually very many of them - 29 including half a dozen servants. The rest would be on the attainder list of Richard's 1484 Parliament. These, like the defectors, would be on the original Woodville contact list, so EW could be very helpful there and a lot of them are placed in key port strategic areas like Kent, Southampton and Bristol.
What interests me is at what point the baton was passed on so to speak. Was it immediately after the October rebellions - I doubt it? Was it after the death of Edward of Middleham when the succession was weakened? Or was it much later when Anne too appeared to be dying and Richard was weakened yet again? I don't think it was something conceived in mere weeks' before Bosworth, MB was too clever to rush anything. I would love to know when, because that does bring us back again to the death of young Edward. Not that I'm a great one for James Bond type plots, but it does have a bit of the ring of Isabel as well. H
On Thursday, 15 November 2018, 18:35:11 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I really think that Richard should have listened to those who urged him to retire a bit further and join up with those still mustering? That list of those HS's who weren't at Bosworth almost certainly includes some who were doing just that And, considering their standard operating procedures, I also tend to think the Stanleys, seeing Tudor opposed by an overwhelming force would either not have intervened at all or, if they did, on Richard's side. I'm also starting to wonder about the real value of any Woodville network, at least at that point in time. I think most of those HS's who defected were already in either Tudor's camp or his mother's, with the possibility that some of the latter may not have been so wholeheartedly in support as those in the former. It's also interesting to note that, presuming Tudor's overall plan was to force Richard to divide his forces to suppress uprisings around England, it's only in the southeast that any occurred. Any of the HS's along the south coast or in the southwest who defected, didn't seem able to stir up anything. At any rate, it does seem as if Tudor's plan was to land in Wales and march eastwards, all the while augmenting his French mercenaries with Welsh irregulars. Simultaneously, or nearly so, uprisings were to occur in the southeast, southwest and possibly the Midlands, but any rising in that last was scuppered by Richard choosing to muster his army in that region. I would think someone might have noticed this before but, as you say, too often attention gets diverted... Doug Hilary wrote: I agree entirely Doug. I live about half an hour from Bosworth Field and it's pretty much in the centre of England (well Meriden has that accolade but it's not far out). Milford Haven is about as far away as you can get, I know I've been there. I suppose the only thing which equates is the south of Cornwall, but in those days the Welsh journey would have been much more rigorous and extremely risky if Richard had sent a force into Wales to meet him. Very wisely he didn't. And it's so easy to become trapped by the Severn, as was MOA before Tewkesbury when she was trying to go the other way. So I agree, there must have been others along and surrounding the route on standby. A lot of them must have been the 1483 rebels as is evidenced by their being given HS positions in November 1485. Almost certainly Tocotes - did he turn up for Richard then change side when given the signal by the Stanleys - and Humphrey Stanley. Was Robert Carre in Hampshire on standby if HT needed to make a dash for Southampton? And of course this points to the re-activation of the Woodville network - passed to MB by EW and much more carefully used? Like everything else the history of this period had to be re-invented. Richard had to be made to look bad, unpopular, a child murderer. How else can you justify killing a competent King who had been chosen by Parliament. What really disappoints me is that the excellent historians like Horrox, Carpenter and dare I say it even Hicks, have actually fallen for this. But then 'bad' people are always more interesting than good ones and that is what the media of its day has ever thought.
--
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] High Sheriffs who did

2018-11-16 11:33:54
Hilary Jones
I'd agree with you on your last sentence Doug. Perhaps meglamaniac was the wrong word, more 'mentally unstable'. I'm not that au fait with mental illness to know into which category he might fall. It could be simply that he had over-estimated Richard's regard for him and when he came to see that the realisation was unbearable? I don't know where the wanting to be king came from, other than as a chronicler's interpretation. He certainly didn't seem to have had an ounce of support. H
On Thursday, 15 November 2018, 18:33:12 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Don't know if I'd go so far as him being a megalomaniac, but it certainly appears that his ego, and its' effect on history, hasn't really been given due consideration. FWIW, it's Buckingham's ego that prevents me believing he authored a letter begging Tudor to come and be king. I'd believe something more on the lines of Tudor as the king? Over my dead body! or its 14th century equivalent. Doug Hilary wrote: Yep since I wrote this Doug I realised that Buckingham's problem was that he never read Horrox :) :) You see Richard - a very modern king - worked on a rota system for his Court; and as a lot of them were from the North it was a very popular idea. So when they'd done their stint he'd "say thanks William or Marmaduke, now go off and see your wife and kids and make sure your property's OK". And they'd breathe a sigh of relief and head up to God's Country. You know I go to York a lot and when you're there London could be as far away as Paris. I think Richard understood that (of course he did) and it also stopped them wondering what was going on at home and kept their mind on the job in hand. And of course it saved him money ...... Wages were mainly based around attendance. So I reckon after the Coronation he would have said something like "you've been working continuously now since April, Harry. Take a break, go and see your wife and kids. Lovell and Catesby can look after me. I'm not even taking Anne for the first stint." But of course he didn't know he was dealing with a meglomaniac!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-16 11:58:41
Hilary Jones
I know we shall never agree on this but I do think Hastings's power under Edward IV has been exaggerated.
You see I think Edward used Hastings in the way he used Richard - someone to whom it was useful to palm off boring jobs. So anything boring in Yorkshire, give it to Richard, anything boring in Warwickshire and Leicestershire, give it to Hastings. Now that of course may have made the local gentry think Hastings was getting too powerful, but actually Edward was just pushing their quarrels to Hastings to sort out. Any threat of discontent, rebellion etc and Edward was back in a flash, pushing Richard, Edward, even his own son, out of the way. No-one was really powerful under Edward. As I've said many times, the only occasion Hastings acted to help Margaret (and Richard and George) he was called home immediately from Calais and had his knuckles rapped.
And why should he care so much about young Edward - probably an arrogant Woodville adolescent, or an ill arrogant Woodville adolescent? He knew Richard, they'd been in exile together, they'd fought battles together, he knew Richard was a sensible person well-experienced in the mechanics of government. How many of us are close to the children of our friends? We're polite to one another but it's very much a generation thing. In that sense Hastings and Richard have a much closer bond and a mutual respect for the remembrance of Edward - despite the moral condemnation in TR which was also certainly drafted by the clergy..
I rest my case for the defence. I think he was set up. H

On Wednesday, 14 November 2018, 15:54:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, FWIW, I base my view of why Hastings did what he did on his actions prior to the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council. He was Edward IV's Lord chamberlain, as well as holding several other posts both responsible and lucrative. He was also, as best we can tell, Edward's friend, but I don't know how much of what he later did can be based on that last. So we have someone who supported Edward IV, supported a non-Woodville dominated Edward V, supported Richard as Protector, but when the Pre-Contract appears, he moved from that latter to becoming involved in a plot to kill Richard. Now, Hastings may not have been overtly ambitious, but he does seem to have angled for a political situation where his support would be necessary. If the Woodvilles weren't to dominate young Edward, then there'd have to be a group of people, a majority on the Council, to counter-balance them. Which would drive up the value of Hastings' support. If Richard was to be a successful Protector and not go the way of his namesake Duke Humphrey, Richard would also need the support of a majority of the Council. However, if the Pre-Contract was accepted as being valid, then Richard would become king. Should Richard become king, though, then the value of Hastings' support would diminish drastically. Not supporting the king could easily be viewed as treason, leaving retirement to his estates as Hastings only other option. IOW, the value of position on the Council would be gone; he would no longer be able to use his support, or threat of non-support, as a bargaining chip. And then, as I mentioned in a different post, Hastings may have actually believed that the Pre-Contract was a put-up job just to get Richard the throne. Hastings may have used that last as his justification for his actions, but I can't really say. If, on the other hand, Richard was removed from the scene, then it's entirely likely that the Pre-Contract would be treated as it has since by a majority of historians as being a fake and, or so I would imagine, Edward V would remain on the throne (with Buckingham filling in for the murdered Richard?) and the non-Woodville Council would still need Hastings' help in counter-balancing the Woodvilles. So what I'm left with is someone who, as I wrote, seemed determined to maintain a political situation where his support was necessary and I can only come up with two possibilities to explain his actions. Either he was more ambitious than has come down to us, or else all his political maneuverings were done only to maintain the son of friend on the throne he'd inherited. To be honest, though, even if the second explanation is the correct one, it still wouldn't completely rule out the first. I think. Doug My apologies, I hit send before I completed the post! Hilary wrote: Strangely enough Doug I've never had the impression that Hastings was that ambitious. Yes he had the captaincy of Calais - but that got him into trouble for disobeying Edward. Other than that I reckon he enjoyed the life he had and 'ruling' wasn't part of it. Unless that life was threatened if the Woodvilles took over. If you look at peoples' families you can often spot the ambitious. The Stanleys never missed a marriage trick which is why they had so many affinities. Apart from his heir, Hastings's family on the other hand married into the usual local gentry - no great ambition there. But, silly H, I did spot his brother-in-law - Sir John Donne! That being said the rest of his family turned out for Richard at Bosworth - which actually says something - I think!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-16 12:25:57
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, one of the reasons I keep pushing the Ian Arthurson book on Warbeck ad nauseum is because it is a marvellous exposition of the politics in Europe for the fifteen or so years before and after Bosworth.
It's so good on this that it would be churlish to try to summarise it, but basically the big threat to European stability from about 1480 onwards (or even earlier) was France. France wanted Burgundy (Flanders) back and with it the Low Countries, France wanted a foothold in what we now call Italy, France had it's eye on Brittany. In fact France wanted to be big, very big, in an age when other countries like Spain and Portugal were concentrating on exploration. France almost certainly backed HT to take Richard's eye off their ambitions elsewhere - a boy king rather than a warrior king would have suited them fine! They of course made a huge mistake when almost immediately HT started meddling and demanding 3 times Edward's pension!
There would almost certainly have come a time when Maximilien would have had to ask for Richard's help in the Low Countries. As well as all this the Hungarians had invaded Vienna and M's father had had to flee to the Low Countries. Whilst his father was fighting the Hungarians, Maximilen made war against the French in 1487 using German mercenaries and they brought plague to Flanders. This is why Brampton left it in that year. And of course as well as all this the Moors were about to take Rhodes. When Richard said to Von Poppelau that he wished he could go and fight the Moors this wasn't some declaration of his religious devotion, it was because since the early 1480s the English court had been bombarded with letters from John Kendall, the Turcopolier of the Hospitallers in Rhodes asking for help. They're in the CFR.
In fact Maximilien's Juan Salazar fought for Richard at Bosworth.
By 1495 I think it's fair to say that everyone hated the meddler HT, who never took to the saddle, but kept sending the English fleet to cause trouble. There would have been little opposition to anyone trying to take him out - which is Arthurson's argument as to why they 'invented' Warbeck's claim. So I thing a real Richard/M invasion in the late 1480s would have been looked upon with some amusement by the French. It would have kept two of their adversaries occupied and done them a good turn in taking out HT, leaving room for a concord later?
BTW the situation outlined above is why I have difficulty in thinking anyone would have sent two boys to Flanders in the 1480s. They were sending them, even in 1483, into a potential war zone. H




On Wednesday, 14 November 2018, 14:46:52 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The only counter to your excellent summation of what was expected of a king in those days is: Edward II. I'm not referring to his sex life, but rather to the interest he displayed in many activities that were considered demeaning to a king, but it had been a century and a half since since his reign and times had changed somewhat. Lacking any evidence, and considering that Anthony, Lord Rivers was our Edward's governor, I wonder just how much war-like activities would have been emphasized at Ludlow? If the reports about he and his brother while they were in the Tower are accurate, we know they were seen practicing archery. That would leave being trained in the use of a sword, how to ride well and possibly even some jousting. The last though, with its' dangers, even when practiced against inanimate objects, might not have yet begun. Does anyone know, with any exactness, just what Edward's curriculum there was? Regarding Maximilian, I know it's Wikipedia, but the article there for Richard de la Pole has Maximilian agreeing to support his brother Edmund in 1501, only to make a deal with Henry VII in 1502 about not supporting any claimants to the English throne. I didn't find anything about Maximilian's support, or refusal of support, for any earlier attempts to oust Tudor. Doug Here's the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole Hilary wrote: Just to chip in, the other thing that makes me think that EV didn't last long was that certainly by 1487 he would be on the verge of manhood - getting on for the age when Richard fought at Barnet and Edward took the throne. Potential kings were still in those days brought up foremost to be warriors yet we never actually hear of the young Edward participating in anything like that, even as a child, do we? Or having a junior suit of armour? That writing is not right for a potential renaissance king. Young Edward had an undefeated warrior father. Surely by the late 1480s he'd have appeared on the European scene with the backing of Maximilen? BTW Doug on the subject of Maximilien, Flanders and the Low Countries were well aware of French ambitions way before 1483. He would probably like nothing better than to kick the French in the teeth by restoring Richard. And of course no doubt part of the French strategy of supporting HT was to divert warri or king Richard away from French ambitions in Europe. And of course it so badly backfired.
--
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} [Richard

2018-11-16 12:45:35
Nicholas Brown
Doug, I hadn't considered the 'royal we.' I had assumed it was a more recent trend associated with the present Royal Family. However, pluralis maiestatis it does go back a long way in history, as early as Henry II in England, so someone such as Perkin could have used it. However, the correct usage is when the subject concerned is relevant to the nation as a whole, such as 'our reign.' That is where the reference to escaping from the Tower differs because it only affected whoever actually escaped. Therefore, in this instance, I would think he is talking about himself and Edward V, unless he was using the phrase incorrectly, like Margaret Thatcher when she said 'we are a grandmother.' Queen Victoria's 'we are not amused' is said to refer to herself and whoever else heard whatever it was that was unamusing.

Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-11-16 14:17:40
ricard1an
I also think it was possible that Hastings was set up. It comes back to my old theory if you were plotting to get rid of the Yorkists and put your son on the throne (MB / EW) then who would you get rid of? Originally I thought if MB had been planning for years to put Henry on the throne she wouldn't have done it while Edward was alive because she wouldn't be able to get up an army that could defeat him but then Edward dies suddenly and maybe she could see a way through. I have changed my mind slightly over the past year and some of the discussions we have had on this site and thought that maybe initially MB was only supporting EW in her quest to put Edward V on the throne having been promised that her son would be allowed to return home and then changed tack after all that happened between 1483 to 1485. However, if someone was trying to get rid of the Yorkists for whatever reason, they would have to get rid of all those who had a better claim to the throne. This did happened between 1483 and 1485 and to my mind was a very strange coincidence. The other person that you would have to get rid of would be Hastings and while I don't think that he would have been averse to Edward V being King I don't think the Woodvilles would have wanted him around as he would not have been happy about them being in power. So maybe MB originally helped set up Hastings for her pal EW but found it very useful when plotting to put her son on the throne.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-16 14:19:33
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Doug I think the 'list' is yet another example of carefully targeted people. Where would you start if you were MB and Bray? Well obviously there are those who had already upped sticks and joined HT in the last chance saloon but there weren't actually very many of them - 29 including half a dozen servants. The rest would be on the attainder list of Richard's 1484 Parliament. These, like the defectors, would be on the original Woodville contact list, so EW could be very helpful there and a lot of them are placed in key port strategic areas like Kent, Southampton and Bristol. Doug here: The problem we face is that, with all those HS's who defected, it appears, on the surface anyway, that there was a fairly large anti-Richard, but the HS's who defected seemingly couldn't bring any of those mustered along with them when they went off to join Tudor. To be honest, I wonder if, in regards to replacing Richard with Tudor, as opposed to returning Edward V to the throne, that Woodville contact list may have been a great deal less useful than hoped? One thing that keeps getting missed, I think, is that, while we really don't know what happened to Edward IV's sons, that doesn't mean those alive at the time, people such as the HS's, didn't. During all my time in this group, I don't think I've ever seen anything brought forward that has Tudor claiming the boys were dead before Bosworth. If Tudor didn't know, then what was the position of those in that Woodville contact list? We have absolutely no evidence that says their mother didn't know they were alive. We do have evidence that strongly suggests she knew they were. Now, if Elizabeth Woodville knew her sons were alive, why would she assist in replacing Richard with Tudor? Or use any of her contacts to try and do so? This doesn't mean that MB didn't already have that list, only that it was she, and not Elizabeth Woodville, who was using it. Which might very explain some of those absences at Bosworth. Hilary concluded: What interests me is at what point the baton was passed on so to speak. Was it immediately after the October rebellions - I doubt it? Was it after the death of Edward of Middleham when the succession was weakened? Or was it much later when Anne too appeared to be dying and Richard was weakened yet again? I don't think it was something conceived in mere weeks' before Bosworth, MB was too clever to rush anything. I would love to know when, because that does bring us back again to the death of young Edward. Not that I'm a great one for James Bond type plots, but it does have a bit of the ring of Isabel as well. Doug here: Personally, I'd go with the simplest explanation: MB got that list as part of the deal between her and Elizabeth Woodville prior to the October rebellion. EW couldn't use it herself, so she passed it on to MB. Who, or so I think, then passed it on to her son. It appears as if Tudor's active preparations for his invasion began after Edward of Middleham died, so I'd suggest it was then that Tudor first may have tried to make use of that list It's obvious from later actions that certainly some of them had been contacted by someone, but we're lacking direct evidence of who the spider in the web was. Something else we also don't know is how many, if any, of those HS's were contacted by Tudor's agents, made a noncommittal reply, and then informed Richard of what had happened, because it's interesting that Richard is on record as being quite confident of being able to defeat Tudor in battle. Perhaps that confidence was based on the loyalty those HS's showed by telling him about Tudor contacting them?
--
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] High S

2018-11-16 14:47:27
Doug Stamate
For now, I'm sticking with the problem being his ego. Or, at least, being based on that. However, one idea that does come to mind is sort of a mixture of several possible explanations that have already been suggested. He was an Earl at the age of four, became a Duke when he was six, and was married to Catherine Woodville at the age of 12, but there were no children until he was 25. So what happened between his marriage at age 12 and the birth of his first child when he was 25? The Wikipedia article lists four surviving children, all born after he was 25, but it also listed a Humphrey and a Margaret, with no explanation of whether they died in infancy or were illegitimate. Do we have any information on them at all? Anyway, it crossed my mind that Buckingham may have been attracted to members of his own sex, enough anyway to remain apart from his wife during his youth and early adulthood. Then, while he may grown out wishing for any, um, physical attachment, he was still inclined towards forming emotional attachments with males. Now, I don't know what his upbringing was like prior to his marriage, but if it was continually emphasized that he must do this, or not do that, because he was Henry, Duke of Buckingham and of royal descent, might that not have an adverse effect on how he viewed himself? Doug Who, on the understanding that nothing is lost once it's put on the world wide web, really, really wishes there had been a medieval version... Hilary wrote: I'd agree with you on your last sentence Doug. Perhaps meglamaniac was the wrong word, more 'mentally unstable'. I'm not that au fait with mental illness to know into which category he might fall. It could be simply that he had over-estimated Richard's regard for him and when he came to see that the realisation was unbearable? I don't know where the wanting to be king came from, other than as a chronicler's interpretation. He certainly didn't seem to have had an ounce of support.
--
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

2018-11-16 15:23:56
ricard1an
Doug with regard to your question that if EW knew that the Princes were alive why on earth would she risk replacing Richard with Tudor then I wonder what was Bosworth fought for? Could it be that, despite knowing that her boys were safe and having sent her daughters out of sanctuary to Richard's safekeeping, EW was still trying to get Edward crowned as King. MB and Stanley were egging her on but were all the time plotting to make Tudor king. Richard obviously knew some of what was going on as otherwise why would he have taken Stanley's son for safe keeping. The Stanleys were doing their usual fence sitting and had Richard won I am sure they would have been there trying to prove that he had their support. They met with Tudor in Atherstone a few days before the battle and if I remember rightly Richard knew about the meeting. Of course after the battle the propaganda machine took over and the story was that the sainted Henry Tudor had come to England's aid to save them from the evil Richard. We will probably never know exactly what went on but I think that we need to keep on speculating so that something may crop up that sets off a search for evidence, as when people on this Forum discovered that it was very likely that Rivers was not in Ludlow in April 1483. It would be wonderful if we could access medieval e-mails and telephone calls but it is sadly not to be. Who knows there could be evidence in private collections so we all need to keep on speculating.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-17 13:24:26
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: //snip// There are a couple of questions which are rarely asked but which I'd like the answer to. Firstly, despite his 'oath' did HT really ever expect to be king? Personally I doubt it. I reckon the aim, obviously not disclosed to his followers, was to get Richard in a position where he could force a few concessions out of him - starting with reversal of attainder and then, possibly, a place in government. Instead he found himself on a battlefield, having been unable to restrain his mercenaries from killing an anointed King, facing a future where he'd always remember that moment and where he'd never even be able to even walk through a door without thinking a similar thing would one day happen to him. Doug here: I myself would go with his not wanting to be king up until his oath at, I believe, Christmas of 1484. I'm also inclined to believe that the reason for Tudor's change of heart/aims may have been caused by two things; the promise of those mercenaries from the French and the presence of the Earl of Oxford who'd shown himself to be quite capable of effectively using those mercenaries. As best I can recall, until he landed in Wales, Tudor really hadn't committed any form active treason. He hadn't returned when ordered to do so and, while that could be counted as treason, if that was the only charge against him I can't see him losing his head over it. Now, he'd also loaded up some ships and headed for England in the autumn of 1483, but he'd never landed and, most importantly, he'd never participated in any of the fighting. We know that after Bosworth, attempts were made to portray him as Buckingham's choice to become king, but really, there's no actual evidence to that. Now, I can see Tudor planning on using the threat of those mercenaries as a bargaining chip, but if there's one thing that shouts out to me about Henry Tudor, it's that he had an extremely high regard for his own skin. I simply can't see him risking it if his aim was only to wangle a return to England by invading it at the head of an army, while all the time never expecting that army to fight. The moment the first mercenary's foot stepped onto the quay at Milford Haven, Henry's head was forfeit  unless he defeated Richard. The same reasoning applies, I think, if there'd been a massive out-pouring of supporters makng their way to him. If that had happened, there'd still likely have been a battle, and while the outcome might likely have been the same as Bosworth's, there'd likely have been no need for the Stanleys' treachery. So my conclusion is that, if Henry was at the head of an armed force, then he intended to fight, and presumably win, a battle; because if he lost, then he'd almost certainly lose his head. FWIW, and it's only my opinion, but I rather think another factor in Tudor's change of heart concerning invading England was that word of Richard's intentions towards Joanna of Portugal had reached him. Should Richard unite the Houses of York and Lancaster by that marriage, then what value was there in Henry's proposed marriage with EoY? Whether Henry simply wanted to return to England or he wanted to become king, there simply wasn't enough Lancastrian support left, even with those mercenaries, to accomplish that without significant support from other sources, such as whatever was left of the Woodville affinity allied with any discontented Yorkists. Hilary concluded: Secondly, what did MB really think of her son? She loved him as a mother of course, but did she like him when she at last met him after Bosworth? His formative years had been spent away from her. She had been embraced by the Yorkist court and had seen the talents of the Brothers York - their qualities as warriors, their patronage of education and the arts, their charisma, their ability to command loyalty (even Clarence). In the twenty plus years she was forced to observe the rule of her son there must have been moments when she knew full well that the man he displaced had been far more suitable for kingship than this paranoid, friendless, obsessive loner? Doug here: I must admit I've never given this much thought, but it wouldn't surprise me if, at various times throughout two decades that MB suffered at least twinges of buyer's remorse. I believe that her piety in later life has often been attributed to her gratitude for Henry's return, but there's no know reason that they weren't acts of penance... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-17 14:03:12
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Doug, I hadn't considered the 'royal we.' I had assumed it was a more recent trend associated with the present Royal Family. However, pluralis maiestatis it does go back a long way in history, as early as Henry II in England, so someone such as Perkin could have used it. However, the correct usage is when the subject concerned is relevant to the nation as a whole, such as 'our reign.' That is where the reference to escaping from the Tower differs because it only affected whoever actually escaped. Therefore, in this instance, I would think he is talking about himself and Edward V, unless he was using the phrase incorrectly, like Margaret Thatcher when she said 'we are a grandmother.' Queen Victoria's 'we are not amused' is said to refer to herself and whoever else heard whatever it was that was unamusing. Doug here: In rebuttal, I offer this from the second page of the Proclamation: ...All which subtle and corrupt labours by him made, to our great jeopardy and peril, we have, by God's might, graciously escaped and over-passed as well as by land as by sea, and be now with the right high and mighty prince our dearest cousin the king of Scots... Surely not a reference to himself and his brother? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-17 14:51:41
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
I see what you mean here, but could the 'we' in this case be a reference to those Perkin and his supporters? They escaped capture after the disaster at Deal and moved on Scotland.
Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-17 15:37:29
Durose David
Doug and Nico,
Isn't there another section in which Perkin refers to the fact that Henry has stolen the crown 'rightly to us pertaining'. That has to be unambiguously a 'royal we' because the crown can only pertain to a single individual.
So in a passage so littered with royal plurals it is unsafe to assume that any single occurrence has a different significance - especially in light of his letter, which states that his brother was killed in the Tower.
Regards

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 14:51, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []<> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I see what you mean here, but could the 'we' in this case be a reference to those Perkin and his supporters? They escaped capture after the disaster at Deal and moved on Scotland.
Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High S

2018-11-17 15:47:28
Nicholas Brown
Doug, I am inclined to agree with you that Buckingham's problem was about his ego; possibly narcissistic with the fragile sense of self that turns narcissistic types from charming into monsters when they don't get their way. If he expected to be at the center of power in a government headed by Richard, who was infinitely more accomplished, that would suggest an inflated sense of entitlement - something very common with people who were born to privilege, but lacked proper guidance. It isn't really clear who raised Buckingham. His father died when he was very young, and his mother remarried Sir Richard Dayrell, who was a bit below her station, which makes me think that Henry Stafford and MB played a major part in his upbringing. If he was passed around the family in his youth, that may have contributed to low self esteem and lack of purpose or direction. Buckingham could certainly have been in awe of Richard, and initially have thought that he was going to give him his moment in the sun, but when that was thwarted he could have felt a profound sense of rejection. Boys often have major problems when their mothers remarry. I wish we knew more about Buckingham's early life.

It is difficult to assess who was gay in the middle ages because the who topic was so secretive and socially unacceptable, but there must have been a certain percentage of the population who were. The nobility had to marry and procreate for social reasons, but there were those who seem to have been at least actively bisexual at some point such as EIV and Charles the Bold. There isn't any evidence that Buckingham himself was gay. He is said to have complained about his marriage, but that if is true (and it may not have been), it was because he thought the Woodvilles were beneath him socially (needing to rely on his background and title would be reflective of his insecurity). Buckingham and Katherine had at least four children. Edward Stafford, born 3 February 1478 is generally accepted as the oldest child, and the others were born at some point between then and 1484. The birth order is unclear and Wikipedia suggests a Humphrey and Margaret, but I can't find other evidence for them. If the oldest was born when Buckingham was 23 and Katherine 19/20, that seems quite normal, as you do notice longer gaps between the marriage and the first child when both partners were married young. Buckingham seems to have done his duty socially, but having children is not necessarily indicative of whether a marriage is successful or not. Overall, for the 'crush' theory, a possibility, but probably more psychologically based.
Nico


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-18 15:58:18
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I know we shall never agree on this but I do think Hastings's power under Edward IV has been exaggerated. Doug here: I doubt we will either, but I do find the interchange of ideas very interesting, as I hope you do. Hilary wrote: You see I think Edward used Hastings in the way he used Richard - someone to whom it was useful to palm off boring jobs. So anything boring in Yorkshire, give it to Richard, anything boring in Warwickshire and Leicestershire, give it to Hastings. Now that of course may have made the local gentry think Hastings was getting too powerful, but actually Edward was just pushing their quarrels to Hastings to sort out. Any threat of discontent, rebellion etc and Edward was back in a flash, pushing Richard, Edward, even his own son, out of the way. No-one was really powerful under Edward. As I've said many times, the only occasion Hastings acted to help Margaret (and Richard and George) he was called home immediately from Calais and had his knuckles rapped. Doug here: I wonder if what's happening in our discussions about Hastings is that we're looking at two different forms of power? If I'm correctly reading your posts, you're viewing Hastings' power, or his lack of it, only the active form; the ability to order something done and have that order carried out, or to make a decision and see it carried through. But there's another form of power, possibly best described as influence?, and it's that form of power that I think Hastings both had and wanted to keep. It's exactly the sort of power, for example, that a Lord Chamberlain held; the power to control who saw the king and who didn't. It's more of a negative form of power but, or so I imagine, one that could be just as addicting as sitting behind a desk, or on a horse, making decisions and seeing them carried out pronto. For Edward to fob off regional problems onto the heads of his regional managers, while retaining authority over anything that directly affected his own interests, that discontent, rebellion, only made sense. He handled the big stuff, and left the rest to those he'd placed charge. Not only would such a managerial style make it easier on Edward, it would also deflect animosity away from the king and onto those handling local affairs. The Calais affair is interesting, isn't it? Might it have happened because Hastings misunderstood what Edward wanted? Or possibly Edward, wanting to remain in the background, was trying to find a way to keep getting that pension from France while simultaneously assisting Margaret only to discover that it wasn't possible? IOW, Hastings being in charge and seemingly acting on his own was simply Edward hiding behind what's become known as plausible deniability? Hilary continued: And why should he care so much about young Edward - probably an arrogant Woodville adolescent, or an ill arrogant Woodville adolescent? He knew Richard, they'd been in exile together, they'd fought battles together, he knew Richard was a sensible person well-experienced in the mechanics of government. How many of us are close to the children of our friends? We're polite to one another but it's very much a generation thing. In that sense Hastings and Richard have a much closer bond and a mutual respect for the remembrance of Edward - despite the moral condemnation in TR which was also certainly drafted by the clergy. Doug here: A generation thing or not, Edward was the king. Any less desirable qualities he may have possessed would have paled in comparison to that one over-arching fact. And who would control the young king for the next five years or so was the question. Would it be the Woodvilles or would it be Richard? Hastings opted for Richard without, I think, really knowing how Richard personally felt about him. In our lives, especially our working lives, it's almost a certainty that we've all known someone who we worked well enough with, but would in no way associate with away during our non-working hours and I note that one could view those instances you've provided as being work. I think perhaps that was Richard's attitude towards Hastings and that after Richard's arrival in London that attitude became apparent to Hastings. However, Richard's attitude towards Hastings wouldn't matter as long as Richard was Protector. Even if Richard's powers as Protector were all-but-regal, Richard would still need the backing of a majority of the Council, or else face the real possibility of rebellion/s breaking out; rebellions that could easily be viewed as protecting the rights of the young king and reining in an over-mighty Protector. And I really think Hastings believed the same situation would occur if Richard were removed and Edward V took over the government. If that happened, I imagine his idea was that, whether he supported the Woodvilles or their opponents, he'd be in the same position as under a Protectorate. Whoever controlled the Council would have to bargain for support in order to first gain control, then to maintain that control. Richard as king, OTOH, meant that there'd be no place for Hastings  at all. Presuming, of course, I'm correct in my views on the Richard/Hastings' relationship... Hilary concluded: I rest my case for the defence. I think he was set up. Doug here: A flat statement with no reasons? No fair! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-18 16:19:07
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: I also think it was possible that Hastings was set up. It comes back to my old theory if you were plotting to get rid of the Yorkists and put your son on the throne (MB / EW) then who would you get rid of? Originally I thought if MB had been planning for years to put Henry on the throne she wouldn't have done it while Edward was alive because she wouldn't be able to get up an army that could defeat him but then Edward dies suddenly and maybe she could see a way through. I have changed my mind slightly over the past year and some of the discussions we have had on this site and thought that maybe initially MB was only supporting EW in her quest to put Edward V on the throne having been promised that her son would be allowed to return home and then changed tack after all that happened between 1483 to 1485. However, if someone was trying to get rid of the Yorkists for whatever reason, they would have to get rid of all those who had a better claim to the throne. This did happened between 1483 and 1485 and to my mind was a very strange coincidence. The other person that you would have to get rid of would be Hastings and while I don't think that he would have been averse to Edward V being King I don't think the Woodvilles would have wanted him around as he would not have been happy about them being in power. So maybe MB originally helped set up Hastings for her pal EW but found it very useful when plotting to put her son on the throne. Doug here: It's not that I'm so much against the idea that Hastings may have been set up, it's the how that causes my doubts. As Constable, Richard was fully empowered to try someone accused of treason, and execute that person once convicted. But to convict someone for treason requires proof, either written or a demonstrably treasonous action. I suppose oral might be added to the list, but I'm not certain just what it would work. So my objection boils down to: What evidence did Richard have that would warrant Hastings' execution? Was it some form of written evidence? If so, where did it come from? Morton? But would Richard believe any evidence provided by Morton if that's all there was? And if there were others to back Morton up, who were they and were they also executed? If so, when; if not, why not? If the evidence wasn't written, then what actions had Hastings taken that weren't treasonous, but might be made to appear so? This is the question I find even harder to answer. There's a report that the Lord Chamberlain was involved in some sort of fracas and died. We know Hastings was executed, so that confirms, sort of, the last part, but we don't have any other corroboration for the first part  other than the fact that threatening the life of the Constable is treason and the punishment for that is death. Which is what happened to Hastings. As I said, I can see someone wanting to divide and conquer, it's the mechanics of the affair that have me stumped. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-18 16:43:13
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I see what you mean here, but could the 'we' in this case be a reference to those Perkin and his supporters? They escaped capture after the disaster at Deal and moved on Scotland. Well, there's also that use of our which, or so I'd imagine, wouldn't apply to him and his supporters. Doug Who used to think the use of the Royal We was much newer...
--
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

2018-11-18 17:14:40
Stephen
The Royal plural (we/ our) has surely only ever been used by the monarch? Richard of Shrewsbury wasn't that, particularly if his elder brother was still alive. However, if Edward V had died somehow, the 1486 Titulus Regius relegitimised him as Edward IV's heir.
Interestingly, Elizabeth II once said We, by which I mean my husband and I ....

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18 November 2018 17:08
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

 
 
 
Nico wrote:
I see what you mean here, but could the 'we' in this case be a reference to those Perkin and his supporters? They escaped capture after the disaster at Deal and moved on Scotland.
 
Well, there's also that use of our which, or so I'd imagine, wouldn't apply to him and his supporters.
Doug
Who used to think the use of the Royal We was much newer...

--
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} [Richard

2018-11-18 18:06:47
ricard1an
Funnily enough Doug I came across some old Ricardian Bulletins this week and one of them from Winter 2008 had an article in it by David Johnson entitled The Real Reason why Hastings Lost His Head. Apparently David had written a two part article in the Bulletin in the Winter 2007 and Spring 2008 setting out why he thought Hastings had lost his head and Wendy Moorhen responded to these articles in the Summer 2008 Bulletin. David contended that Hastings beheading was a consequence of a failed assassination attempt against Richard and Buckingham and that the motive was the restoration of Hastings lost position at the heart of royal government. He also argued that Hastings plotted to cover his tracks by falsely incriminating the Woodvilles. Wendy replied that she conceded that Hastings was plotting to kill the Dukes but that she believed his motive was loyalty to Edward V rather than self interest and she also thought that Hastings would have accepted complete responsibility rather than incriminating the Woodvilles. It is quite an interesting read and while my computer skills are not good enough to copy it here you can find it by googling The Real Reason why Hastings Lost his Head: A reply to Wendy Moorhen. I am also going to take a look at David and Wendy's article in the previous Bulletins.
Mary

Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Boswo

2018-11-19 06:42:36
Doug Stamate
Mary, You asked why Elizabeth Woodville would risk replacing Richard with Tudor and my answer is I don't think she ever did. FWIW, I think that Elizabeth Woodville gave up on the idea of returning her son to the throne sometime between the failure of the October Rebellion and when she did come out of sanctuary. I have no proof that she did so, but at the same time there's no proof that she supported Tudor in 1485. No one has apparently made note of the fact that, if she believed her sons were dead, she could have made some sort of public meeting with her sons as one of the conditions of her leaving sanctuary to draw attention to that fact. Why didn't she? Traditionalists will claim that she feared for her life and those of her daughters, what with her being nothing but a poor weak widow woman and all. And, yes that was sarcasm. I think she didn't mention her sons because not doing so was part of the agreement. As was demonstrated by the messaging between EW and MB prior to the October Rebellion, there simply was no way for Richard to prevent Elizabeth Woodville from sending and receiving messages while she was in sanctuary. He might intercept some of the written ones, but short of sealing the place off and letting no one in or out, he couldn't stop verbal messages from being passed. Which tells me that Elizabeth Woodville could get into contact with anyone she chose, even if the message was verbal and had to be passed via several different people before reaching the intended recipient. She still had friends in high places and they could pass information to her about, among other things, her sons. For that matter, we don't know that Richard didn't do just that as part of the on-going negotiations.. I think she spent those months in sanctuary negotiating with Richard on the terms of her leaving sanctuary; proposing terms on her part and considering the terms Richard offered. She left sanctuary, I believe, not because Richard threatened to force his way in and drag her out, but because Richard finally announced that he'd made his last proposals and any further attempt to prolong the negotiations would result in the terms becoming less congenial to her interests. And don't forget, she made the deal with Richard well after Tudor vowed to marry her daughter. For Tudor to get the throne, and keep it, Richard wasn't the only obstacle. The official Tudor position was that the Pre-Contract was a fake, and that meant that all of her children by Edward IV were legitimate  including her sons. The last written reference we have to the boys is that they weren't seen in the Tower after Easter. The reference certainly can't refer to Easter 1483, because neither were in the Tower at that time. Richard was with his mother and Edward was in Wales. It might even refer to Easter 1485, but I personally think the reference is to Easter 1484 because Elizabeth Woodville left sanctuary on 1 March 1484, which also was before Easter. Now, a fter Bosworth she was faced with a very difficult situation, which was only worsened by her daughter's marriage to Henry Tudor. If, as I I believe, she knew her sons were alive, at least up to Richard's death, but likely didn't know exactly where they were, she could, with all honesty, tell Tudor that she didn't know where they were or what had happened to them. Doug Mary wrote: Doug with regard to your question that if EW knew that the Princes were alive why on earth would she risk replacing Richard with Tudor then I wonder what was Bosworth fought for? Could it be that, despite knowing that her boys were safe and having sent her daughters out of sanctuary to Richard's safekeeping, EW was still trying to get Edward crowned as King. MB and Stanley were egging her on but were all the time plotting to make Tudor king. Richard obviously knew some of what was going on as otherwise why would he have taken Stanley's son for safe keeping. The Stanleys were doing their usual fence sitting and had Richard won I am sure they would have been there trying to prove that he had their support. They met with Tudor in Atherstone a few days before the battle and if I remember rightly Richard knew about the meeting. Of course after the battle the propaganda machine took over and the story was that the sainted Henry Tudor had come to England's aid to sav e them from the evil Richard. We will probably never know exactly what went on but I think that we need to keep on speculating so that something may crop up that sets off a search for evidence, as when people on this Forum discovered that it was very likely that Rivers was not in Ludlow in April 1483. It would be wonderful if we could access medieval e-mails and telephone calls but it is sadly not to be. Who knows there could be evidence in private collections so we all need to keep on speculating. 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at B

2018-11-19 11:03:47
Hilary Jones
Two days off and I'm dreadfully behind - so sorry folks If I've missed anything, I'm catching up.
Doug, I love a good debate - so never worry about that! You see I'm coming to realise (if I didn't already) that there's absolutely nothing published about Richard in the last five hundred years that you can really trust (except perhaps the latter work of people like JAH). It's like unwrapping a parcel; the top layer is the twentieth century interpreters who are relying on the next layer; the Victorian romanticists and moralists; who are writing about the next layer down, mainly Shakespeare and More, who are repeating the great Tudor legend aptly backed by a few ancient 'chroniclers' (equivalent to today's tabloid Press). And yet everyone, including sadly today's historians are still churning out this stuff unchallenged. They don't even get out an atlas and look at Stony Stratford!
To be provocative I'm now going to throw something else in:
DDK/1/20Title:The King to Sir Thomas Stanley, Knight, Lord Stanley, and George Stanley, Knight, Lord Leatrange, his sonDescription:

Grant (" for the singular and faithful service which they have hitherto done us not only in favouring our right and title by virtue of which we have now (the Lord helping us) come to the Crown of this realm, but also in repressing the treason and malice of our traitors and rebels who have stirred up perfidious commotions within this kingdom and for the good and faithful service to us and our heirs for our defence and that of our kingdom against traitors, enemies and rebels in times future as often as need be to be done ") of: -

Hope and Hopedale, Castle, Manor and Lordship of, in the Marches of Wales.

Northwich, Manor, Lordship and town of, with the pasture of Overmerrshe (co. Cest).
Manors and Lordships of, co. Somerset:

West Lideford,

Blakenden,
Haselbarre, alias Haselbeare,
Bereford St. Martin, Manor or Lordship of (Wilts.).
Ardington, Manor and Lordship of (Berks.).
Steventon, Manor and Lordship of (Beds.).
Manors and Lordships of (Beds):
Kottyng,
Collesden,
Cotton,
Blomeham, all the lands and tenements in, which belonged to Roger Tocotts (Beds.).
Gaddesden Magna, Manor and Lordship of (Herts.).
Kynbolton, Castle, Manor, Lordship and Soke of, with the Manors of Swyneshed, Hardewike and Tilbroke, and all towns, villages and members whatsoever in co. Hants, belonging to the said Lordship of Kynbolton.
Macclesfield and Cristilton (Cest.) all messuages, lands, tenements, rents and services in, which Henry late Duke of Buckingham had.
Chorley and Bolton (Lancashire), Manors of.
Brightmede (Lanc.), lands and tenements in.
London, all that messuage and all those lands and tenements which belonged to Sir Robert Willoughby, Knight, in the parish of S. Peter Powleswharf.

To hold to the said Thomas and George and the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas by Knight service and a rent of £4.

Date:7th September, 2 Richard III., A.D. 1484My word didn't he do well - and gain from Buckingham's death!! Particularly since he was 'looking to his wife'. Kynbolton BTW was one of Buckingham's major estates.
Notice that it's a reward not just for putting down the rebels but for supporting Richard's entitlement to the Crown. It implies that Stanley played an active part quelling the rebellion. I wonder how much info had inadvertently come via MB who had acquired 'the list' from EW and decided it was a lost cause?
Do we know how well Stanley/Hastings/Buckingham inter-acted. Perhaps Buckingham was jealous of Stanley's influence, rather than that of Hastings? Perhaps of both? And what of Stanley and Hastings?
What I'm also groping to ascertain is the 'trigger point' when MB started to support an HT invasion (I mean a proper one not the botched version of 1483). For example, did the French threaten to 'evict' HT and his supporters if they didn't carry out their wishes?Anyone know?
In the meantime, more work on Stanley and Oliver King our 'Secretary in the Gallic Tongue'. H
On Monday, 19 November 2018, 07:05:06 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, You asked why Elizabeth Woodville would risk replacing Richard with Tudor and my answer is I don't think she ever did. FWIW, I think that Elizabeth Woodville gave up on the idea of returning her son to the throne sometime between the failure of the October Rebellion and when she did come out of sanctuary. I have no proof that she did so, but at the same time there's no proof that she supported Tudor in 1485. No one has apparently made note of the fact that, if she believed her sons were dead, she could have made some sort of public meeting with her sons as one of the conditions of her leaving sanctuary to draw attention to that fact. Why didn't she? Traditionalists will claim that she feared for her life and those of her daughters, what with her being nothing but a poor weak widow woman and all. And, yes that was sarcasm. I think she didn't mention her sons because not doing so was part of the agreement. As was demonstrated by the messaging between EW and MB prior to the October Rebellion, there simply was no way for Richard to prevent Elizabeth Woodville from sending and receiving messages while she was in sanctuary. He might intercept some of the written ones, but short of sealing the place off and letting no one in or out, he couldn't stop verbal messages from being passed. Which tells me that Elizabeth Woodville could get into contact with anyone she chose, even if the message was verbal and had to be passed via several different people before reaching the intended recipient. She still had friends in high places and they could pass information to her about, among other things, her sons. For that matter, we don't know that Richard didn't do just that as part of the on-going negotiations.. I think she spent those months in sanctuary negotiating with Richard on the terms of her leaving sanctuary; proposing terms on her part and considering the terms Richard offered. She left sanctuary, I believe, not because Richard threatened to force his way in and drag her out, but because Richard finally announced that he'd made his last proposals and any further attempt to prolong the negotiations would result in the terms becoming less congenial to her interests. And don't forget, she made the deal with Richard well after Tudor vowed to marry her daughter. For Tudor to get the throne, and keep it, Richard wasn't the only obstacle. The official Tudor position was that the Pre-Contract was a fake, and that meant that all of her children by Edward IV were legitimate  including her sons. The last written reference we have to the boys is that they weren't seen in the Tower after Easter. The reference certainly can't refer to Easter 1483, because neither were in the Tower at that time. Richard was with his mother and Edward was in Wales. It might even refer to Easter 1485, but I personally think the reference is to Easter 1484 because Elizabeth Woodville left sanctuary on 1 March 1484, which also was before Easter. Now, a fter Bosworth she was faced with a very difficult situation, which was only worsened by her daughter's marriage to Henry Tudor. If, as I I believe, she knew her sons were alive, at least up to Richard's death, but likely didn't know exactly where they were, she could, with all honesty, tell Tudor that she didn't know where they were or what had happened to them. Doug Mary wrote: Doug with regard to your question that if EW knew that the Princes were alive why on earth would she risk replacing Richard with Tudor then I wonder what was Bosworth fought for? Could it be that, despite knowing that her boys were safe and having sent her daughters out of sanctuary to Richard's safekeeping, EW was still trying to get Edward crowned as King. MB and Stanley were egging her on but were all the time plotting to make Tudor king. Richard obviously knew some of what was going on as otherwise why would he have taken Stanley's son for safe keeping. The Stanleys were doing their usual fence sitting and had Richard won I am sure they would have been there trying to prove that he had their support. They met with Tudor in Atherstone a few days before the battle and if I remember rightly Richard knew about the meeting. Of course after the battle the propaganda machine took over and the story was that the sainted Henry Tudor had come to England's aid to sav e them from the evil Richard. We will probably never know exactly what went on but I think that we need to keep on speculating so that something may crop up that sets off a search for evidence, as when people on this Forum discovered that it was very likely that Rivers was not in Ludlow in April 1483. It would be wonderful if we could access medieval e-mails and telephone calls but it is sadly not to be. Who knows there could be evidence in private collections so we all need to keep on speculating. 
--
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

2018-11-19 16:41:46
Hilary Jones
Yes and Maggie T apologised later and said by the 'we' she meant her and Dennis. She was so excited she expected him to come out to the doorstep with her and when he didn't she got the grammar wrong! H
On Sunday, 18 November 2018, 17:14:43 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

The Royal plural (we/ our) has surely only ever been used by the monarch? Richard of Shrewsbury wasn't that, particularly if his elder brother was still alive. However, if Edward V had died somehow, the 1486 Titulus Regius relegitimised him as Edward IV's heir.
Interestingly, Elizabeth II once said We, by which I mean my husband and I ....

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 18 November 2018 17:08
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)




Nico wrote:
I see what you mean here, but could the 'we' in this case be a reference to those Perkin and his supporters? They escaped capture after the disaster at Deal and moved on Scotland.

Well, there's also that use of our which, or so I'd imagine, wouldn't apply to him and his supporters.
Doug
Who used to think the use of the Royal We was much newer....

--
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} [Richard

2018-11-20 11:05:12
Hilary Jones
Doug, I suppose my biggest problem with all this is the assumption that there would be this automatic loyalty to Edward IV's son. I think it's very Victorian, very Tennyson, very Arthurian. It's what led me to look at the 1483 rebels, who some claim to be 'Edwardian Yorkists'. As you know, I found plenty of Woodville Yorkists, and even some Clarence Yorkists, and dare I say it the odd HT supporter, but Edwardian Yorkists - no!
Did Hastings know young Edward well? I doubt it, he'd hardly ever seen him. Could he trust him, having been tutored by Rivers? I think Hastings was as vulnerable as Richard and the two would probably have been taken out together (and Hastings was!). Would young Edward like Hastings just because his father had? He might have been taught to dislike Hastings by the Woodvilles because of his lifestyle? If it was a set-up, and I still think it was, it was very clever. Because it really couldn't fail. If they didn't manage to take out Richard, then the implication would be such that Richard would take out Hastings for them. Very clever indeed.
And where do Dorset and Jane Shore come into all this? H
On Sunday, 18 November 2018, 15:58:52 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: I know we shall never agree on this but I do think Hastings's power under Edward IV has been exaggerated. Doug here: I doubt we will either, but I do find the interchange of ideas very interesting, as I hope you do. Hilary wrote: You see I think Edward used Hastings in the way he used Richard - someone to whom it was useful to palm off boring jobs. So anything boring in Yorkshire, give it to Richard, anything boring in Warwickshire and Leicestershire, give it to Hastings. Now that of course may have made the local gentry think Hastings was getting too powerful, but actually Edward was just pushing their quarrels to Hastings to sort out. Any threat of discontent, rebellion etc and Edward was back in a flash, pushing Richard, Edward, even his own son, out of the way. No-one was really powerful under Edward. As I've said many times, the only occasion Hastings acted to help Margaret (and Richard and George) he was called home immediately from Calais and had his knuckles rapped. Doug here: I wonder if what's happening in our discussions about Hastings is that we're looking at two different forms of power? If I'm correctly reading your posts, you're viewing Hastings' power, or his lack of it, only the active form; the ability to order something done and have that order carried out, or to make a decision and see it carried through. But there's another form of power, possibly best described as influence?, and it's that form of power that I think Hastings both had and wanted to keep. It's exactly the sort of power, for example, that a Lord Chamberlain held; the power to control who saw the king and who didn't. It's more of a negative form of power but, or so I imagine, one that could be just as addicting as sitting behind a desk, or on a horse, making decisions and seeing them carried out pronto. For Edward to fob off regional problems onto the heads of his regional managers, while retaining authority over anything that directly affected his own interests, that discontent, rebellion, only made sense. He handled the big stuff, and left the rest to those he'd placed charge. Not only would such a managerial style make it easier on Edward, it would also deflect animosity away from the king and onto those handling local affairs. The Calais affair is interesting, isn't it? Might it have happened because Hastings misunderstood what Edward wanted? Or possibly Edward, wanting to remain in the background, was trying to find a way to keep getting that pension from France while simultaneously assisting Margaret only to discover that it wasn't possible? IOW, Hastings being in charge and seemingly acting on his own was simply Edward hiding behind what's become known as plausible deniability? Hilary continued: And why should he care so much about young Edward - probably an arrogant Woodville adolescent, or an ill arrogant Woodville adolescent? He knew Richard, they'd been in exile together, they'd fought battles together, he knew Richard was a sensible person well-experienced in the mechanics of government. How many of us are close to the children of our friends? We're polite to one another but it's very much a generation thing. In that sense Hastings and Richard have a much closer bond and a mutual respect for the remembrance of Edward - despite the moral condemnation in TR which was also certainly drafted by the clergy. Doug here: A generation thing or not, Edward was the king. Any less desirable qualities he may have possessed would have paled in comparison to that one over-arching fact. And who would control the young king for the next five years or so was the question. Would it be the Woodvilles or would it be Richard? Hastings opted for Richard without, I think, really knowing how Richard personally felt about him. In our lives, especially our working lives, it's almost a certainty that we've all known someone who we worked well enough with, but would in no way associate with away during our non-working hours and I note that one could view those instances you've provided as being work. I think perhaps that was Richard's attitude towards Hastings and that after Richard's arrival in London that attitude became apparent to Hastings. However, Richard's attitude towards Hastings wouldn't matter as long as Richard was Protector. Even if Richard's powers as Protector were all-but-regal, Richard would still need the backing of a majority of the Council, or else face the real possibility of rebellion/s breaking out; rebellions that could easily be viewed as protecting the rights of the young king and reining in an over-mighty Protector. And I really think Hastings believed the same situation would occur if Richard were removed and Edward V took over the government. If that happened, I imagine his idea was that, whether he supported the Woodvilles or their opponents, he'd be in the same position as under a Protectorate. Whoever controlled the Council would have to bargain for support in order to first gain control, then to maintain that control. Richard as king, OTOH, meant that there'd be no place for Hastings  at all. Presuming, of course, I'm correct in my views on the Richard/Hastings' relationship... Hilary concluded: I rest my case for the defence. I think he was set up. Doug here: A flat statement with no reasons? No fair! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-20 11:06:54
Hilary Jones
Thanks Mary. I'll do a search and have a look. H
On Sunday, 18 November 2018, 18:06:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Funnily enough Doug I came across some old Ricardian Bulletins this week and one of them from Winter 2008 had an article in it by David Johnson entitled The Real Reason why Hastings Lost His Head. Apparently David had written a two part article in the Bulletin in the Winter 2007 and Spring 2008 setting out why he thought Hastings had lost his head and Wendy Moorhen responded to these articles in the Summer 2008 Bulletin. David contended that Hastings beheading was a consequence of a failed assassination attempt against Richard and Buckingham and that the motive was the restoration of Hastings lost position at the heart of royal government. He also argued that Hastings plotted to cover his tracks by falsely incriminating the Woodvilles. Wendy replied that she conceded that Hastings was plotting to kill the Dukes but that she believed his motive was loyalty to Edward V rather than self interest and she also thought that Hastings would have accepted complete responsibility rather than incriminating the Woodvilles. It is quite an interesting read and while my computer skills are not good enough to copy it here you can find it by googling The Real Reason why Hastings Lost his Head: A reply to Wendy Moorhen. I am also going to take a look at David and Wendy's article in the previous Bulletins.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High S

2018-11-20 11:30:50
Hilary Jones
A bit more information.
In 'The King's Mother' (Jones & Underwood) it appears that after Buckingham's father's death, Edward IV often took him into the entourage of the Royal Household and that's how he was spotted by EW as a marriage prospect for her sister. So Bucks could have known Richard in the 1460s when they were both boys. He was three years' younger than Richard, so this could have been the point when he first developed the 'crush' or whatever. I suppose I have it more like school where younger kids 'worship' the prefects - or they once did. After Edward 'dropped' him perhaps Bucks thought he stood a much better chance of regaining his esteem via Richard; but Richard didn't work in quite the way he thought.
Secondly, he had four known children between 1478 and his death - Edward, Henry, Elizabeth and Anne. So that's not bad going, though it is quite old for fifteenth century bride not to conceive until she was twenty. And Humphrey and Margaret do sound logical names. Perhaps they both died at birth? The rest are well-documented, as you know. H


On Saturday, 17 November 2018, 15:50:44 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, I am inclined to agree with you that Buckingham's problem was about his ego; possibly narcissistic with the fragile sense of self that turns narcissistic types from charming into monsters when they don't get their way. If he expected to be at the center of power in a government headed by Richard, who was infinitely more accomplished, that would suggest an inflated sense of entitlement - something very common with people who were born to privilege, but lacked proper guidance. It isn't really clear who raised Buckingham. His father died when he was very young, and his mother remarried Sir Richard Dayrell, who was a bit below her station, which makes me think that Henry Stafford and MB played a major part in his upbringing. If he was passed around the family in his youth, that may have contributed to low self esteem and lack of purpose or direction. Buckingham could certainly have been in awe of Richard, and initially have thought that he was going to give him his moment in the sun, but when that was thwarted he could have felt a profound sense of rejection. Boys often have major problems when their mothers remarry. I wish we knew more about Buckingham's early life.

It is difficult to assess who was gay in the middle ages because the who topic was so secretive and socially unacceptable, but there must have been a certain percentage of the population who were. The nobility had to marry and procreate for social reasons, but there were those who seem to have been at least actively bisexual at some point such as EIV and Charles the Bold. There isn't any evidence that Buckingham himself was gay. He is said to have complained about his marriage, but that if is true (and it may not have been), it was because he thought the Woodvilles were beneath him socially (needing to rely on his background and title would be reflective of his insecurity). Buckingham and Katherine had at least four children. Edward Stafford, born 3 February 1478 is generally accepted as the oldest child, and the others were born at some point between then and 1484. The birth order is unclear and Wikipedia suggests a Humphrey and Margaret, but I can't find other evidence for them. If the oldest was born when Buckingham was 23 and Katherine 19/20, that seems quite normal, as you do notice longer gaps between the marriage and the first child when both partners were married young. Buckingham seems to have done his duty socially, but having children is not necessarily indicative of whether a marriage is successful or not. Overall, for the 'crush' theory, a possibility, but probably more psychologically based.
Nico


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-20 13:47:26
ricard1an
So possibly Hilary the Woodville's original plan was not to inform Richard of Edward's death for as long as they possibly could so that they could get Edward crowned but Hastings spoiled that for them. Then they planned to ambush Richard on the way to Stony Stratford but that failed and Rivers &co were arrested. They then had to decide on Plan B - get Hastings. So with the help of MB and Morton they somehow plotted to incriminate Hastings in a plan to assassinate Richard knowing that as Lord Constable he would arrest Hastings and probably execute him. Maybe they didn't count on him executing Rivers & co. In his article in the Bulletin David Johnson says he believes that Hastings intended to kill Richard and Buckingham and attempted to blame the Woodvilles. David believes that Hastings was fully capable of such behaviour while Wendy Moorhen believes that he would have taken full responsibility himself. David believes that the Woodvilles believed that Hastings was responsible for encouraging much of the king's dissolute lifestyle and that when Edward died Hastings was fearful of Woodville reprisals especially as the young king's escort to London was to be so large. He threatened to withdraw to Calais unless the escort was reduced. If he had withdrawn to Calais he would have been in command of a potent invasion force as the between 1482 and 1483 the Calais garrison had been substantially reinforced. David Johnson contends that the idea that Hastings was first allied with Richard and then the Woodvilles is fatally flawed and he believes that Hastings constituted a powerful third force totally independent of the Woodvilles or Richard he was merely protecting his own interests.
Mary

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

2018-11-20 19:58:19
Doug Stamate
Nico, FWIW, I tend to believe that whatever emotional problems Buckingham had, they were likely due to his up-bringing more than anything else. He was four when he was made a Ward of the king. Was he removed from his mother's care, or was it simply that any plans for his education and future marriage (especially the latter) were then under Edward IV's purview? Whatever the case, he does seem to have demonstrated an ego that didn't match his talents and it's that imbalance between what he thought he was and what was his due to his position and his abilities to actually fill the role/s he thought were rightfully his. If Buckingham was as emotionally insecure as I think he may have been, that could fully explain his response to being spurned by Richard when the latter made it known, via his actions if nothing else, that Buckingham wasn't to be a member of Richard's governing inner circle. It was a bruised ego, not a broken heart, then. BTW, does anyone know if Richard and Buckingham ever met before Stony Stratford? I did a quick search and couldn't come up with anything. Doug Nico wrote: Doug, I am inclined to agree with you that Buckingham's problem was about his ego; possibly narcissistic with the fragile sense of self that turns narcissistic types from charming into monsters when they don't get their way. If he expected to be at the center of power in a government headed by Richard, who was infinitely more accomplished, that would suggest an inflated sense of entitlement - something very common with people who were born to privilege, but lacked proper guidance. It isn't really clear who raised Buckingham. His father died when he was very young, and his mother remarried Sir Richard Dayrell, who was a bit below her station, which makes me think that Henry Stafford and MB played a major part in his upbringing. If he was passed around the family in his youth, that may have contributed to low self esteem and lack of purpose or direction. Buckingham could certai nly have been in awe of Richard, and initially have thought that he was going to give him his moment in the sun, but when that was thwarted he could have felt a profound sense of rejection. Boys often have major problems when their mothers remarry. I wish we knew more about Buckingham's early life. It is difficult to assess who was gay in the middle ages because the who topic was so secretive and socially unacceptable, but there must have been a certain percentage of the population who were. The nobility had to marry and procreate for social reasons, but there were those who seem to have been at least actively bisexual at some point such as EIV and Charles the Bold. There isn't any evidence that Buckingham himself was gay. He is said to have compla ined about his marriage, but that if is true (and it may not have been), it was because he thought the Woodvilles were beneath him socially (needing to rely on his background and title would be reflective of his insecurity). Buckingham and Katherine had at least four children. Edward Stafford, born 3 February 1478 is generally accepted as the oldest child, and the others were born at some point between then and 1484. The birth order is unclear and Wikipedia suggests a Humphrey and Margaret, but I can't find other evidence for them. If the oldest was born when Buckingham was 23 and Katherine 19/20, that seems quite normal, as you do notice longer gaps between the marriage and the first child when both partners were married young. Buckingham seems to have done his duty socially, but having children is not necessarily indicative of whether a marriage is successful or not. Overall, for the 'crush' theory, a possibility, but probably more psychologically based.
--
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] Richard III Society F

2018-11-20 19:58:19
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Two days off and I'm dreadfully behind - so sorry folks If I've missed anything, I'm catching up. Doug, I love a good debate - so never worry about that! You see I'm coming to realise (if I didn't already) that there's absolutely nothing published about Richard in the last five hundred years that you can really trust (except perhaps the latter work of people like JAH). It's like unwrapping a parcel; the top layer is the twentieth century interpreters who are relying on the next layer; the Victorian romanticists and moralists; who are writing about the next layer down, mainly Shakespeare and More, who are repeating the great Tudor legend aptly backed by a few ancient 'chroniclers' (equivalent to today's tabloid Press). And yet everyone, including sadly today's historians are still churning out this stuff unchallenged. They don't even get out an atlas and look at Stony Stratford! Doug here: That's exactly what I find so depressing about modern historians! I can understand someone who's putting together some sort of general overview of the period using what's been accepted, but that doesn't mean they can't use footnotes noting that not everyone agrees. Something along the lines of See X for an opposing view. If it's good enough for Sir Arthur Bryant, it ought to be good enough for any other historian! Hilary concluded: To be provocative I'm now going to throw something else in: DDK/1/20 Title: The King to Sir Thomas Stanley, Knight, Lord Stanley, and George Stanley, Knight, Lord Leatrange, his son Description:

Grant (" for the singular and faithful service which they have hitherto done us not only in favouring our right and title by virtue of which we have now (the Lord helping us) come to the Crown of this realm, but also in repressing the treason and malice of our traitors and rebels who have stirred up perfidious commotions within this kingdom and for the good and faithful service to us and our heirs for our defence and that of our kingdom against traitors, enemies and rebels in times future as often as need be to be done ") of: -

Hope and Hopedale, Castle, Manor and Lordship of, in the Marches of Wales.

Northwich, Manor, Lordship and town of, with the pasture of Overmerrshe (co. Cest).
Manors and Lordships of, co. Somerset:

West Lideford,

Blakenden,
Haselbarre, alias Haselbeare,
Bereford St. Martin, Manor or Lordship of (Wilts.).
Ardington, Manor and Lordship of (Berks.).
Steventon, Manor and Lordship of (Beds.).
Manors and Lordships of (Beds):
Kottyng,
Collesden,
Cotton,
Blomeham, all the lands and tenements in, which belonged to Roger Tocotts (Beds.).
Gaddesden Magna, Manor and Lordship of (Herts.).
Kynbolton, Castle, Manor, Lordship and Soke of, with the Manors of Swyneshed, Hardewike and Tilbroke, and all towns, villages and members whatsoever in co. Hants, belonging to the said Lordship of Kynbolton.
Macclesfield and Cristilton (Cest.) all messuages, lands, tenements, rents and services in, which Henry late Duke of Buckingham had.
Chorley and Bolton (Lancashire), Manors of.
Brightmede (Lanc.), lands and tenements in.
London, all that messuage and all those lands and tenements which belonged to Sir Robert Willoughby, Knight, in the parish of S. Peter Powleswharf.

To hold to the said Thomas and George and the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas by Knight service and a rent of £4.

Date: 7th September, 2 Richard III., A.D. 1484 My word didn't he do well - and gain from Buckingham's death!! Particularly since he was 'looking to his wife'. Kynbolton BTW was one of Buckingham's major estates. Notice that it's a reward not just for putting down the rebels but for supporting Richard's entitlement to the Crown. It implies that Stanley played an active part quelling the rebellion. I wonder how much info had inadvertently come via MB who had acquired 'the list' from EW and decided it was a lost cause? Do we know how well Stanley/Hastings/Buckingham inter-acted. Perhaps Buckingham was jealous of Stanley's influence, rather than that of Hastings? Perhaps of both? And what of Stanley and Hastings? What I'm also groping to ascertain is the 'trigger point' when MB started to support an HT invasion (I mean a proper one not the botched version of 1483). For example, did the French threaten to 'evict' HT and his supporters if they didn't carry out their wishes? "Anyone know? In the meantime, more work on Stanley and Oliver King our 'Secretary in the Gallic Tongue'. Doug here: Oh my! My first impression about that part concerning Stanley's support of Richard's right to the throne is that it shoots yet another hole into the idea that Richard somehow grabbed the throne by somehow over-awing the Council. Even with Stanley's well-known penchant for fence-sitting until things had settled a bit, if he'd decided to swing his support behind Richard, then that tells me that Richard accepting the crown had the support of at least a majority of the Council. We still don't know who informed Richard, or Buckingham, that there was a plot against them. I wonder if it could have been Stanley? And if so, from where did he get his information? Hmmm... As for Stanley's part in putting down the rebellion, I can't recall him even being mentioned. Perhaps his part was more one of spreading the word to not support those HS's who defected? Might help explain why the HS's didn't bring many men with them when they defected? So many questions, so little time! Relatively speaking of course... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-20 20:03:19
Doug Stamate
Stephen,
I've always worked on the presumption that Richard/Perkin was also operating
on a presumption - that his brother was dead, but what I also find very
interesting is that no date or place for Edward's demise is ever mentioned
and, if those were known, then why not relate them?
The claim that Richard was spared when his older brother was murdered is, to
me, more along the lines of an attempt to explain why it was he, and not
Edward, who was leading the rebellion.
Doug
Who has often read that the Queen has a rather wicked sense of humor, but
usually only exercises it in private. (Darn it!)

Stephen wrote:
"The Royal plural (we/ our) has surely only ever been used by the monarch?
Richard of Shrewsbury wasn't that, particularly if his elder brother was
still alive. However, if Edward V had died somehow, the 1486 Titulus Regius
relegitimised him as Edward IV's heir.
Interestingly, Elizabeth II once said We, by which I mean my husband and I
...."





--
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] Richard III Society F

2018-11-21 10:52:16
Hilary Jones
More than a little interesting isn't it?
I've just looked at Horrox. She firstly has Buckingham lobbying the Stanleys (and the Talbots) for support and then Stanley being given Kimbolton for not supporting him on the day of Buckingham's death. He doesn't get a mention for putting down the rebels (or I can't find one). I wonder if she ever saw this document, you see it's in the Lancashire archives, not the NA, but is now online through the NA as part of the Access to Archives project. I just stumbled on it when I was looking for something on Buckingham - that's often how it goes.
It throws up all the questions you raise and, as you rightly say, it kills for good the claims of a 'takeover by stealth' of Richard. Sorry Horsepool et al! The Stanleys would never have supported anything which would have put their own position at risk, so Richard's claim clearly had the unanimous backing of the Council. And to achieve that they must have truly believed the validity of the Pre Contract; far too many religious consciences there for doubt to have existed.
One then goes on to ask about the relationship between the Stanleys and the Woodvilles, pretty cool one would have thought? H
PS This is why I believe there are still things to surface from local archives. I believe on about 30% have been put online to date.
On Tuesday, 20 November 2018, 19:58:24 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Two days off and I'm dreadfully behind - so sorry folks If I've missed anything, I'm catching up. Doug, I love a good debate - so never worry about that! You see I'm coming to realise (if I didn't already) that there's absolutely nothing published about Richard in the last five hundred years that you can really trust (except perhaps the latter work of people like JAH). It's like unwrapping a parcel; the top layer is the twentieth century interpreters who are relying on the next layer; the Victorian romanticists and moralists; who are writing about the next layer down, mainly Shakespeare and More, who are repeating the great Tudor legend aptly backed by a few ancient 'chroniclers' (equivalent to today's tabloid Press). And yet everyone, including sadly today's historians are still churning out this stuff unchallenged. They don't even get out an atlas and look at Stony Stratford! Doug here: That's exactly what I find so depressing about modern historians! I can understand someone who's putting together some sort of general overview of the period using what's been accepted, but that doesn't mean they can't use footnotes noting that not everyone agrees. Something along the lines of See X for an opposing view. If it's good enough for Sir Arthur Bryant, it ought to be good enough for any other historian! Hilary concluded: To be provocative I'm now going to throw something else in: DDK/1/20Title:The King to Sir Thomas Stanley, Knight, Lord Stanley, and George Stanley, Knight, Lord Leatrange, his sonDescription:

Grant (" for the singular and faithful service which they have hitherto done us not only in favouring our right and title by virtue of which we have now (the Lord helping us) come to the Crown of this realm, but also in repressing the treason and malice of our traitors and rebels who have stirred up perfidious commotions within this kingdom and for the good and faithful service to us and our heirs for our defence and that of our kingdom against traitors, enemies and rebels in times future as often as need be to be done ") of: -

Hope and Hopedale, Castle, Manor and Lordship of, in the Marches of Wales.

Northwich, Manor, Lordship and town of, with the pasture of Overmerrshe (co. Cest).
Manors and Lordships of, co. Somerset:

West Lideford,

Blakenden,
Haselbarre, alias Haselbeare,
Bereford St. Martin, Manor or Lordship of (Wilts.).
Ardington, Manor and Lordship of (Berks.).
Steventon, Manor and Lordship of (Beds.).
Manors and Lordships of (Beds):
Kottyng,
Collesden,
Cotton,
Blomeham, all the lands and tenements in, which belonged to Roger Tocotts (Beds.).
Gaddesden Magna, Manor and Lordship of (Herts.).
Kynbolton, Castle, Manor, Lordship and Soke of, with the Manors of Swyneshed, Hardewike and Tilbroke, and all towns, villages and members whatsoever in co. Hants, belonging to the said Lordship of Kynbolton.
Macclesfield and Cristilton (Cest.) all messuages, lands, tenements, rents and services in, which Henry late Duke of Buckingham had.
Chorley and Bolton (Lancashire), Manors of.
Brightmede (Lanc.), lands and tenements in.
London, all that messuage and all those lands and tenements which belonged to Sir Robert Willoughby, Knight, in the parish of S. Peter Powleswharf.

To hold to the said Thomas and George and the heirs male of the body of the said Thomas by Knight service and a rent of £4.

Date:7th September, 2 Richard III., A.D. 1484 My word didn't he do well - and gain from Buckingham's death!! Particularly since he was 'looking to his wife'. Kynbolton BTW was one of Buckingham's major estates. Notice that it's a reward not just for putting down the rebels but for supporting Richard's entitlement to the Crown. It implies that Stanley played an active part quelling the rebellion. I wonder how much info had inadvertently come via MB who had acquired 'the list' from EW and decided it was a lost cause? Do we know how well Stanley/Hastings/Buckingham inter-acted. Perhaps Buckingham was jealous of Stanley's influence, rather than that of Hastings? Perhaps of both? And what of Stanley and Hastings? What I'm also groping to ascertain is the 'trigger point' when MB started to support an HT invasion (I mean a proper one not the botched version of 1483). For example, did the French threaten to 'evict' HT and his supporters if they didn't carry out their wishes? "Anyone know? In the meantime, more work on Stanley and Oliver King our 'Secretary in the Gallic Tongue'. Doug here: Oh my! My first impression about that part concerning Stanley's support of Richard's right to the throne is that it shoots yet another hole into the idea that Richard somehow grabbed the throne by somehow over-awing the Council. Even with Stanley's well-known penchant for fence-sitting until things had settled a bit, if he'd decided to swing his support behind Richard, then that tells me that Richard accepting the crown had the support of at least a majority of the Council. We still don't know who informed Richard, or Buckingham, that there was a plot against them. I wonder if it could have been Stanley? And if so, from where did he get his information? Hmmm... As for Stanley's part in putting down the rebellion, I can't recall him even being mentioned. Perhaps his part was more one of spreading the word to not support those HS's who defected? Might help explain why the HS's didn't bring many men with them when they defected? So many questions, so little time! Relatively speaking of course... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-21 10:57:07
Hilary Jones
That's very interesting indeed Mary. I don't think one can underestimate the potential power of the Calais garrison and, of course, the ability to harness the English mercenaries who 'hung out' in Calais looking for work. I find it far more feasible than a Hastings/Woodville alliance. H
On Tuesday, 20 November 2018, 14:03:13 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

So possibly Hilary the Woodville's original plan was not to inform Richard of Edward's death for as long as they possibly could so that they could get Edward crowned but Hastings spoiled that for them. Then they planned to ambush Richard on the way to Stony Stratford but that failed and Rivers &co were arrested. They then had to decide on Plan B - get Hastings. So with the help of MB and Morton they somehow plotted to incriminate Hastings in a plan to assassinate Richard knowing that as Lord Constable he would arrest Hastings and probably execute him. Maybe they didn't count on him executing Rivers & co. In his article in the Bulletin David Johnson says he believes that Hastings intended to kill Richard and Buckingham and attempted to blame the Woodvilles. David believes that Hastings was fully capable of such behaviour while Wendy Moorhen believes that he would have taken full responsibility himself. David believes that the Woodvilles believed that Hastings was responsible for encouraging much of the king's dissolute lifestyle and that when Edward died Hastings was fearful of Woodville reprisals especially as the young king's escort to London was to be so large. He threatened to withdraw to Calais unless the escort was reduced. If he had withdrawn to Calais he would have been in command of a potent invasion force as the between 1482 and 1483 the Calais garrison had been substantially reinforced. David Johnson contends that the idea that Hastings was first allied with Richard and then the Woodvilles is fatally flawed and he believes that Hastings constituted a powerful third force totally independent of the Woodvilles or Richard he was merely protecting his own interests.


Mary

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

2018-11-21 16:23:44
Doug Stamate
Hilary, It's not often I hop for someone to stumble, but in this case maybe you'll forgive me? One question I do have about those rewards for Stanley is just how proportionate were they? IOW, while it's obvious that the Buckingham properties would be taken by the king, did these properties represent a major portion of them? Do we know? On the face of it, it appears, to me anyway, that Stanley was more than well=rewarded for doing basically nothing. Well, unless his participation in putting down the rebellion has been so down-played because it didn't fit into the Tudor Creation myth. After all, the 1483 rebellion is supposed to represent England's first summonsing of its' savior, Henry Tudor. But here we have proof that his step-father was rewarded for his part in helping suppress that summonsing! Ouch! I don't know if it's safe to use unanimous when it comes to the Council's decision to support Richard, mainly because of what happened in the Tower on that day in June 1483. FWIW, though, I do think Richard had the support of a substantial majority and that majority likely included almost all of those who could be described as movers and shakers. Thus the need to completely remove Richard, and Buckingham?, as potential kings. Another thing that causes some problems for me is that religion card. Certainly this period of history was more religious than than today, but those religious scruples seem to me to be honored more often in the breach than anything else, and especially when it came to oaths of allegiance. Richard's father swore such an oath to Henry VI, but that didn't stop him from rebelling. Warwick swore allegiance to Edward IV, but then allied himself with Margaret of Anjou and Henry VI and managed to displace the man he'd sworn allegiance to. When it comes to that, Stanley swore an oath of allegiance to Richard, but then sided with Tudor! It seems to me, and perhaps I'm just being too cynical, that oaths were viewed by the majority of those who swore them more along the lines of those Dissenters in the late 17th century who, if they wanted to participate in any level of government, from being a Hayward in Somerset to the Lord Treasurer and everything in-between, had to take Communion once a year in the Church of England. As I say, though, maybe I'm just being too cynical. As for any Stanley/Woodville relationship, it might boil down to just which Stanley we're referring to; Lord Stanley - or his wife. Doug Hilary wrote: More than a little interesting isn't it? I've just looked at Horrox. She firstly has Buckingham lobbying the Stanleys (and the Talbots) for support and then Stanley being given Kimbolton for not supporting him on the day of Buckingham's death. He doesn't get a mention for putting down the rebels (or I can't find one). I wonder if she ever saw this document, you see it's in the Lancashire archives, not the NA, but is now online through the NA as part of the Access to Archives project.. I just stumbled on it when I was looking for something on Buckingham - that's often how it goes. It throws up all the questions you raise and, as you rightly say, it kills for good the claims of a 'takeover by stealth' of Richard. Sorry Horsepool et al! The Stanleys would never have supported anything which would have put their own position at risk, so Richard's claim clearly had the unanimous backing of the Council. And to achieve that they must have truly believed the validity of the Pre Contract; far too many religious consciences there for doubt to have existed. One then goes on to ask about the relationship between the Stanleys and the Woodvilles, pretty cool one would have thought? H PS This is why I believe there are still things to surface from local archives. I believe on about 30% have been put online to date.
--
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} [Richard

2018-11-21 22:49:08
ricard1an
Not sure if my previous message got through, will try again.
First of all thank you Hilary for finding brilliant evidence in the archives. This really changes what we know about Stanley. For many years I had assumed/ been told by trad historians that Stanley had been arrested on 13th June 1483 and then suddenly he had been given custody of MB's lands because she had been plotting, and he played a part in Richard's Coronation and MB had carried Anne's train at the Coronation. I always thought it was very odd until Marie set me straight in a post on the Forum and said that MB wasn't accused of plotting until Buckingham's rebellion. Before learning this it did cross my that maybe Stanley had been arrested on 13/6/1483 to hide the fact that he had told Richard about Hastings plot. So now that it has become much clearer what happened do you think that maybe it was Stanley who disclosed Buckingham's rebellion and his wife's part in it? It would probably have been very beneficial to him MB accused of plotting so the chances were he would acquire her lands and would put him in Richard's good books, which it did as we can see in the document. Do we know if he still hung on to MB's lands?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-22 10:39:32
Hilary Jones
Thanks Mary but I honestly did just stumble upon it when I was looking for something about Buckingham.
Firstly, I think we're now learning to stop grouping 'the Stanleys' together. William needs to be considered separately as well; another job!
I've begun to get a new version in my head of events between April and June 1483 and it goes something like this:

Thomas Stanley and Hastings are the long-term occupants of Edward IV's most senior posts. When he dies in April they wish to adopt his recommended policy of appointing Richard as Protector - the senior person on the Council on which they will sit. It suits them well; who knows, Richard with his love of the North might delegate some of the London business to them, but above all it will marginalise the Woodvilles, who are already doing their best to self-implode.
So Stanley and Hastings do their best to make sure Richard makes it safely to London, almost certainly warning him of a likely plot when Richard Grey departs London. But when Richard arrives he has another problem person in tow - Buckingham! Now both these guys know Buckingham is a liability. Hastings knows Edward never trusted him and Stanley is his uncle. However, Richard, perhaps in one of his less rational moods, seems blind to Buck's faults and is showering him with lands and offices which increase his already large ego. They also know that Richard, in one of these 'moods' can be stubborn. Stanley will undoubtedly remember Hornby, and there's no longer an Edward to rein him in.
So Buckingham must go. Hastings is given the job of having him taken out, probably on his return from that meeting at the Tower?But someone betrays their plan to Richard and says it includes him as well. Who's that person? I'm not sure but I'm interested in Oliver King, who was also present and temporarily arrested. Was he a French agent tasked to stir up trouble and weaken the English government? Richard arrests Hastings, who in the ensuing fracas also accuses Stanley, who is reported to have been injured. Stanley does the usual 'Stanley flip' but a day or two later suggests Morton should be put in the care of Buckingham who will be 'guided' by Morton to his own destruction.
And all this time Mrs Stanley is taking tea with EW finding out just what's going on in the Woodville camp which will also no doubt be conveyed to Morton. And then comes TR and Stanley is in line for a big promotion .......
When you look at it like that it does start to make sense - I hope? H
On Wednesday, 21 November 2018, 22:49:15 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Not sure if my previous message got through, will try again.


First of all thank you Hilary for finding brilliant evidence in the archives. This really changes what we know about Stanley. For many years I had assumed/ been told by trad historians that Stanley had been arrested on 13th June 1483 and then suddenly he had been given custody of MB's lands because she had been plotting, and he played a part in Richard's Coronation and MB had carried Anne's train at the Coronation. I always thought it was very odd until Marie set me straight in a post on the Forum and said that MB wasn't accused of plotting until Buckingham's rebellion. Before learning this it did cross my that maybe Stanley had been arrested on 13/6/1483 to hide the fact that he had told Richard about Hastings plot. So now that it has become much clearer what happened do you think that maybe it was Stanley who disclosed Buckingham's rebellion and his wife's part in it? It would probably have been very beneficial to him MB accused of plotting so the chances were he would acquire her lands and would put him in Richard's good books, which it did as we can see in the document. Do we know if he still hung on to MB's lands?
Mary

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

2018-11-22 10:59:18
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug - see my reply to Mary.
Re religion I don't think you're cynical at all. I was actually thinking more of the bishops on the Council. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if TR had appeared after Edward was crowned. Did the fact that he wasn't help them to dispossess him with a clearer conscience?
On my Beaumont search I've looked at a lot of merchant wills. Not only were they incredibly rich but they were exemplars of religion at it's best. They supported churches, gave to the poor, offered a support mechanism for their brethren and the brethrens' children. The real welfare state in England began five hundred years' earlier in the Guilds. I also reckon this is where the old feudal system was falling apart. You could have extensive lands - like Buckingham - but be broke because you were tardy in pulling in your revenues, and you had to pay people to do it. As ever, cashflow is king, and the merchants had that.
I've been trying to find Buckingham's IPM. I don't see a mention of Maxstoke in the list above , but Kimbolton would certainly be very valuable. It had just been re-furbished by his grandmother. I'll look in the Fine Rolls and come back. I'll also see if I can download the original which I'm sure is what Marie would do just to check the wording.
Of course the other 'biggie' in this is why and when TS changed his mind about Richard. For example, did he make his intervention at Bosworth after he knew Richard had been unhorsed? Sounds the sort of thing he'd do to save his skin. H
On Wednesday, 21 November 2018, 16:25:50 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, It's not often I hop for someone to stumble, but in this case maybe you'll forgive me? One question I do have about those rewards for Stanley is just how proportionate were they? IOW, while it's obvious that the Buckingham properties would be taken by the king, did these properties represent a major portion of them? Do we know? On the face of it, it appears, to me anyway, that Stanley was more than well=rewarded for doing basically nothing. Well, unless his participation in putting down the rebellion has been so down-played because it didn't fit into the Tudor Creation myth. After all, the 1483 rebellion is supposed to represent England's first summonsing of its' savior, Henry Tudor. But here we have proof that his step-father was rewarded for his part in helping suppress that summonsing! Ouch! I don't know if it's safe to use unanimous when it comes to the Council's decision to support Richard, mainly because of what happened in the Tower on that day in June 1483. FWIW, though, I do think Richard had the support of a substantial majority and that majority likely included almost all of those who could be described as movers and shakers. Thus the need to completely remove Richard, and Buckingham?, as potential kings. Another thing that causes some problems for me is that religion card. Certainly this period of history was more religious than than today, but those religious scruples seem to me to be honored more often in the breach than anything else, and especially when it came to oaths of allegiance. Richard's father swore such an oath to Henry VI, but that didn't stop him from rebelling. Warwick swore allegiance to Edward IV, but then allied himself with Margaret of Anjou and Henry VI and managed to displace the man he'd sworn allegiance to. When it comes to that, Stanley swore an oath of allegiance to Richard, but then sided with Tudor! It seems to me, and perhaps I'm just being too cynical, that oaths were viewed by the majority of those who swore them more along the lines of those Dissenters in the late 17th century who, if they wanted to participate in any level of government, from being a Hayward in Somerset to the Lord Treasurer and everything in-between, had to take Communion once a year in the Church of England. As I say, though, maybe I'm just being too cynical. As for any Stanley/Woodville relationship, it might boil down to just which Stanley we're referring to; Lord Stanley - or his wife. Doug Hilary wrote: More than a little interesting isn't it? I've just looked at Horrox. She firstly has Buckingham lobbying the Stanleys (and the Talbots) for support and then Stanley being given Kimbolton for not supporting him on the day of Buckingham's death. He doesn't get a mention for putting down the rebels (or I can't find one). I wonder if she ever saw this document, you see it's in the Lancashire archives, not the NA, but is now online through the NA as part of the Access to Archives project.. I just stumbled on it when I was looking for something on Buckingham - that's often how it goes. It throws up all the questions you raise and, as you rightly say, it kills for good the claims of a 'takeover by stealth' of Richard. Sorry Horsepool et al! The Stanleys would never have supported anything which would have put their own position at risk, so Richard's claim clearly had the unanimous backing of the Council. And to achieve that they must have truly believed the validity of the Pre Contract; far too many religious consciences there for doubt to have existed. One then goes on to ask about the relationship between the Stanleys and the Woodvilles, pretty cool one would have thought? H PS This is why I believe there are still things to surface from local archives. I believe on about 30% have been put online to date.
--
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] Richar

2018-11-22 11:27:29
ricard1an
Yes it does seem that Thomas Stanley was doing his fence sitting as usual or maybe a more appropriate description would be being all things to all men only if it benefited Thomas Stanley.
Mary

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

2018-11-22 11:54:34
Nicholas Brown

Doug: If Buckingham was as emotionally insecure as I think he may have been, that could fully explain his response to being spurned by Richard when the latter made it known, via his actions if nothing else, that Buckingham wasn't to be a member of Richard's governing inner circle. It was a bruised ego, not a broken heart, then. BTW, does anyone know if Richard and Buckingham ever met before Stony Stratford? I did a quick search and couldn't come up with anything.
Hilary: In 'The King's Mother' (Jones & Underwood) it appears that after Buckingham's father's death, Edward IV often took him into the entourage of the Royal Household and that's how he was spotted by EW as a marriage prospect for her sister. So Bucks could have known Richard in the 1460s when they were both boys. He was three years' younger than Richard, so this could have been the point when he first developed the 'crush' or whatever.
I also lean towards the bruised ego idea. If he was often in the Royal Household as a child, that could have contributed to the sense of social superiority that Buckingham has often been accused of. I would guess he was in there from the early 1460s, as the marriage to Katherine Woodville took place in 1466, and there is a story of them being present at her coronation in 1465. They would have been 8 and 11 at the time, and it would have brought him even closer to the Royal Family as an in-law at an impressionable age. At this time there, which was a few years before Richard went to Warwick's household, there was also probably substantial contact with Richard who was two years older than Buckingham and the right age to be looked up to by him. Is it known where Buckingham spent his teenage years? It was customary to be placed in the house of another noble family, but it doesn't appear to have been Warwick.
It isn't clear why Edward appears to have distanced himself from Buckingham, or at least never cultivated him. Perhaps the Woodville marriage have worked against him after 1471, when Edward had to be cautious about his links with the Woodvilles. Could that have been the actual source of his reported resentment of the marriage? Under Edward, maybe he knew he was going nowhere, but in 1483 saw his chance with Richard especially if he helped him, but when he didn't get close to the centre of power, he took it personally and decided that as long as the House of York was ruling he would never amount to much. If that sentiment extended to the Princes that may have been a factor in not just pushing his own agenda, but also a motive for their murder.

The conversations about Stanley and Hastings are very insightful. I'm still trying to put it all together.

Nico




On Tuesday, 20 November 2018, 20:17:58 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, FWIW, I tend to believe that whatever emotional problems Buckingham had, they were likely due to his up-bringing more than anything else. He was four when he was made a Ward of the king. Was he removed from his mother's care, or was it simply that any plans for his education and future marriage (especially the latter) were then under Edward IV's purview? Whatever the case, he does seem to have demonstrated an ego that didn't match his talents and it's that imbalance between what he thought he was and what was his due to his position and his abilities to actually fill the role/s he thought were rightfully his. If Buckingham was as emotionally insecure as I think he may have been, that could fully explain his response to being spurned by Richard when the latter made it known, via his actions if nothing else, that Buckingham wasn't to be a member of Richard's governing inner circle. It was a bruised ego, not a broken heart, then. BTW, does anyone know if Richard and Buckingham ever met before Stony Stratford? I did a quick search and couldn't come up with anything. Doug Nico wrote: Doug, I am inclined to agree with you that Buckingham's problem was about his ego; possibly narcissistic with the fragile sense of self that turns narcissistic types from charming into monsters when they don't get their way. If he expected to be at the center of power in a government headed by Richard, who was infinitely more accomplished, that would suggest an inflated sense of entitlement - something very common with people who were born to privilege, but lacked proper guidance. It isn't really clear who raised Buckingham. His father died when he was very young, and his mother remarried Sir Richard Dayrell, who was a bit below her station, which makes me think that Henry Stafford and MB played a major part in his upbringing. If he was passed around the family in his youth, that may have contributed to low self esteem and lack of purpose or direction. Buckingham could certai nly have been in awe of Richard, and initially have thought that he was going to give him his moment in the sun, but when that was thwarted he could have felt a profound sense of rejection. Boys often have major problems when their mothers remarry. I wish we knew more about Buckingham's early life. It is difficult to assess who was gay in the middle ages because the who topic was so secretive and socially unacceptable, but there must have been a certain percentage of the population who were. The nobility had to marry and procreate for social reasons, but there were those who seem to have been at least actively bisexual at some point such as EIV and Charles the Bold. There isn't any evidence that Buckingham himself was gay. He is said to have compla ined about his marriage, but that if is true (and it may not have been), it was because he thought the Woodvilles were beneath him socially (needing to rely on his background and title would be reflective of his insecurity). Buckingham and Katherine had at least four children. Edward Stafford, born 3 February 1478 is generally accepted as the oldest child, and the others were born at some point between then and 1484. The birth order is unclear and Wikipedia suggests a Humphrey and Margaret, but I can't find other evidence for them. If the oldest was born when Buckingham was 23 and Katherine 19/20, that seems quite normal, as you do notice longer gaps between the marriage and the first child when both partners were married young. Buckingham seems to have done his duty socially, but having children is not necessarily indicative of whether a marriage is successful or not. Overall, for the 'crush' theory, a possibility, but probably more psychologically based.
--
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

2018-11-22 12:48:34
Doug Stamate
Mary, Thank you for that link! Apparently my views on Hastings' possible motive/s isn't brand-new (darn!). My only question is why couldn't both reasons for Hastings' involvement be accurate? The only question then would be trying to determine which motive was the primary. Doug Mary wrote: Funnily enough Doug I came across some old Ricardian Bulletins this week and one of them from Winter 2008 had an article in it by David Johnson entitled The Real Reason why Hastings Lost His Head. Apparently David had written a two part article in the Bulletin in the Winter 2007 and Spring 2008 setting out why he thought Hastings had lost his head and Wendy Moorhen responded to these articles in the Summer 2008 Bulletin. David contended that Hastings beheading was a consequence of a failed assassination attempt against Richard and Buckingham and that the motive was the restoration of Hastings lost position at the heart of royal government. He also argued that Hastings plotted to cover his tracks by falsely incriminating the Woodvilles. Wendy replied that she conceded that Hastings was plotting to kill the Dukes but that she believed his motive was loyalty to Edward V rather than self interest and she also thought that Hastings would have accepted complete responsibility rather than incriminating the Woodvilles. It is quite an interesting read and while my computer skills are not good enough to copy it here you can find it by googling The Real Reason why Hastings Lost his Head: A reply to Wendy Moorhen. I am also going to take a look at David and Wendy's article in the previous Bulletins.
--
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

2018-11-22 14:14:33
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Doug, I suppose my biggest problem with all this is the assumption that there would be this automatic loyalty to Edward IV's son. I think it's very Victorian, very Tennyson, very Arthurian. It's what led me to look at the 1483 rebels, who some claim to be 'Edwardian Yorkists'. As you know, I found plenty of Woodville Yorkists, and even some Clarence Yorkists, and dare I say it the odd HT supporter, but Edwardian Yorkists - no! Doug here: I'm probably being picky here, but wouldn't any Woodville Yorkist be loyal to Edward IV's son/s? Those Woodville Yorkists might be loyal because of who Edward V mother was, but the results would be the same as their being loyal because Edward was the son of Edward IV, wouldn't they? Hilary continued: Did Hastings know young Edward well? I doubt it, he'd hardly ever seen him. Could he trust him, having been tutored by Rivers? I think Hastings was as vulnerable as Richard and the two would probably have been taken out together (and Hastings was!). Would young Edward like Hastings just because his father had? He might have been taught to dislike Hastings by the Woodvilles because of his lifestyle? If it was a set-up, and I still think it was, it was very clever. Because it really couldn't fail. If they didn't manage to take out Richard, then the implication would be such that Richard would take out Hastings for them. Very clever indeed. Doug here: I don't know if Hastings' knowing young Edward well or not would really matter. According to Edward IV's will, there was to be a Protectorate during his son's minority, with Richard filling the role of Protector. As best we can tell, Hastings had no problems with that; what apparently disturbed him greatly was the attempted coup d'etat by the Woodvilles. So the first question to be asked is: Why didn't Hastings want the Woodvilles dominating a government headed by Edward V? It's my view that Hastings' objection was that a Woodville-dominated government fronted by Edward V would leave no room for him. Loyalty to the king was to be expected  any disloyalty was treason. And just who would be deciding what constituted loyalty? It might be Edward V, but he would almost certainly simply be mouthing words provided by his mother's relatives. Then there's all those positions Hastings held under Edward IV. The Woodvilles had a reputation for grabbing anything of value that they could. Why should Hastings retain that lucrative position at the Mint? Or remain Captain of Calais? Or any of the other positions he held that brought in some cash? Much better they go to one of Edward's relatives  you know, a Woodville. Now, OTOH, what would Hastings' position be under a Protectorate? Edward would still reign as Edward V, but the actual running of the government/country would done by the Protector. But even though that Protector could make decisions just as a king could, unlike a king it would be necessary that the Protector have the support of the Council. It wouldn't have to be unanimous support, but definitely a majority. A king could rule with the support of only a minority of his Council, at least for a while. But could a Protector, even one supposedly with royal powers, run the risk? Or even want to? Which meant that there'd be a place on the Council for Hastings, he likely retain some of his currently-held positions and he'd remain active at the center of things. FWIW, I don't think Hastings necessarily wanted more power/authority, he just wanted to keep as much as possible of what he already held. The chances of that happening were almost nil under a Woodville-dominated Edward V, so Hastings was for Richard as Protector. However, when it became a near-certainty that Richard would become king (and likely replace him in some at least of those offices/positions), then as far as Hastings was concerned, it was back to square one and he did exactly what he'd done earlier. This time, though, it was the Woodvilles who would need his support, not Richard. I'm still struggling to find some way for Hastings to have been set up. Maybe we're thinking of two different meanings, but to me set up says that Hastings wasn't actually involved in the assassination attempt at all, only made to appear to be involved, and I'm stuck trying to imagine any scenario where that could be. Nor can I come up with anything that would allow him to be the fall guy, because that would mean that the attempt on Richard's and Buckingham's lives wasn't intended to succeed, wouldn't it? Or have I gotten something wrong? Again. Hilary concluded: And where do Dorset and Jane Shore come into all this? Doug here: Are we absolutely certain that whatever enmity there was between Hastings and Dorset was over Shore and not over one or the other of the two getting some office or position the other wanted? With Shore being presumed to have been the cause? If the quarrel/dispute wasn't over Shore, perhaps her going from whichever one she was originally with to whichever one she ended up with was more a symptom than the cause; IOW, she left the one power/authority was waning for the one who she thought was a better deal?
--
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

2018-11-22 15:57:07
ricard1an
Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary.
As far as we know Stillington may not have disclosed the precontract on the 13th of June so maybe Hastings wasn't acting because he was against Edward being illegitimate because that had not been brought to anyone's attention. Maybe he was just acting on his own behalf as David Johnson suggests. According to Annette Carson his relationship with the Woodvilles was not good even before Edward died. There were problems over the captaincy of Calais apparently Rivers had wanted it and Edward had given it to Hastings. Whether the Woodvilles were involved in a plot to kill Edward as Richard Collins suggests or not, they were certainly up to something in the months before Edwards death. The letters to Rivers agent Dymoke about clarifying Rivers right to recruit troops in Wales, giving his right as Deputy Constable of the Tower to Dorset and trying to get Dymoke and several others of his affinity elected to Parliament.
So could it have been a combination of Hastings being annoyed at Richard for giving Buckingham power and Hastings not wanting to give up his lucrative posts and his dislike of the Woodvilles? As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham and possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him? Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-23 11:15:39
Hilary Jones
It was only after I'd written answers to all this that I realised one thing - at the time of Hastings' death no-one knew that young Edward was to be put aside and Richard king. The other part of the Council were up he road arranging the boy's Coronation. So the argument that Hastings couldn't bear young Edward to be put aside which is used by so many just doesn't bear up. He went to his grave not knowing that was going to happen.
I would have thought that a Protectorate lead by Richard, with Stanley and Hastings in supporting roles would have been just like the comfort of the old days. Why on earth would Hastings have informed about the 'Grafton' plot and advocated Rivers bringing a smaller revenue if he had any affection for the Woodvilles? And it was quite likely that the lands of the attainted Grey in Leicestershire would be given to him, had he lived. In fact it was actually the Woodvilles who stood to gain from Hastings' death for the same reason - Leicestershire lands. And who was left from the Woodville faction, except Dorset, to woo over Hastings?
I mentioned Jane Shore because she'd obviously done something to warrant such a harsh punishment. Look how kind Richard was to MB. We hadn't yet got to the days of executing women for treason.
I'm sorry but the Stanley, Richard liaison seems to me a much more comfortable option for Hastings. But on the other hand Buckingham really was a cat amongst the pigeons! H
On Thursday, 22 November 2018, 14:25:45 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Doug, I suppose my biggest problem with all this is the assumption that there would be this automatic loyalty to Edward IV's son. I think it's very Victorian, very Tennyson, very Arthurian. It's what led me to look at the 1483 rebels, who some claim to be 'Edwardian Yorkists'. As you know, I found plenty of Woodville Yorkists, and even some Clarence Yorkists, and dare I say it the odd HT supporter, but Edwardian Yorkists - no! Doug here: I'm probably being picky here, but wouldn't any Woodville Yorkist be loyal to Edward IV's son/s? Those Woodville Yorkists might be loyal because of who Edward V mother was, but the results would be the same as their being loyal because Edward was the son of Edward IV, wouldn't they? Hilary continued: Did Hastings know young Edward well? I doubt it, he'd hardly ever seen him. Could he trust him, having been tutored by Rivers? I think Hastings was as vulnerable as Richard and the two would probably have been taken out together (and Hastings was!). Would young Edward like Hastings just because his father had? He might have been taught to dislike Hastings by the Woodvilles because of his lifestyle? If it was a set-up, and I still think it was, it was very clever. Because it really couldn't fail. If they didn't manage to take out Richard, then the implication would be such that Richard would take out Hastings for them.. Very clever indeed. Doug here: I don't know if Hastings' knowing young Edward well or not would really matter. According to Edward IV's will, there was to be a Protectorate during his son's minority, with Richard filling the role of Protector. As best we can tell, Hastings had no problems with that; what apparently disturbed him greatly was the attempted coup d'etat by the Woodvilles. So the first question to be asked is: Why didn't Hastings want the Woodvilles dominating a government headed by Edward V? It's my view that Hastings' objection was that a Woodville-dominated government fronted by Edward V would leave no room for him. Loyalty to the king was to be expected  any disloyalty was treason. And just who would be deciding what constituted loyalty? It might be Edward V, but he would almost certainly simply be mouthing words provided by his mother's relatives. Then there's all those positions Hastings held under Edward IV. The Woodvilles had a reputation for grabbing anything of value that they could. Why should Hastings retain that lucrative position at the Mint? Or remain Captain of Calais? Or any of the other positions he held that brought in some cash? Much better they go to one of Edward's relatives  you know, a Woodville. Now, OTOH, what would Hastings' position be under a Protectorate? Edward would still reign as Edward V, but the actual running of the government/country would done by the Protector. But even though that Protector could make decisions just as a king could, unlike a king it would be necessary that the Protector have the support of the Council. It wouldn't have to be unanimous support, but definitely a majority. A king could rule with the support of only a minority of his Council, at least for a while. But could a Protector, even one supposedly with royal powers, run the risk? Or even want to? Which meant that there'd be a place on the Council for Hastings, he likely retain some of his currently-held positions and he'd remain active at the center of things. FWIW, I don't think Hastings necessarily wanted more power/authority, he just wanted to keep as much as possible of what he already held. The chances of that happening were almost nil under a Woodville-dominated Edward V, so Hastings was for Richard as Protector. However, when it became a near-certainty that Richard would become king (and likely replace him in some at least of those offices/positions), then as far as Hastings was concerned, it was back to square one and he did exactly what he'd done earlier. This time, though, it was the Woodvilles who would need his support, not Richard. I'm still struggling to find some way for Hastings to have been set up. Maybe we're thinking of two different meanings, but to me set up says that Hastings wasn't actually involved in the assassination attempt at all, only made to appear to be involved, and I'm stuck trying to imagine any scenario where that could be. Nor can I come up with anything that would allow him to be the fall guy, because that would mean that the attempt on Richard's and Buckingham's lives wasn't intended to succeed, wouldn't it? Or have I gotten something wrong? Again. Hilary concluded: And where do Dorset and Jane Shore come into all this? Doug here: Are we absolutely certain that whatever enmity there was between Hastings and Dorset was over Shore and not over one or the other of the two getting some office or position the other wanted? With Shore being presumed to have been the cause? If the quarrel/dispute wasn't over Shore, perhaps her going from whichever one she was originally with to whichever one she ended up with was more a symptom than the cause; IOW, she left the one power/authority was waning for the one who she thought was a better deal?
--
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

2018-11-23 11:24:52
Hilary Jones
Absolutely to all this Mary! I seem to recall that Edward IV had started 're-allocating' some of Hastings' lands to the Woodvilles. I'm pretty sure he gave some to EW and possibly some later to Rivers. It's in the CPR, I'll look it up.
I still can't put my finger on why MB changed tack in wanting to bring HT home (and therefore having to make him king). He'd been away for years and there had been some unsuccessful tries to get him handed over, but he'd always escaped that. Why the sudden urgency? Why the thought that Richard would treat him any more harshly than Edward had? There's no indication of that at all - that is until he threatened trouble.
Was there some pressure from the other end - i.e. France. Summer 1483 also of course saw the death of Louis XI. Did the Regency no longer want HT in their territory? Was it something to do with his former ties with Brittany? It would be really good to have a date for the cause - and to see whether it coincided with Richard being at his weakest due to the death of his heir. H
On Thursday, 22 November 2018, 15:57:13 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary.


As far as we know Stillington may not have disclosed the precontract on the 13th of June so maybe Hastings wasn't acting because he was against Edward being illegitimate because that had not been brought to anyone's attention. Maybe he was just acting on his own behalf as David Johnson suggests. According to Annette Carson his relationship with the Woodvilles was not good even before Edward died. There were problems over the captaincy of Calais apparently Rivers had wanted it and Edward had given it to Hastings. Whether the Woodvilles were involved in a plot to kill Edward as Richard Collins suggests or not, they were certainly up to something in the months before Edwards death. The letters to Rivers agent Dymoke about clarifying Rivers right to recruit troops in Wales, giving his right as Deputy Constable of the Tower to Dorset and trying to get Dymoke and several others of his affinity elected to Parliament.
So could it have been a combination of Hastings being annoyed at Richard for giving Buckingham power and Hastings not wanting to give up his lucrative posts and his dislike of the Woodvilles? As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham and possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him? Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-24 14:39:56
Doug Stamate
Mary, Apologies to butting in, but it does seem to me that David Johnson either ignored or forgot one important factor: the offices Hastings held and any power/authority they brought to him was based solely on his close relationship with Edward IV. Once Edward died, every one of those offices was up for grabs under the new king. Hastings was Edward IV's Lord Chamberlain through the latter's entire reign. Apparently he also held the office of Master of the Mint for that same period. It was only after 1471 that Edward made Hastings Captain of Calais and, considering what had just happened, that tells me that Edward trusted Hastings more than he trusted anyone else. Of course, George and Richard were only 21 and 18, respectively, but Rivers was 30 and closely related to Edward as well; yet Edward chose Hastings. Hastings, as best I can determine, and unlike the Stanleys, wasn't a great landowner. If I'm mistaken, perhaps Hilary could help determine his status (grin!)? At any rate, his power, such as it was, came from from his close relationship to Edward IV and the positions Edward had bestowed upon him; but what Edward IV had given, a Woodville-dominated Edward V could take away and that, I think, was what drove Hastings' actions in April, May and June of 1483. That Captaincy of Calais likely played a very important part in Hastings' plans, I think. As long as Hastings held that position, he was in the position of being able to deploy England's only standing military force on the behalf of one side or another. If the Woodvilles dominated the Council, I don't doubt he feared the loss of that position and all the possible dangers losing it could bring. Should the Woodvilles succeed in getting Edward V crowned and the Protectorate reduced to a nominal position, then Hastings only recourse might be rebellion and how could he justify that with the king newly on the throne? OTOH, Richard, even as a Protector as envisaged by Edward IV, would still have to provide the Council with some very convincing reason/s for replacing Hastings with someone else. Being Lord Chamberlain would automatically mean a seat on the Council, but with the death of Edward IV, Hastings no longer held that position. Hastings was also Master of the Mint, but I don't know whether that position carried with it membership on the royal Council. OTOH, the one position that would carry an automatic seat at that table would be Hastings' position as Captain of Calais. However, Richard as King, could replace Hastings as Captain without having to provide any reasons for doing so. If Hastings feared anything, I rather think what he most feared was the loss of the Captaincy. As long as he retained control of the Calais garrison, he was in a position to protect his own interests, possibly up to and including his very life. Hastings wasn't the only one to be executed for conspiring to take Richard's, and Buckingham's, life in June 1483; that was also the charge levied against Rivers Grey and Vaughan. My understanding of the powers of the Constable, and possibly the Protector, is that he while was legally able to accuse, try and execute someone for treason, he still needed evidence in order to do so legally. It's possible the charges levied against Rivers et al were based on what was planned to take place earlier at Stony Stratford, but it's also possible those three were involved in the June plot as well. After all, a century later Mary Stuart, while under house arrest, was able to communicate with her supporters, so I don't see it as impossible that Rivers may not have done so as well. We know that some sort of fracas was reported to have occurred at that meeting of Council, but we don't have the details; all we do have is what happened afterwards  Hastings was executed for treason for plotting the deaths of Richard and Buckingham and that the Woodvilles were also involved. Considering the meeting was held in the Tower, I seriously doubt that whatever the plan to kill Richard was, it involved his being attacked in the Tower itself but, more likely, was to take place on his departure. We know that Richard wasn't attacked when he left because Hastings died before that happened. Therefore, or so it seems to me, the reason for Hastings' execution wasn't what he'd done on that day, but rather what he'd planned to do. Which then leads me to believe that, somehow or other, Richard had gotten hold of evidence, either verbal or written, that implicated Hastings in the plot and, more importantly, was confirmable by someone who himself was one of the plotters. It's almost needless to say it, but I think that person was Morton. Whatever his reasons may have been, I think it was Morton who first informed Richard of what was planned and then backed up his tip with written evidence that implicated Hastings, Rivers, Grey and Vaughan. Getting back to that fracas, we really don't know if it was a case of resisting arrest or an attempt on someone's life, do we? What if Hastings was arrested after going for, not Richard, but rather Morton  the man who'd just betrayed him? Sorry for the length, but one word seemed to lead to four or five more... Doug Mary wrote: So possibly Hilary the Woodville's original plan was not to inform Richard of Edward's death for as long as they possibly could so that they could get Edward crowned but Hastings spoiled that for them. Then they planned to ambush Richard on the way to Stony Stratford but that failed and Rivers &co were arrested. They then had to decide on Plan B - get Hastings. So with the help of MB and Morton they somehow plotted to incriminate Hastings in a plan to assassinate Richard knowing that as Lord Constable he would arrest Hastings and probably execute him. Maybe they didn't count on him executing Rivers & co. In his article in the Bulletin David Johnson says he believes that Hastings intended to kill Richard and Buckingham and attempted to blame the Woodvilles. David believes that Hastings was fully capable of such behaviour while Wendy Moorhen believes that he would have taken full responsibility himself. David believes that the Woodvilles believed that Ha stings was responsible for encouraging much of the king's dissolute lifestyle and that when Edward died Hastings was fearful of Woodville reprisals especially as the young king's escort to London was to be so large. He threatened to withdraw to Calais unless the escort was reduced. If he had withdrawn to Calais he would have been in command of a potent invasion force as the between 1482 and 1483 the Calais garrison had been substantially reinforced. David Johnson contends that the idea that Hastings was first allied with Richard and then the Woodvilles is fatally flawed and he believes that Hastings constituted a powerful third force totally independent of the Woodvilles or Richard he was merely protecting his own interests.
--
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

2018-11-25 13:15:26
Doug Stamate
Hilary, A couple of questions. First, just exactly when did Richard start showering those lands and offices on Buckingham? My understanding is that any showering happened after Richard ascended the throne, or certainly no sooner than he'd acquiesced in the Three Estates' request he do so. And, needless to say, that was after Hastings' execution. As for Richard associating himself so closely with Buckingham after their arrival in London, mightn't the reason for that have been Richard's desire to establish a group loyal to himself and he started with the best-known of those people who hadn't been involved in governing when Edward IV was on the throne? My second question is based on my understanding of the subject of my first. How was Buckingham known to be so incompetent/unsuitable if he'd never been appointed to anything by Edward IV? Isn't it just as possible that Edward refrained from using Buckingham, not because he necessarily felt Buckingham couldn't cut it, but rather because of to whom Buckingham was married  a Woodville; and Edward just didn't want his in-laws, or their families, from gaining any more power? I do understand that there was a limited number of members of the upper nobility available for offices/appointments and because of there being such a limited number, but any knowledge of one another's strengths and weaknesses would only be gained when someone did well or failed after having been appointed to some office/position, wouldn't it? As for who ratted on the conspirators, if forced to choose among those arrested, I'd go with the one who wasn't arrested temporarily  Morton. That doesn't mean Oliver King wasn't involved somehow or other, only that he likely wasn't the snitch. Perhaps a messenger? Delivering sealed letters, of course. Doug Hilary wrote: Thanks Mary but I honestly did just stumble upon it when I was looking for something about Buckingham. Firstly, I think we're now learning to stop grouping 'the Stanleys' together. William needs to be considered separately as well; another job! I've begun to get a new version in my head of events between April and June 1483 and it goes something like this: Thomas Stanley and Hastings are the long-term occupants of Edward IV's most senior posts. When he dies in April they wish to adopt his recommended policy of appointing Richard as Protector - the senior person on the Council on which they will sit. It suits them well; who knows, Richard with his love of the North might delegate some of the London business to them, but above all it will marginalise the Woodvilles, who are already doing their best to self-implode. So Stanley and Hastings do their best to make sur e Richard makes it safely to London, almost certainly warning him of a likely plot when Richard Grey departs London. But when Richard arrives he has another problem person in tow - Buckingham! Now both these guys know Buckingham is a liability. Hastings knows Edward never trusted him and Stanley is his uncle. However, Richard, perhaps in one of his less rational moods, seems blind to Buck's faults and is showering him with lands and offices which increase his already large ego. They also know that Richard, in one of these 'moods' can be stubborn. Stanley will undoubtedly remember Hornby, and there's no longer an Edward to rein him in. So Buckingham must go. Hastings is given the job of having him taken out, probably on his return from that meeting at the Tower? But someone betrays their plan to Richard and says it includes him as well. Who's that person? I'm not sure but I'm interested in Oliver King, who was also present and temporarily arre sted. Was he a French agent tasked to stir up trouble and weaken the English government? Richard arrests Hastings, who in the ensuing fracas also accuses Stanley, who is reported to have been injured. Stanley does the usual 'Stanley flip' but a day or two later suggests Morton should be put in the care of Buckingham who will be 'guided' by Morton to his own destruction. And all this time Mrs Stanley is taking tea with EW finding out just what's going on in the Woodville camp which will also no doubt be conveyed to Morton. And then comes TR and Stanley is in line for a big promotion ....... When you look at it like that it does start to make sense - I hope?
--
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

2018-11-25 14:00:42
Doug Stamate
Hilary, To be honest, I'm inclined to think that, if Edward V had been crowned, the Pre-Contract would have been made public at all, thus sparing the bishops' consciences (And likely the lives of anyone who brought it up, as well!). To a certain extent, those merchants were better placed than the nobility in how their spent any excess income. Undoubtedly some of that income went on fine furnishings and clothes, but even then merchants weren't expected to display the magnificence all-but-required of someone such as, say, the Duke of Buckingham. I don't doubt much of that spending on churches, the poor and needy Guild members or their children was due to both their religious feelings as well as a sense of responsibility, but it was also a way of displaying their wealth, just in a different manner than was expected of the nobility. It does appear that the ethos of the nobility, especially whatever was left of the upper nobility, hadn't changed much over the previous century or so, doesn't it? In fact, if my readings in history are anything to go by, that attitude towards hard cash, especially the getting of it, seems to have lingered well into the 19th century! As for when TS changed his mind about supporting Richard, my best guess right now is that he likely moved from supporting Richard to the usual Stanley posture of fence-sitting sometime after Buckingham's Rebellion. As for Stanley's intervention at Bosworth, I wonder if he didn't hold off until it became apparent that Richard wasn't going to win the battle quickly? IOW, had Richard been able to ride in, drive through Tudor's forces and cut HT down; well, there just hadn't been time for Stanley to do anything, now was there? Nor could Richard hold Stanley at fault for not helping out, because he hadn't been needed. I do find it interesting, though, that throughout the entire battle, Stanley didn't intervene until it was to his advantage to do so. His intervention when it came was all that prevented HT from being cut down on the spot. Thus gaining, or so I imagine Stanley thought, the gratitude of HT for saving his life. If I'm correct in my judgment of Stanley, it's possible he might have done the same for Richard had Richard, at an earlier point in the battle, needed Stanley's help to survive. That last idea depends, though, on just exactly where Stanley was in relation to the fighting. If he was positioned so once the fighting began he couldn't intervene on Richard's behalf, then Stanley's only ever intended to help HT. His goal, of course, in either case would have been to rescue whoever needed it and place that person in his debt. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug - see my reply to Mary. Re religion I don't think you're cynical at all. I was actually thinking more of the bishops on the Council. It would be interesting to know what would have happened if TR had appeared after Edward was crowned. Did the fact that he wasn't help them to dispossess him with a clearer conscience? On my Beaumont search I've looked at a lot of merchant wills. Not only were they incredibly rich but they were exemplars of religion at it's best. They supported churches, gave to the poor, offered a support mechanism for their brethren and the brethrens' children. The real welfare state in England began five hundred years' earlier in the Guilds. I also reckon this is where the old feudal system was falling apart. You could have extensive lands - like Buckingham - but be broke because you were tardy in pulling in your revenues, and you had to pay people to do it. As ever, cashflow is king, and the merchants had that. I've been trying to find Buckingham's IPM. I don't see a mention of Maxstoke in the list above , but Kimbolton would certainly be very valuable. It had just been re-furbished by his grandmother. I'll look in the Fine Rolls and come back. I'll also see if I can download the original which I'm sure is what Marie would do just to check the wording. Of course the other 'biggie' in this is why and when TS changed his mind about Richard. For example, did he make his intervention at Bosworth after he knew Richard had been unhorsed? Sounds the sort of thing he'd do to save his skin.
--
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

2018-11-25 17:06:36
ricard1an
Doug, I would agree that Stanley was doing his usual fence sitting at Bosworth. He obviously had Richard a bit rattled before the battle because Richard took his son into his custody. A few days before the battle Thomas and William Stanley met with HT at Atherstone and possibly told him that he had their support. However, was that support dependant on who was winning the battle? It was actually William's men who intervened on HT's behalf not Thomas'. So if that intervention had somehow failed and Richard had won anyway maybe Thomas would still have tried to convince Richard of his loyalty and put the blame on his brother. Though I am not sure that Richard would have believed him.
Mary


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

2018-11-25 20:59:46
Doug Stamate
Nico, Perhaps the reason for not haveing any idea where Buckingham was sent for his training is because whatever training he received took place after his marriage and while he was spending so much time at Court? Might he have been turned over to someone at Court? FWIW, going by the footnotes in Wikipedia's article on him, Richard was under Warwick's tutelage from 1461 until 1465 according to Kendall, while David Baldwin has him at Middleham from 1465 to 1468. In 1461, Richard would only have been 9 and I thought being sent off like that occurred at a slightly older age. However, if, Richard's departure was in 1465, then he would have been 13, which allow time for Richard and Buckingham to possibly become (better?) acquainted, even taking the age difference into account. Perhaps Edward's view of Buckingham was based on what he, Edward, had seen of Stafford while the boy was at Court? Stafford became a duke in 1458 on the death of his grandfather. The only mention of Stafford being a Royal Ward is that Edward IV declared him so in 1460. Would Stafford have remained with his grandmother, Anne Duchess of Buckingham? Or would he have been brought to some sort of nursery managed by, I presume, Elizabeth Woodville? If Stafford was under the care of his grandmother, who was not only a determined Lancastrian, but also very capable when it came to managing her financial affairs, perhaps that was where he developed his aversion, if he really did, to the members of the upstart Woodville clan? An eleven year-old might have an over-developed sense of his lineage, but he'd have to get it somewhere, wouldn't he? I can't see that happening f he was constantly at Court from the age of five or so, but I can see it happening if he was around someone who had no qualms in voicing her opinions about the Woodvilles. If Stafford's opinions of his relatives matched those of his grandmother, and if Edward ever discovered that, might that be the explanation of why Edward never seemed to cultivate Stafford? And it wasn't as if there weren't other qualified people Edward could employ; so why bother with someone who'd made his dislike of the Queen's family apparent? Another interesting point is the births of Stafford's children. Wikipedia has one occurring in 1478 (his heir), a second and third both tentatively in 1479 (a daughter and the spare) and a fourth in 1483 (a second daughter). Two others are listed, a Humphrey and a Margaret, but when they were born and died isn't given; nor whether they were legitimate or nhot. At any rate, whatever dislike(?) Stafford may have felt for his Woodville spouse seems to been overcome by the late 1470s. It does seem to me that, and presuming Buckingham did have an out-sized ego that didn't match his talents, that the simplest explanation of his actions during the late summer/autumn of 1483 is that he succumbed to the idea put forth by Morton that Buckingham, by heading up a restoration of Edward V, could assume the position of Protector and show everyone just how suited he, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was for such a role. Further, I'm more of the opinion than I was that it was Buckingham himself who decided to switch the goal of the rebellion from restoring Edward V to avenging his death by removing his murderer and, most importantly, taking Richard's place on the throne. Of course, that meant young Edward and his brother had to die, but that was what the rumors were for. After all, once Buckingham had control of the Tower, who could, or would dare, say how long the boys had been dead? And I think, at least for now anyway, that it was at that point Morton decided to make a run for it and turned what was likely supposed to have been a trip to recruit support for the rebellion into a scramble to put as much distance as possible between himself and Buckingham. Well, that's what I think today, anyway... Doug Nico wrote: I also lean towards the bruised ego idea. If he was often in the Royal Household as a child, that could have contributed to the sense of social superiority that Buckingham has often been accused of. I would guess he was in there from the early 1460s, as the marriage to Katherine Woodville took place in 1466, and there is a story of them being present at her coronation in 1465. They would have been 8 and 11 at the time, and it would have brought him even closer to the Royal Family as an in-law at an impressionable age. At this time there, which was a few years before Richard went to Warwick's household, there was also probably substantial contact with Richard who was two years older than Buckingham and the right age to be looked up to by him. Is it known where Buckingham spent his teenage years? It was customary to be placed in the house of another noble family, but it doesn't appear to have been Warwick. It isn't clear why Edward appears to have distanced himself from Buckingham, or at least never cultivated him. Perhaps the Woodville marriage have worked against him after 1471, when Edward had to be cautious about his links with the Woodvilles. Could that have been the actual source of his reported resentment of the marriage? Under Edward, maybe he knew he was going nowhere, but in 1483 saw his chance with Richard especially if he helped him, but when he didn't get close to the centre of power, he took it personally and decided that as long as the House of York was ruling he would never amount to much. If that sentiment extended to the Princes that may have been a factor in not just pushing his own agenda, but also a motive for their murder.
The conversations about Stanley and Hastings are very insightful. I'm still trying to put it all together.
--
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

2018-11-26 04:06:12
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary. Doug here: I agree with you that HT had no claim on the throne and the idea that MB was, from the death of Edward IV, plotting to put her son on the throne doesn't fit what we know. For one thing, if MB had set out to remove every legitimate claimant, why stop with Hastings, Buckingham and Richard? There were still all those de la Poles, after all. Then there's the fact that for a marriage between EoY and HT to have any meaning at all in HT's claim to the throne, then Edward IV's children would have to be considered legitimate  all of them. Which means we'd have to add young Edward and Richard to her list. Mary continued: As far as we know Stillington may not have disclosed the precontract on the 13th of June so maybe Hastings wasn't acting because he was against Edward being illegitimate because that had not been brought to anyone's attention. Maybe he was just acting on his own behalf as David Johnson suggests. According to Annette Carson his relationship with the Woodvilles was not good even before Edward died. There were problems over the captaincy of Calais apparently Rivers had wanted it and Edward had given it to Hastings. Whether the Woodvilles were involved in a plot to kill Edward as Richard Collins suggests or not, they were certainly up to something in the months before Edwards death. The letters to Rivers agent Dymoke about clarifying Rivers right to recruit troops in Wales, giving his right as Deputy Constable of the Tower to Dorset and trying to get Dymoke and several others of his affinity elected to Parliament. Doug here: If Audrey Williamson was correct, Robert Shaa gave a sermon at St. Paul's Cross on 22 June, the day originally scheduled for Edward V's coronation. The topic was bastard slips and apparently earned Shaa a reprimand from Richard for speaking out of turn. However, she also has Richard accepting the crown at the request of the Three Estates on 26 June. Now, maybe it's me, but I'd think a matter of such importance, the decision whether to accept the Pre-Contract as valid and recognize Edward IV's children were thus illegitimate, would take more than a week. I think the topic was most probably brought before the Council officially no later than 6 June and possibly even a week earlier. Another thing of interest that might assist in determining just when the matter of the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council is the cancelling of the summoning of Parliament that had been issued on 13 May. At least I presume that's what Williamson meant when she wrote Parliament had been summoned on 13 May in the name of Edward V, but in rather mysterious circumstances the order for it had been countermanded.... We do know that the Three Estates that offered the crown to Richard was well attended, so I'm presuming that many of those who sat in Parliament had received the original summons in time to either already be in London when the cancellation went out or at least well enough on their way that they decided to continue on to London. At any rate, it seems to me that assigning something on the order of at least one week, and possibly two, between dispatch of the summons and its' cancellation would be about right. One week brings us to 20 May, two weeks to 27 May. I tend to think the latter date is the most likely, but all I can offer in support is that trying to keep such a secret would get harder and harder the longer it was sat on. Mary concluded: So could it have been a combination of Hastings being annoyed at Richard for giving Buckingham power and Hastings not wanting to give up his lucrative posts and his dislike of the Woodvilles? As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham a nd possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him? Doug here: I wonder if we're not looking at the plot to assassinate Richard from the wrong angle? If our presumptions of what was planned at Stony Stratford are correct, Richard's death could be said to be the aim of the Woodville party from the moment Edward IV died. Is it possible that what happened was that Hastings was drawn into an already-existing plot? I hope I'm not sounding paranoid, but I really wonder if Morton wasn't also involved in drawing Hastings into the plot against Richard  as well as being instrumental in seeing that the plot failed? I've been working on the hypothesis that Morton was more frustrated than anything else by not being allowed to use his talents and that was why he sided first with Woofvilles, then with Buckingham and finally Tudor. But what if Morton was truly a dedicated Lancastrian? What could he do to return the House of Lancaster to the throne of England? Other than do his best to destroy the House of York, I mean? Perhaps we've been looking at MB when we should have been looking at Bishop Morton? (I'm not pointing any fingers, I've been just as guilty as anyone else) Apparently someone tipped Richard off, else why was Richard so certain, as he wrote in that note to York, that the Woodvilles were planning his death? Besides who, Richard also knew when. If not Morton, then who? And if anyone could get at Hastings, my money would be on the Bishop of Ely. Doug (My apologies for the delay in replying)
--
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

2018-11-26 07:58:29
Paul Trevor Bale
Don't forget William had already openly supported Tudor and welcomed him in Wales, naturally bringing Richard to cause him of treason and issued a warrant for his arrest. So Thomas was clearly playing the family game and remaining loyal, or at least loyal on the surface. Also let's not forget he was also Constable, a position I have always been surprised he had been trusted with, though it is very much in line with the king's attempts to reconcile all elements of not just the Yorkists but also those opposed to his rule. Imagine the blow losing your Constable to treason. Not surprising with William declared traitor that he had doubts about Thomas loyalty and took out some insurance by putting Strange into custody. In fact I recall reading somewhere that Strange had actually informed the king of some of his fathers movements and felt safe in his custody.All motivations of this crucial period are so difficult to work out from such a distance. It also amazes me how step father reaped the biggest rewards from Tudor, and not the brother who had saved him from being killed by the legitimate king! That's another question I've never had a decent answer to.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 25 nov. 2018 à 17:42, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

Doug, I would agree that Stanley was doing his usual fence sitting at Bosworth. He obviously had Richard a bit rattled before the battle because Richard took his son into his custody. A few days before the battle Thomas and William Stanley met with HT at Atherstone and possibly told him that he had their support. However, was that support dependant on who was winning the battle? It was actually William's men who intervened on HT's behalf not Thomas'. So if that intervention had somehow failed and Richard had won anyway maybe Thomas would still have tried to convince Richard of his loyalty and put the blame on his brother. Though I am not sure that Richard would have believed him.


Mary


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

2018-11-26 13:17:48
Nicholas Brown
Nico, Perhaps the reason for not haveing any idea where Buckingham was sent for his training is because whatever training he received took place after his marriage and while he was spending so much time at Court? Might he have been turned over to someone at Court? FWIW, going by the footnotes in Wikipedia's article on him, Richard was under Warwick's tutelage from 1461 until 1465 according to Kendall, while David Baldwin has him at Middleham from 1465 to 1468. In 1461 ... Perhaps Edward's view of Buckingham was based on what he, Edward, had seen of Stafford while the boy was at Court? .... Would Stafford have remained with his grandmother, Anne Duchess of Buckingham? Or would he have been brought to some sort of nursery managed by, I presume, Elizabeth Woodville? If Stafford was under the care of his grandmother, who was not only a determined Lancastrian, but also very capable when it came to managing her financial affairs, perhaps that was where he developed his aversion, if he really did, to the members of the upstart Woodville clan? ... If Stafford's opinions of his relatives matched those of his grandmother, and if Edward ever discovered that, might that be the explanation of why Edward never seemed to cultivate Stafford?

Another interesting point is the births of Stafford's children. Wikipedia has one occurring in 1478 (his heir), a second and third both tentatively in 1479 (a daughter and the spare) and a fourth in 1483 (a second daughter). Two others are listed, a Humphrey and a Margaret, but when they were born and died isn't given; nor whether they were legitimate or nhot. At any rate, whatever dislike(?) Stafford may have felt for his Woodville spouse seems to been overcome by the late 1470s.
It does seem to me that, and presuming Buckingham did have an out-sized ego that didn't match his talents, that the simplest explanation of his actions during the late summer/autumn of 1483 is that he succumbed to the idea put forth by Morton that Buckingham, by heading up a restoration of Edward V, could assume the position of Protector and show everyone just how suited he, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was for such a role. Further, I'm more of the opinion than I was that it was Buckingham himself who decided to switch the goal of the rebellion from restoring Edward V to avenging his death by removing his murderer and, most importantly, taking Richard's place on the throne. Of course, that meant young Edward and his brother had to die, but that was what the rumors were for. After all, once Buckingham had control of the Tower, who could, or would dare, say how long the boys had been dead? And I think, at least for now anyway, that it was at that point Morton decided to make a run for it and turned what was likely supposed to have been a trip to recruit support for the rebellion into a scramble to put as much distance as possible between himself and Buckingham. Well, that's what I think today, anyway...

Hi Doug,
Sorry I had to make some snips to your first paragraph. Baldwin's dates for Richard's training at Middleham are more realistic than Kendall's. There was an article in one of the Ricardians tracing Richard's progress after leaving Warwick's service and it was around 1468-9. If Buckingham was a royal ward from 1460 onwards, then he must have come into fairly regular contact with Richard. There was also the time when Cecily was in Anne, Duchess of Buckingham's custody in 1559, but Buckingham was a bit young at the time. Cecily and Anne may have been sisters, but if Anne's loyalties were strongly Lancastrian, then it would make sense to limit her contact with her grandson and keep him close to the court. Anne's loyalties may have been complex as she was closely associated with Jacquetta and carried EW's train at her coronation, but old allegiances can still bubble beneath the surface. Buckingham must have had some military training, as all boys from the nobility were expected to have, so it may have been someone closer to the court than Warwick. Perhaps he never made much of an impression, or there were just better and more experienced people. Nevertheless, he was one of the highest standing people with a royal claim, and it would have been in Edward's interest to keep him on his side as someone with Buckingham's status could have been a valuable ally. Therefore, the Woodville marriage post readeption may have worked against him. If promoting Woodvilles and associates had to be restricted, he may have had to overlook Buckingham.

Also, in the latter half of Edward's reign, some Woodvilles were doing better than others, and may not have been such a cohesive group. Looking at the excess of honours granted to the Marquis of Dorset and Richard Grey, EW may have been mostly interested in feathering the nests of her sons, who she intended to play a bigger role in the reign of the future Edward V. If you look at the Woodville siblings after 1471, only Anthony and to some extent Lionel really stand out. Grey and Dorset were a few years younger than Buckingham, but probably grew up around him too. Perhaps they lorded it over him, and that gave him a chip on his shoulder. I don't know much about Grey, but I can imagine Dorset as being a brat and a bully, his bad behaviour indulged all the way by his adoring mother. If Richard and Buckingham shared a mutual dislike of Dorset and Grey, then that may have led Buckingham to think he could expect more from Richard. (Objectively speaking, Buckingham did well as Lord of the Marches, but my suspicion is that Buckingham had hoped to be in Richard's inner circle in London, rather out there in Brecon .)
As for the marriage to Katherine Woodville, I'm am sceptical of the rumours that he disliked her personally. He may have thought a Woodville marriage was not in his best interest without taking his resentment out on her. The fact that she fled Brecon and escaped with him to Weobley isn't consistent with them disliking each other, so I think Mancini is wrong here. However, he may have been confused with a wider dislike of members of her family coupled with an awareness of his own better claims following the precontract revelations. Dorset and others such as Morton may have put pressure on him to join a rebellion in favour of Edward V's restoration, but he decided to push his own claims. For that reason, he emerges as a likely suspect if they were murdered. If there was support for reinstating him, the princes had to be out of the way.
FWIW, I don't agree with a lot of Susan Higginbotham's interpretations, but she is good with facts about the Woodvilles, and this article was quite the best I have found on Buckingham's early life.
Nico
The Second Duke and Duchess of Buckingham
The Second Duke and Duchess of Buckingham








On Sunday, 25 November 2018, 20:59:53 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Perhaps the reason for not haveing any idea where Buckingham was sent for his training is because whatever training he received took place after his marriage and while he was spending so much time at Court? Might he have been turned over to someone at Court? FWIW, going by the footnotes in Wikipedia's article on him, Richard was under Warwick's tutelage from 1461 until 1465 according to Kendall, while David Baldwin has him at Middleham from 1465 to 1468. In 1461, Richard would only have been 9 and I thought being sent off like that occurred at a slightly older age. However, if, Richard's departure was in 1465, then he would have been 13, which allow time for Richard and Buckingham to possibly become (better?) acquainted, even taking the age difference into account. Perhaps Edward's view of Buckingham was based on what he, Edward, had seen of Stafford while the boy was at Court? Stafford became a duke in 1458 on the death of his grandfather. The only mention of Stafford being a Royal Ward is that Edward IV declared him so in 1460. Would Stafford have remained with his grandmother, Anne Duchess of Buckingham? Or would he have been brought to some sort of nursery managed by, I presume, Elizabeth Woodville? If Stafford was under the care of his grandmother, who was not only a determined Lancastrian, but also very capable when it came to managing her financial affairs, perhaps that was where he developed his aversion, if he really did, to the members of the upstart Woodville clan? An eleven year-old might have an over-developed sense of his lineage, but he'd have to get it somewhere, wouldn't he? I can't see that happening f he was constantly at Court from the age of five or so, but I can see it happening if he was around someone who had no qualms in voicing her opinions about the Woodvilles. If Stafford's opinions of his relatives matched those of his grandmother, and if Edward ever discovered that, might that be the explanation of why Edward never seemed to cultivate Stafford? And it wasn't as if there weren't other qualified people Edward could employ; so why bother with someone who'd made his dislike of the Queen's family apparent? Another interesting point is the births of Stafford's children. Wikipedia has one occurring in 1478 (his heir), a second and third both tentatively in 1479 (a daughter and the spare) and a fourth in 1483 (a second daughter). Two others are listed, a Humphrey and a Margaret, but when they were born and died isn't given; nor whether they were legitimate or nhot. At any rate, whatever dislike(?) Stafford may have felt for his Woodville spouse seems to been overcome by the late 1470s. It does seem to me that, and presuming Buckingham did have an out-sized ego that didn't match his talents, that the simplest explanation of his actions during the late summer/autumn of 1483 is that he succumbed to the idea put forth by Morton that Buckingham, by heading up a restoration of Edward V, could assume the position of Protector and show everyone just how suited he, Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was for such a role. Further, I'm more of the opinion than I was that it was Buckingham himself who decided to switch the goal of the rebellion from restoring Edward V to avenging his death by removing his murderer and, most importantly, taking Richard's place on the throne. Of course, that meant young Edward and his brother had to die, but that was what the rumors were for. After all, once Buckingham had control of the Tower, who could, or would dare, say how long the boys had been dead? And I think, at least for now anyway, that it was at that point Morton decided to make a run for it and turned what was likely supposed to have been a trip to recruit support for the rebellion into a scramble to put as much distance as possible between himself and Buckingham. Well, that's what I think today, anyway... Doug Nico wrote: I also lean towards the bruised ego idea. If he was often in the Royal Household as a child, that could have contributed to the sense of social superiority that Buckingham has often been accused of. I would guess he was in there from the early 1460s, as the marriage to Katherine Woodville took place in 1466, and there is a story of them being present at her coronation in 1465. They would have been 8 and 11 at the time, and it would have brought him even closer to the Royal Family as an in-law at an impressionable age. At this time there, which was a few years before Richard went to Warwick's household, there was also probably substantial contact with Richard who was two years older than Buckingham and the right age to be looked up to by him. Is it known where Buckingham spent his teenage years? It was customary to be placed in the house of another noble family, but it doesn't appear to have been Warwick. It isn't clear why Edward appears to have distanced himself from Buckingham, or at least never cultivated him. Perhaps the Woodville marriage have worked against him after 1471, when Edward had to be cautious about his links with the Woodvilles. Could that have been the actual source of his reported resentment of the marriage? Under Edward, maybe he knew he was going nowhere, but in 1483 saw his chance with Richard especially if he helped him, but when he didn't get close to the centre of power, he took it personally and decided that as long as the House of York was ruling he would never amount to much. If that sentiment extended to the Princes that may have been a factor in not just pushing his own agenda, but also a motive for their murder.
The conversations about Stanley and Hastings are very insightful.. I'm still trying to put it all together.
--
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

2018-11-26 13:21:02
Hilary Jones
Hi all, trying to respond to some of this.
Firstly I tried to imagine myself jumping out of the Tardis in early June 1483. What would I find? I reckon I'd find a group of shocked, de-stablised, nervous, distrustful people. In modern terms it would be the equivalent of staff threatened with a mass re-organisation. And I'd include Richard in that number. That was clearly not what Edward's will had intended, he'd hoped for a smooth transition but two things had happened which had thrown everything up in the air.
The first was the irrational behaviour of the Woodvilles in the days following his death - taking monies abroad, plotting to ambush the proposed Protector, flying into Sanctuary. And the second has to be the arrival of Buckingham; someone who has nothing to lose office-wise but everything to gain. And he had gained!
On 16 May 1483 he was made Chief Justice and Chamberlain of Wales and all this:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858020272138;view=2up;seq=360;size=175
And on the same day he was given supervision and power of array in Salop, Hereford, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire.
So quite a shower of gifts Doug. In fact you might even think he 'had something' on Richard.
Now had Edward still been alive he would have marched in, banged all their heads together, told them to get on with it and sent Buckingham scuttling back to his burrow. But there was no-one powerful enough to do this. The new King was too young, Richard was too dependent on the Council propping up his protectorship against further Woodville plots. He didn't even have a brother left to offer some sort of protection (as John of Bedford did for Humphrey of Gloucester). Perhaps that's where Buckingham came in - who knows?
On 20 May Hastings was re-affirmed as Master of the Mint at the Tower and in Calais. He was still Captain of Calais as well so he was doing OK.
So the meeting in the Tower in June. Firstly clearly TR had not surfaced because they were arranging a coronation up the road. Was the proposed murder of Buckingham or of Richard or of both? The chroniclers would have us believe it was both. If it was indeed Richard then my prime suspects would have to be the Woodvilles, they did after all manage to achieve some rebellions later and they could be trying desperately to stop the executions of Rivers and Grey. But I can truly find nothing to indicate that Hastings would ever ally with them. Why should he if they were after his post in Calais and the Council had endorsed his current offices? If, on the other hand, the intended victim was Buckingham, then looking at the above I could find quite a few candidates including Stanley and Hastings.
And of course Buckingham was to go on to become Constable. I really don't know the answer. Had Buckingham plotted to remove Hastings and it had backfired?
Now after the October rebellions Richard did a number of different things:
Welsh offices were split up amongst a number of peopleStanley was made Constable and the lands we have in the deed (which doesn't appear in the CPR)Percy was made Chamberlain (like Stanley for supporting Richard's kingship as well as putting down the rebels) and given Buck's lands in YorkshireMaxstoke was given to Walter Graunt, an Usher of Anne's Chamber
I really want to know who instigated TR - was the Council as a whole just desperate for a way out of all this, but putting young Edward aside would bring with it the knowledge that Richard would continue to promote Buckingham and were they even willing to put up with that? Seems so. And also of course when and why did MB declare her hand? She was attainted in Feb 1484 when some of her Northants lands were given to Lovell.
What I am pretty sure of is that this was no huge conspiracy plan; it's much too messy for that. It's unstable people trying to cling to what they have in a very fast changing environment. H

On Monday, 26 November 2018, 04:06:20 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary wrote: Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary. Doug here: I agree with you that HT had no claim on the throne and the idea that MB was, from the death of Edward IV, plotting to put her son on the throne doesn't fit what we know. For one thing, if MB had set out to remove every legitimate claimant, why stop with Hastings, Buckingham and Richard? There were still all those de la Poles, after all. Then there's the fact that for a marriage between EoY and HT to have any meaning at all in HT's claim to the throne, then Edward IV's children would have to be considered legitimate  all of them. Which means we'd have to add young Edward and Richard to her list. Mary continued: As far as we know Stillington may not have disclosed the precontract on the 13th of June so maybe Hastings wasn't acting because he was against Edward being illegitimate because that had not been brought to anyone's attention. Maybe he was just acting on his own behalf as David Johnson suggests. According to Annette Carson his relationship with the Woodvilles was not good even before Edward died. There were problems over the captaincy of Calais apparently Rivers had wanted it and Edward had given it to Hastings. Whether the Woodvilles were involved in a plot to kill Edward as Richard Collins suggests or not, they were certainly up to something in the months before Edwards death. The letters to Rivers agent Dymoke about clarifying Rivers right to recruit troops in Wales, giving his right as Deputy Constable of the Tower to Dorset and trying to get Dymoke and several others of his affinity elected to Parliament. Doug here: If Audrey Williamson was correct, Robert Shaa gave a sermon at St. Paul's Cross on 22 June, the day originally scheduled for Edward V's coronation. The topic was bastard slips and apparently earned Shaa a reprimand from Richard for speaking out of turn. However, she also has Richard accepting the crown at the request of the Three Estates on 26 June. Now, maybe it's me, but I'd think a matter of such importance, the decision whether to accept the Pre-Contract as valid and recognize Edward IV's children were thus illegitimate, would take more than a week. I think the topic was most probably brought before the Council officially no later than 6 June and possibly even a week earlier. Another thing of interest that might assist in determining just when the matter of the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council is the cancelling of the summoning of Parliament that had been issued on 13 May. At least I presume that's what Williamson meant when she wrote Parliament had been summoned on 13 May in the name of Edward V, but in rather mysterious circumstances the order for it had been countermanded.... We do know that the Three Estates that offered the crown to Richard was well attended, so I'm presuming that many of those who sat in Parliament had received the original summons in time to either already be in London when the cancellation went out or at least well enough on their way that they decided to continue on to London. At any rate, it seems to me that assigning something on the order of at least one week, and possibly two, between dispatch of the summons and its' cancellation would be about right. One week brings us to 20 May, two weeks to 27 May. I tend to think the latter date is the most likely, but all I can offer in support is that trying to keep such a secret would get harder and harder the longer it was sat on. Mary concluded: So could it have been a combination of Hastings being annoyed at Richard for giving Buckingham power and Hastings not wanting to give up his lucrative posts and his dislike of the Woodvilles? As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham a nd possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him? Doug here: I wonder if we're not looking at the plot to assassinate Richard from the wrong angle? If our presumptions of what was planned at Stony Stratford are correct, Richard's death could be said to be the aim of the Woodville party from the moment Edward IV died. Is it possible that what happened was that Hastings was drawn into an already-existing plot? I hope I'm not sounding paranoid, but I really wonder if Morton wasn't also involved in drawing Hastings into the plot against Richard  as well as being instrumental in seeing that the plot failed? I've been working on the hypothesis that Morton was more frustrated than anything else by not being allowed to use his talents and that was why he sided first with Woofvilles, then with Buckingham and finally Tudor. But what if Morton was truly a dedicated Lancastrian? What could he do to return the House of Lancaster to the throne of England? Other than do his best to destroy the House of York, I mean? Perhaps we've been looking at MB when we should have been looking at Bishop Morton? (I'm not pointing any fingers, I've been just as guilty as anyone else) Apparently someone tipped Richard off, else why was Richard so certain, as he wrote in that note to York, that the Woodvilles were planning his death? Besides who, Richard also knew when. If not Morton, then who? And if anyone could get at Hastings, my money would be on the Bishop of Ely. Doug (My apologies for the delay in replying)
--
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

2018-11-26 17:03:27
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I have some problems with your ...at the time of Hastings' death no-one knew that young Edward was to be put aside... We know that the Pre-Contract was public knowledge by 25 June because that was when the Three Estates offered the crown to Richard and their offer was based on it. We can move the date of the Pre-Contract being revealed back to 22 June when Shaa gave his sermon at St. Paul's Cross. What we don't have, as far as I know, is a date for when the subject was brought before the Council. In another post, based on the summons for Edward's coronation Parliament being issued on 13 May and subsequently being cancelled on an undetermined date, I suggested 27 May as a possibility. Now, if the summons were cancelled, who had the authority do so? Well, there was the king, Edward V, of course, but there also was the person acting in his stead as Protector  Richard. I suppose a document could have been presented to Edward with a request he sign without reading it, but I have my doubts. At any rate, if an order cancelling the summons was to be issued, there needed to be a very good reason, and my guess is that reason was that the Pre-Contract had been placed before the Council, or at least revealed to a limited number of members of the Council's members. After all, if the Pre-Contract was a true representation of the facts, then Edward V had no right to the throne, let alone the legal authority to summon a Parliament. So the summons was cancelled, most likely by Richard, quite possibly after seeking the advice of the Lord Chancellor (Bishop Russell) until the matter had been thrashed out by the Council  the entire Council. Richard's authority as Protector was as near to that of a king's as to make no difference. but how that authority was used made all the difference; or so I believe. Whether or not the Pre-Contract was true, Richard alone couldn't make the decision about how to handle it; he needed the authority that only the support of a majority of the Council could provide. And to get that authority meant the members of Council had to be informed about the matter. Which also means, or so I think, that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was fairly widespread among the Council members before the meeting on 13 June. Supporters of Edward V wouldn't be talking about it; after all, why should they spread a story that said Edward V had no right to the throne? As for those who accepted the Pre-Contract as being true, they had their own problems to face. By accepting the Pre-Contract they were, in effect, deposing a king, something that required near-unanimity from the Council before being announced to the public. Shorter version: Based on the above, it's my opinion, that it's almost a certainty Hastings knew about the Pre-Contract, and what it might mean in regards to Edward V remaining on the throne. I'm in complete agreement with you that allying himself with Richard and Stanley made the most sense for Hastings, because that's what he did in the beginning. But then how to explain his execution? If Hastings was set up, then that says to me that the whole aim of the plot to assassinate Richard and Buckingham was to get rid of Hastings; IOW, the plot wasn't against Richard and Buckingham, but rather Hastings. Even if the idea was that Hastings was to be the fall guy, taking the blame if the attempt failed, that would still mean that Hastings was an active participant. To be honest, I just can't see how that could be arranged. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree about Hastings' motive/s, because I really do think what motivated Hastings was the fear that, if he wasn't there at the center of things, he risked losing everything, possibly even his life, and the only way for him to remain at the center was by retaining the Captaincy. If the Woodvilles took over the government, Hastings would almost certainly be stripped of every position he held and likely even some/most of the those properties given him by Edward IV. Under a Protectorate with Richard as Protector, Hastings would almost certainly not be Lord Chamberlain, but Richard would need a very good reason to remove Hastings from that Captaincy of Calais and as long as Hastings held that position he was protected by the power and influence that went with being Captain of the Calais garrison. Under Richard as king in his own right, however, that Captaincy was Richard's to do with as he pleased and Richard had apparently already demonstrated his dislike/distrust of Hastings by relegating him to what was the equivalent of the second eleven (I think that's the correct term?). So, when he was made an offer by the Woodvilles, Hastings joined them, almost certainly with the understanding that he'd retain, at the very least, that Captaincy. I hope you'll excuse the length of my replies, but as we're not dealing with provable facts, I feel it's better to include how I arrived at some position or other. I hope my reasonings at least make sense... Doug Hilary wrote: It was only after I'd written answers to all this that I realised one thing - at the time of Hastings' death no-one knew that young Edward was to be put aside and Richard king. The other part of the Council were up he road arranging the boy's Coronation. So the argument that Hastings couldn't bear young Edward to be put aside which is used by so many just doesn't bear up. He went to his grave not knowing that was going to happen. I would have thought that a Protectorate lead by Richard, with Stanley and Hastings in supporting roles would have been just like the comfort of the old days. Why on earth would Hastings have informed about the 'Grafton' plot and advocated Rivers bringing a smaller revenue if he had any affection for the Woodvilles? And it was quite likely that the lands of the attainted Grey in Leicestershire would be given to him, had he lived. In fact it was actually the Woodvilles who stood to gain from Hastings' death for the same reason - Leicestershire lands. And who was left from the Woodville faction, except Dorset, to woo over Hastings? I mentioned Jane Shore because she'd obviously done something to warrant such a harsh punishment. Look how kind Richard was to MB. We hadn't yet got to the days of executing women for treason. I'm sorry but the Stanley, Richard liaison seems to me a much more comfortable option for Hastings. But on the other hand Buckingham really was a cat amongst the pigeons!
--
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

2018-11-26 19:29:15
ricard1an
Doug just to say that Annette Carson wrote an article about the summons to Parliament in 1483. It is quite a while since I read it but if I remember rightly it dealt with the fact that not all of the Parliament were there because they were coming from different parts of the country and obviously some were a lot further away than others. I think the question that she was answering was would it have been legal for them to ask Richard to take the throne because not everyone was there and I think that she came to the conclusion that it was because there were enough of them there. The reason for the lack of attendance was because the pre-contract problem came on them suddenly. I am not sure if I have remembered all this correctly but will look online to see if I can find the article.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-27 10:47:50
Hilary Jones
Doug, Mary, the summons to Parliament was a week after the meeting in the Tower on 22 June. Here it is:

Rymer's Foedera with Syllabus: January-June 1483 | British History Online

Rymer's Foedera with Syllabus: January-June 1483 | British History Online


That's a week after Hastings' death. Do I recall the Pre Contract became public knowledge on 25 June and Richard's reign dates from 26?
Nico, I wonder who the 'Beaumont' was? H
On Monday, 26 November 2018, 20:43:39 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug just to say that Annette Carson wrote an article about the summons to Parliament in 1483. It is quite a while since I read it but if I remember rightly it dealt with the fact that not all of the Parliament were there because they were coming from different parts of the country and obviously some were a lot further away than others. I think the question that she was answering was would it have been legal for them to ask Richard to take the throne because not everyone was there and I think that she came to the conclusion that it was because there were enough of them there. The reason for the lack of attendance was because the pre-contract problem came on them suddenly. I am not sure if I have remembered all this correctly but will look online to see if I can find the article.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-27 11:12:33
Hilary Jones
So sorry folks, the summons is on 5 June and the Coronation on 22. Blame Rymer :):) But it does make sense that the 'other meeting' on 13 was about the coronation with only a week to go. In fact I still wonder what the agenda was for the meeting at the Tower when I would have thought nothing would be more pressing than the coronation at that point. So Hastings would still be alive when this went out. Apologies again! H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 10:52:11 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Mary, the summons to Parliament was a week after the meeting in the Tower on 22 June. Here it is:

Rymer's Foedera with Syllabus: January-June 1483 | British History Online

Rymer's Foedera with Syllabus: January-June 1483 | British History Online


That's a week after Hastings' death. Do I recall the Pre Contract became public knowledge on 25 June and Richard's reign dates from 26?
Nico, I wonder who the 'Beaumont' was? H
On Monday, 26 November 2018, 20:43:39 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug just to say that Annette Carson wrote an article about the summons to Parliament in 1483. It is quite a while since I read it but if I remember rightly it dealt with the fact that not all of the Parliament were there because they were coming from different parts of the country and obviously some were a lot further away than others. I think the question that she was answering was would it have been legal for them to ask Richard to take the throne because not everyone was there and I think that she came to the conclusion that it was because there were enough of them there. The reason for the lack of attendance was because the pre-contract problem came on them suddenly. I am not sure if I have remembered all this correctly but will look online to see if I can find the article.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-27 12:02:45
Hilary Jones
Doug, I understand your need for long explanations, it's a difficult subject. My over-riding worry now is just why Richard gave Buckingham so much. He as good as made him 'king' of Wales, let alone all the other bits. Did Richard have a 'wobble' in April? We know for example that George almost certainly did when Isabel died and the two of them had had a very traumatic childhood. Perhaps Richard was so busy immediately after Edward's death that the reality never really sank in until things calmed down? That's not an unusual feature of the grieving process. And he potentially had another wobble after Anne died, when he made the public statement renouncing EOY.
One can see how Buckingham could misinterpret all this. In his head Richard couldn't manage without him and this was further bolstered by the post of Constable. He'd taken on the role which Richard had fulfilled for Edward, or so he thought. But then Richard found his feet again ...... H

On Monday, 26 November 2018, 17:57:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
<> wrote:

Hilary, I have some problems with your ...at the time of Hastings' death no-one knew that young Edward was to be put aside... We know that the Pre-Contract was public knowledge by 25 June because that was when the Three Estates offered the crown to Richard and their offer was based on it. We can move the date of the Pre-Contract being revealed back to 22 June when Shaa gave his sermon at St.. Paul's Cross. What we don't have, as far as I know, is a date for when the subject was brought before the Council. In another post, based on the summons for Edward's coronation Parliament being issued on 13 May and subsequently being cancelled on an undetermined date, I suggested 27 May as a possibility. Now, if the summons were cancelled, who had the authority do so? Well, there was the king, Edward V, of course, but there also was the person acting in his stead as Protector  Richard. I suppose a document could have been presented to Edward with a request he sign without reading it, but I have my doubts. At any rate, if an order cancelling the summons was to be issued, there needed to be a very good reason, and my guess is that reason was that the Pre-Contract had been placed before the Council, or at least revealed to a limited number of members of the Council's members. After all, if the Pre-Contract was a true representation of the facts, then Edward V had no right to the throne, let alone the legal authority to summon a Parliament. So the summons was cancelled, most likely by Richard, quite possibly after seeking the advice of the Lord Chancellor (Bishop Russell) until the matter had been thrashed out by the Council  the entire Council. Richard's authority as Protector was as near to that of a king's as to make no difference. but how that authority was used made all the difference; or so I believe. Whether or not the Pre-Contract was true, Richard alone couldn't make the decision about how to handle it; he needed the authority that only the support of a majority of the Council could provide. And to get that authority meant the members of Council had to be informed about the matter. Which also means, or so I think, that knowledge of the Pre-Contract was fairly widespread among the Council members before the meeting on 13 June. Supporters of Edward V wouldn't be talking about it; after all, why should they spread a story that said Edward V had no right to the throne? As for those who accepted the Pre-Contract as being true, they had their own problems to face. By accepting the Pre-Contract they were, in effect, deposing a king, something that required near-unanimity from the Council before being announced to the public. Shorter version: Based on the above, it's my opinion, that it's almost a certainty Hastings knew about the Pre-Contract, and what it might mean in regards to Edward V remaining on the throne. I'm in complete agreement with you that allying himself with Richard and Stanley made the most sense for Hastings, because that's what he did in the beginning. But then how to explain his execution? If Hastings was set up, then that says to me that the whole aim of the plot to assassinate Richard and Buckingham was to get rid of Hastings; IOW, the plot wasn't against Richard and Buckingham, but rather Hastings. Even if the idea was that Hastings was to be the fall guy, taking the blame if the attempt failed, that would still mean that Hastings was an active participant.. To be honest, I just can't see how that could be arranged. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree about Hastings' motive/s, because I really do think what motivated Hastings was the fear that, if he wasn't there at the center of things, he risked losing everything, possibly even his life, and the only way for him to remain at the center was by retaining the Captaincy.. If the Woodvilles took over the government, Hastings would almost certainly be stripped of every position he held and likely even some/most of the those properties given him by Edward IV. Under a Protectorate with Richard as Protector, Hastings would almost certainly not be Lord Chamberlain, but Richard would need a very good reason to remove Hastings from that Captaincy of Calais and as long as Hastings held that position he was protected by the power and influence that went with being Captain of the Calais garrison. Under Richard as king in his own right, however, that Captaincy was Richard's to do with as he pleased and Richard had apparently already demonstrated his dislike/distrust of Hastings by relegating him to what was the equivalent of the second eleven (I think that's the correct term?). So, when he was made an offer by the Woodvilles, Hastings joined them, almost certainly with the understanding that he'd retain, at the very least, that Captaincy. I hope you'll excuse the length of my replies, but as we're not dealing with provable facts, I feel it's better to include how I arrived at some position or other. I hope my reasonings at least make sense... Doug Hilary wrote: It was only after I'd written answers to all this that I realised one thing - at the time of Hastings' death no-one knew that young Edward was to be put aside and Richard king. The other part of the Council were up he road arranging the boy's Coronation. So the argument that Hastings couldn't bear young Edward to be put aside which is used by so many just doesn't bear up. He went to his grave not knowing that was going to happen. I would have thought that a Protectorate lead by Richard, with Stanley and Hastings in supporting roles would have been just like the comfort of the old days. Why on earth would Hastings have informed about the 'Grafton' plot and advocated Rivers bringing a smaller revenue if he had any affection for the Woodvilles? And it was quite likely that the lands of the attainted Grey in Leicestershire would be given to him, had he lived. In fact it was actually the Woodvilles who stood to gain from Hastings' death for the same reason - Leicestershire lands. And who was left from the Woodville faction, except Dorset, to woo over Hastings? I mentioned Jane Shore because she'd obviously done something to warrant such a harsh punishment. Look how kind Richard was to MB. We hadn't yet got to the days of executing women for treason. I'm sorry but the Stanley, Richard liaison seems to me a much more comfortable option for Hastings. But on the other hand Buckingham really was a cat amongst the pigeons!
--
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

2018-11-27 14:13:08
ricard1an
Thank you Hilary. Just to say I have recently read an article in the Ricardian 2018 by Anne F Sutton " The Lands of Richard of Gloucester in the Counties of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire 1471-1483". On page 74 she says that Lincolnshire suffered from feuds and discordant elements among its lordly families: Beaumont of Castle Folkingham, the Welles and Willoughbys around Louth" Anne Sutton goes on to say John Viscount Beaumont 1413-1460 and Lionel Lord Welles fought for Lancaster and Beaumont was killed at Northampton and attainted and that the Beaumont heir remained hostile and was to forfeit his lands in 1471. His lands in Kesteven were given to Hastings" with dower allowed to his widow Katherine Neville, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly wife of John Woodville"
Not sure how relevant this is and without wading through all the discussions about Beaumont I don't know if this has been discussed previously.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-27 14:39:50
Doug Stamate
From: mailto: Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 6:24 AM To: Subject: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

Absolutely to all this Mary! I seem to recall that Edward IV had started 're-allocating' some of Hastings' lands to the Woodvilles. I'm pretty sure he gave some to EW and possibly some later to Rivers. It's in the CPR, I'll look it up. I still can't put my finger on why MB changed tack in wanting to bring HT home (and therefore having to make him king). He'd been away for years and there had been some unsuccessful tries to get him handed over, but he'd always escaped that. Why the sudden urgency? Why the thought that Richard would treat him any more harshly than Edward had? There's no indication of that at all - that is until he threatened trouble. Was there some pressure from the other end - i.e. France. Summer 1483 also of course saw the death of Louis XI. Did the Regency no longer want HT in their territory? Was it something to do with his former ties with Brittany? It would be really good to have a date for the cause - and to see whether it coincided with Richard being at his weakest due to the death of his heir. H On Thursday, 22 November 2018, 15:57:13 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary.

As far as we know Stillington may not have disclosed the precontract on the 13th of June so maybe Hastings wasn't acting because he was against Edward being illegitimate because that had not been brought to anyone' s attention. Maybe he was just acting on his own behalf as David Johnson suggests. According to Annette Carson his relationship with the Woodvilles was not good even before Edward died. There were problems over the captaincy of Calais apparently Rivers had wanted it and Edward had given it to Hastings. Whether the Woodvilles were involved in a plot to kill Edward as Richard Collins suggests or not, they were certainly up to something in the months before Edwards death. The letters to Rivers agent Dymoke about clarifying Rivers right to recruit troops in Wales, giving his right as Deputy Constable of the Tower to Dorset and trying to get Dymoke and several others of his affinity elected to Parliament. So could it have been a combination of Hastings being annoyed at Richard for giving Buckingham power and Hastings not wanting to give up his lucrative posts and his dislike of the Woodvilles? As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham and possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him? Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
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

2018-11-27 15:03:23
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Could Edward have re-distributed those properties because of Hastings' actions in trying to help Burgundy? FWIW, regarding Henry Tudor, I'd go with the French as the reason, major reason anyway, for the change between simply trying to get him back into England and his returning as a conquering hero (just a little snark there). Louis XI died in August 1483, but I don't know if he was ill before he died or, if he had been ill, for how long. Louis did leave a 13 year-old son, so it would have been to France's advantage to have someone in their debt on England's throne while the French king was a minor. Even if the invasion failed, Richard would have to deal with the after-effects for quite some time and likely wouldn't be able to lead an army into France or, and perhaps this was what Louis was really concerned with, even aid Brittany in resisting French attempts to absorb that kingdom. Doug Hilary wrote: Absolutely to all this Mary! I seem to recall that Edward IV had started 're-allocating' some of Hastings' lands to the Woodvilles. I'm pretty sure he gave some to EW and possibly some later to Rivers. It's in the CPR, I'll look it up. I still can't put my finger on why MB changed tack in wanting to bring HT home (and therefore having to make him king). He'd been away for years and there had been some unsuccessful tries to get him handed over, but he'd always escaped that. Why the sudden urgency? Why the thought that Richard would treat him any more harshly than Edward had? There's no indication of that at all - that is until he threatened trouble. Was there some pressure from the other end - i.e. France. Summer 1483 also of course saw the death of Louis XI. Did the Regency no longer want HT in their territory? Was it something to do with his former ties with Brittany? It would be really good to have a date for the cause - and to see whether it coincided with Richard being at his weakest due to the death of his heir.
--
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: [Ric

2018-11-27 15:23:34
Doug Stamate
Mary, That meeting at Atherstone between the Stanleys and Tudor is new to me (Perhaps I've simply didn't notice it in previous posts?)! Do we have a source for it? Maybe one of the (many) books about Bosworth I haven't yet read? I've always understood, possibly incorrectly, that both Sir William and Lord Thomas were present but, as you say, it was Sir William who intervened. Was Lord Thomas there? Because the thought occurred to me that if he was, perhaps that might help explain Northumberland's actions, or better, in-action? If Northumberland was instructed to keep an eye on Lord Thomas, perhaps that's why he didn't respond when Sir William came charging into the battle? I still have problems with trying to imagine why Richard, one of the better military minds at that time in England, would decide to engage Tudor's forces if he had two bands of armed men whose loyalty was uncertain (at best) and positioned to intervene at the worst possible moment. Tis a puzzlement, indeed! Doug Mary wrote: Doug, I would agree that Stanley was doing his usual fence sitting at Bosworth. He obviously had Richard a bit rattled before the battle because Richard took his son into his custody. A few days before the battle Thomas and William Stanley met with HT at Atherstone and possibly told him that he had their support. However, was that support dependant on who was winning the battle? It was actually William's men who intervened on HT's behalf not Thomas'. So if that intervention had somehow failed and Richard had won anyway maybe Thomas would still have tried to convince Richard of his loyalty and put the blame on his brother. Though I am not sure that Richard would have believed him.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-27 15:29:08
Doug Stamate
Paul, The things I'm learning! I had no idea that Sir William had met with Tudor in Wales! The difference in Tudor's treatment of Sir William and Lord Thomas is strange, isn't it? Perhaps it was Tudor simply not wanting to acknowledge how much he owed to Sir William's intervention? Doug Paul wrote: Don't forget William had already openly supported Tudor and welcomed him in Wales, naturally bringing Richard to cause him of treason and issued a warrant for his arrest. So Thomas was clearly playing the family game and remaining loyal, or at least loyal on the surface. Also let's not forget he was also Constable, a position I have always been surprised he had been trusted with, though it is very much in line with the king's attempts to reconcile all elements of not just the Yorkists but also those opposed to his rule. Imagine the blow losing your Constable to treason.. Not surprising with William declared traitor that he had doubts about Thomas loyalty and took out some insurance by putting Strange into custody. In fact I recall reading somewhere that Strange had actually informed the king of some of his fathers movements and felt safe in his custody. All motivations of this crucial period are so difficult to work out from such a distance. It also amazes me how step father reaped the biggest rewards from Tudor, and not the brother who had saved him from being killed by the legitimate king! That's another question I've never had a decent answer to.
--
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

2018-11-27 16:40:21
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Sorry I had to make some snips to your first paragraph. Baldwin's dates for Richard's training at Middleham are more realistic than Kendall's. There was an article in one of the Ricardians tracing Richard's progress after leaving Warwick's service and it was around 1468-9. If Buckingham was a royal ward from 1460 onwards, then he must have come into fairly regular contact with Richard. There was also the time when Cecily was in Anne, Duchess of Buckingham's custody in 1559, but Buckingham was a bit young at the time. Cecily and Anne may have been sisters, but if Anne's loyalties were strongly Lancastrian, then it would make sense to limit her contact with her grandson and keep him close to the court. Anne's loyalties may have been complex as she was closely associated with Jacquetta and carried EW's train at her coronation, but old allegiances can still bubble beneath the surface. Buckingham must have had some military training, as all boys from the nobility were expected to have, so it may have been someone closer to the court than Warwick. Perhaps he never made much of an impression, or there were just better and more experienced people. Nevertheless, he was one of the highest standing people with a royal claim, and it would have been in Edward's interest to keep him on his side as someone with Buckingham's status could have been a valuable ally. Therefore, the Woodville marriage post readeption may have worked against him.. If promoting Woodvilles and associates had to be restricted, he may have had to overlook Buckingham. Doug here: Still, there's quite a gap between that pre-1468 period and 1483, isn't there? When Richard likely knew Buckingham during that earlier period, both were boys and, at least for Richard, quite a lot had happened in the intervening years. Perhaps Richard's initial treatment of Buckingham in the spring and early summer of 1483 was based almost solely on his memories from that period a decade-and-a-half earlier?
Nico continued: Also, in the latter half of Edward's reign, some Woodvilles were doing better than others, and may not have been such a cohesive group. Looking at the excess of honours granted to the Marquis of Dorset and Richard Grey, EW may have been mostly interested in feathering the nests of her sons, who she intended to play a bigger role in the reign of the future Edward V. If you look at the Woodville siblings after 1471, only Anthony and to some extent Lionel really stand out. Grey and Dorset were a few years younger than Buckingham, but probably grew up around him too. Perhaps they lorded it over him, and that gave him a chip on his shoulder. I don't know much about Grey, but I can imagine Dorset as being a brat and a bully, his bad behaviour indulged all the way by his adoring mother. If Richard and Buckingham shared a mutual dislike of Dorset and Grey, then that may have led Buckingham to think he could expect more from Richard. (Objectively speaking, Buckingham did well as Lord of the Marches, but my suspicion is that Buckingham had hoped to be in Richard's inner circle in London, rather out there in Brecon .) Doug here: To certain extent, it made sense for Elizabeth Woodville to provide her male relative with as many positions and properties as possible; they might be required to provide armed men at some future date and to do that meant they needed either money or properties, or both. Dorset was EW's eldest son and that might explain much of the treatment he received from his mother. I also discovered Dorset was the same age as Buckingham and, if they were thrust together as children and didn't get along, that might also have had a bearing on their future relations. Nico concluded: As for the marriage to Katherine Woodville, I'm am sceptical of the rumours that he disliked her personally. He may have thought a Woodville marriage was not in his best interest without taking his resentment out on her. The fact that she fled Brecon and escaped with him to Weobley isn't consistent with them disliking each other, so I think Mancini is wrong here. However, he may have been confused with a wider dislike of members of her family coupled with an awareness of his own better claims following the precontract revelations. Dorset and others such as Morton may have put pressure on him to join a rebellion in favour of Edward V's restoration, but he decided to push his own claims. For that reason, he emerges as a likely suspect if they were murdered. If there was support for reinstating him, the princes had to be out of the way. FWIW, I don't agree with a lot of Susan Higginbotham's interpretations, but she is good with facts about the Woodvilles, and this article was quite the best I have found on Buckingham's early life. Doug here: It certainly isn't unusual for someone in a happy/successful marriage to not like one's in-laws, so I rather think you're correct that Mancini may have confused Buckingham's dislike of his Woodville in-laws for a dislike of Woodvilles, including his wife. FWIW, while I do think Buckingham originally joined the rebellion with the aim of re-instating Edward V, I still lean towards the idea that Morton may have over-sold Buckingham on his (Buckingham's) qualifications to assume the Protectorate for the remainder of young Edward's minority. One of my reasons is those rumors about the boys' deaths. They apparently were spread, but they obviously couldn't help young Edward, so who spread them? And why? The best answer I can currently come up with is Buckingham. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-28 09:21:24
Hilary Jones
I'm just rushing off and will respond to the rest later but it did occur to me overnight that the majority of lands given to Buckingham in May 1483 had been under the jurisdiction of Rivers - almost certainly the Marches.
Now that would give the Woodvilles a real will to get rid of Buckingham, wouldn't it? H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 15:30:34 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

From: mailto: Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 6:24 AM To: Subject: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

Absolutely to all this Mary! I seem to recall that Edward IV had started 're-allocating' some of Hastings' lands to the Woodvilles. I'm pretty sure he gave some to EW and possibly some later to Rivers. It's in the CPR, I'll look it up. I still can't put my finger on why MB changed tack in wanting to bring HT home (and therefore having to make him king). He'd been away for years and there had been some unsuccessful tries to get him handed over, but he'd always escaped that. Why the sudden urgency? Why the thought that Richard would treat him any more harshly than Edward had? There's no indication of that at all - that is until he threatened trouble. Was there some pressure from the other end - i.e. France. Summer 1483 also of course saw the death of Louis XI. Did the Regency no longer want HT in their territory? Was it something to do with his former ties with Brittany? It would be really good to have a date for the cause - and to see whether it coincided with Richard being at his weakest due to the death of his heir. H On Thursday, 22 November 2018, 15:57:13 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug in my theory about MB plotting to put HT on the throne I speculated that in order to achieve it she would have to get rid of anybody who had a claim to the throne because as we know HT did not have any claim to the throne at all. I also speculate that she would also have to get rid of Hastings as he would not have contemplated HT. I have over the last few months accepted that it could be possible that MB was not plotting to put HT on the throne originally but merely to get him back home and that she was involved with EW who was desperately trying to take control of E5 after Stony Stratford failed. Edward Woodville had fled the country taking large amounts of treasure with him and EW and Dorset were in sanctuary.

As far as we know Stillington may not have disclosed the precontract on the 13th of June so maybe Hastings wasn't acting because he was against Edward being illegitimate because that had not been brought to anyone' s attention. Maybe he was just acting on his own behalf as David Johnson suggests. According to Annette Carson his relationship with the Woodvilles was not good even before Edward died. There were problems over the captaincy of Calais apparently Rivers had wanted it and Edward had given it to Hastings. Whether the Woodvilles were involved in a plot to kill Edward as Richard Collins suggests or not, they were certainly up to something in the months before Edwards death. The letters to Rivers agent Dymoke about clarifying Rivers right to recruit troops in Wales, giving his right as Deputy Constable of the Tower to Dorset and trying to get Dymoke and several others of his affinity elected to Parliament. So could it have been a combination of Hastings being annoyed at Richard for giving Buckingham power and Hastings not wanting to give up his lucrative posts and his dislike of the Woodvilles? As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham and possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him? Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
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

2018-11-28 22:19:18
Nicholas Brown
FWIW, while I do think Buckingham originally joined the rebellion with the aim of re-instating Edward V, I still lean towards the idea that Morton may have over-sold Buckingham on his (Buckingham's) qualifications to assume the Protectorate for the remainder of young Edward's minority. One of my reasons is those rumors about the boys' deaths. They apparently were spread, but they obviously couldn't help young Edward, so who spread them? And why? The best answer I can currently come up with is Buckingham.

Hi Doug,I agree that it makes the most sense that it was Buckingham who spread the rumours. MB has also been suggested, but he had the most to gain. Nevertheless, I have always suspected that she was keen to keep Buckingham on her side. I think she and Stanley had a lot in common with keeping themselves in a position to be on the winning side. At this stage, I believe her goal was to get HT back and then promote his career through any means possible, so once Buckingham launched his own bid, she may have given him a bit of quiet assistance, and passed a few rumours on herself. If the EofY marriage would help HT, she would keep working for that, but it is just my instinct that she had a natural preference for Buckingham, and could get just as much from him, and would have been happy to ditch EofY if she could get a better deal from him.
To certain extent, it made sense for Elizabeth Woodville to provide her male relative with as many positions and properties as possible; they might be required to provide armed men at some future date and to do that meant they needed either money or properties, or both. Dorset was EW's eldest son and that might explain much of the treatment he received from his mother. I also discovered Dorset was the same age as Buckingham and, if they were thrust together as children and didn't get along, that might also have had a bearing on their future relations.

I think it must be Dorset's arrogance after Edward IV's death and the events leading to Stony Stratford that confirms my unpleasant image of him. It is true that EW would provide for her sons and they would be a source of armed men in the event of conflict. But, did someone known mostly for facilitating the seedier aspects of Edward IV's lifestyle really need to be made a marquis and have so many unearned honours heaped on him? All that does is breed resentment. Maybe that resentment was a unifying force for Richard and Buckingham in the early years, and both thought they could gain from it in 1483.
Richard could be forgiven for thinking that Buckingham would be be happy with such a powerful position in the West. If handled well, it could easily have led to the type of positions Buckingham appeared to be hoping for. If Buckingham couldn't see that, it is in itself an indicator a shortsightedness and impulsivity that may have led to him being seen as a liability in the past. However, the fact that it was Anthony Woodville's former position may have rankled with the remaining EW and the remaining Woodvilles. Surely, that could have encouraged them to leave him out of their conspiracy despite his marriage to Katherine.

That would put Buckingham in a position where he felt slighted by Richard, but wasn't welcome with the Woodvilles. Therefore, his options were either stay loyal to Richard or push his own agenda. The latter may not have required much persuasion. Why push the claim of an illegitimate boy when you are an adult with an undisputed claim to the throne? However, while it does appear that the precontract was generally accepted, there were those who were still pushing for Edward V's restoration. To draw them in, it was best if it were generally thought both Princes were dead. The question I am giving more consideration to is, was it just a rumour or did Buckingham at some point feel the need to make it a reality?

Nico

On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 17:34:58 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Sorry I had to make some snips to your first paragraph. Baldwin's dates for Richard's training at Middleham are more realistic than Kendall's. There was an article in one of the Ricardians tracing Richard's progress after leaving Warwick's service and it was around 1468-9. If Buckingham was a royal ward from 1460 onwards, then he must have come into fairly regular contact with Richard. There was also the time when Cecily was in Anne, Duchess of Buckingham's custody in 1559, but Buckingham was a bit young at the time. Cecily and Anne may have been sisters, but if Anne's loyalties were strongly Lancastrian, then it would make sense to limit her contact with her grandson and keep him close to the court. Anne's loyalties may have been complex as she was closely associated with Jacquetta and carried EW's train at her coronation, but old allegiances can still bubble beneath the surface. Buckingham must have had some military training, as all boys from the nobility were expected to have, so it may have been someone closer to the court than Warwick. Perhaps he never made much of an impression, or there were just better and more experienced people. Nevertheless, he was one of the highest standing people with a royal claim, and it would have been in Edward's interest to keep him on his side as someone with Buckingham's status could have been a valuable ally. Therefore, the Woodville marriage post readeption may have worked against him.. If promoting Woodvilles and associates had to be restricted, he may have had to overlook Buckingham. Doug here: Still, there's quite a gap between that pre-1468 period and 1483, isn't there? When Richard likely knew Buckingham during that earlier period, both were boys and, at least for Richard, quite a lot had happened in the intervening years. Perhaps Richard's initial treatment of Buckingham in the spring and early summer of 1483 was based almost solely on his memories from that period a decade-and-a-half earlier?
Nico continued: Also, in the latter half of Edward's reign, some Woodvilles were doing better than others, and may not have been such a cohesive group. Looking at the excess of honours granted to the Marquis of Dorset and Richard Grey, EW may have been mostly interested in feathering the nests of her sons, who she intended to play a bigger role in the reign of the future Edward V. If you look at the Woodville siblings after 1471, only Anthony and to some extent Lionel really stand out. Grey and Dorset were a few years younger than Buckingham, but probably grew up around him too. Perhaps they lorded it over him, and that gave him a chip on his shoulder. I don't know much about Grey, but I can imagine Dorset as being a brat and a bully, his bad behaviour indulged all the way by his adoring mother. If Richard and Buckingham shared a mutual dislike of Dorset and Grey, then that may have led Buckingham to think he could expect more from Richard. (Objectively speaking, Buckingham did well as Lord of the Marches, but my suspicion is that Buckingham had hoped to be in Richard's inner circle in London, rather out there in Brecon .) Doug here: To certain extent, it made sense for Elizabeth Woodville to provide her male relative with as many positions and properties as possible; they might be required to provide armed men at some future date and to do that meant they needed either money or properties, or both. Dorset was EW's eldest son and that might explain much of the treatment he received from his mother. I also discovered Dorset was the same age as Buckingham and, if they were thrust together as children and didn't get along, that might also have had a bearing on their future relations. Nico concluded: As for the marriage to Katherine Woodville, I'm am sceptical of the rumours that he disliked her personally. He may have thought a Woodville marriage was not in his best interest without taking his resentment out on her. The fact that she fled Brecon and escaped with him to Weobley isn't consistent with them disliking each other, so I think Mancini is wrong here. However, he may have been confused with a wider dislike of members of her family coupled with an awareness of his own better claims following the precontract revelations. Dorset and others such as Morton may have put pressure on him to join a rebellion in favour of Edward V's restoration, but he decided to push his own claims. For that reason, he emerges as a likely suspect if they were murdered. If there was support for reinstating him, the princes had to be out of the way. FWIW, I don't agree with a lot of Susan Higginbotham's interpretations, but she is good with facts about the Woodvilles, and this article was quite the best I have found on Buckingham's early life. Doug here: It certainly isn't unusual for someone in a happy/successful marriage to not like one's in-laws, so I rather think you're correct that Mancini may have confused Buckingham's dislike of his Woodville in-laws for a dislike of Woodvilles, including his wife. FWIW, while I do think Buckingham originally joined the rebellion with the aim of re-instating Edward V, I still lean towards the idea that Morton may have over-sold Buckingham on his (Buckingham's) qualifications to assume the Protectorate for the remainder of young Edward's minority. One of my reasons is those rumors about the boys' deaths. They apparently were spread, but they obviously couldn't help young Edward, so who spread them? And why? The best answer I can currently come up with is Buckingham. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-29 22:56:07
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote:
Hi all, trying to respond to some of this.
Firstly I tried to imagine myself jumping out of the Tardis in early June 1483. What would I find? I reckon I'd find a group of shocked, de-stablised, nervous, distrustful people. In modern terms it would be the equivalent of staff threatened with a mass re-organisation. And I'd include Richard in that number. That was clearly not what Edward's will had intended, he'd hoped for a smooth transition but two things had happened which had thrown everything up in the air.
The first was the irrational behaviour of the Woodvilles in the days following his death - taking monies abroad, plotting to ambush the proposed Protector, flying into Sanctuary. And the second has to be the arrival of Buckingham; someone who has nothing to lose office-wise but everything to gain. And he had gained!
On 16 May 1483 he was made Chief Justice and Chamberlain of Wales and all this:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858020272138;view=2up;seq=360;size=175

And on the same day he was given supervision and power of array in Salop, Hereford, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire.
So quite a shower of gifts Doug. In fact you might even think he 'had something' on Richard.

Doug here:
Were the positions of Chief Justice and Chamberlain of Wales vacant or had they previously been held by a Woodville? If either of these two conditions represented the pre-May situation, then to have Buckingham, with his major seat at Brecon, appointed to these two positions wouldn't be all that surprising. The same applies to those appointments in Shropshire, hurricane-free Hereford, Somerset, Devon and Wiltshire; were they vacant, was he replacing Woodville supporters or was he replacing some other people?
I wonder if the main reason for Buckingham getting these appointments wasn't that he and Richard were buddy-buddy, but because Buckingham was, to all extents and purposes, an unknown. He hadn't been appointed to anything by Edward IV (or had he?). Nor was he someone tainted by association with the Woodvilles. And, as far as we actually know, his relationship with Richard, whatever it was, was of very recent origins  less than a month, really. So, if someone was needed to fill these positions, why not Buckingham?
I don't doubt that Richard was in favor, but we can't forget that to make such an appointment, signed off on by Edward V BTW, he'd need, if not the active support of the Council, at least to know there wasn't any opposition to Buckingham's appointments.

Hilary continued:
Now had Edward still been alive he would have marched in, banged all their heads together, told them to get on with it and sent Buckingham scuttling back to his burrow. But there was no-one powerful enough to do this. The new King was too young, Richard was too dependent on the Council propping up his protectorship against further Woodville plots. He didn't even have a brother left to offer some sort of protection (as John of Bedford did for Humphrey of Gloucester). Perhaps that's where Buckingham came in - who knows?

Doug here:
FWIW, I think that Buckingham, being more-or-less a cipher in governmental affairs, may have been viewed by Richard and a majority of the Council (at least), as a neutral appointment. While he apparently was in Richard's company a lot, he'd not been active in governing prior. And if what Mancini wrote about Buckingham's views on his in-laws is correct, then Buckingham could be seen as a valid substitute in positions held wither directly by a Woodville or one of their partisans.

Hilary continued:
On 20 May Hastings was re-affirmed as Master of the Mint at the Tower and in Calais. He was still Captain of Calais as well so he was doing OK.
So the meeting in the Tower in June. Firstly clearly TR had not surfaced because they were arranging a coronation up the road. Was the proposed murder of Buckingham or of Richard or of both? The chroniclers would have us believe it was both. If it was indeed Richard then my prime suspects would have to be the Woodvilles, they did after all manage to achieve some rebellions later and they could be trying desperately to stop the executions of Rivers and Grey. But I can truly find nothing to indicate that Hastings would ever ally with them. Why should he if they were after his post in Calais and the Council had endorsed his current offices? If, on the other hand, the intended victim was Buckingham, then looking at the above I could find quite a few candidates including Stanley and Hastings.
And of course Buckingham was to go on to become Constable. I really don't know the answer. Had Buckingham plotted to remove Hastings and it had backfired?

Doug here:
My understanding is that Hastings and Morton were part of that coronation committee; is that correct? Because if it is, what were they doing at the Tower meeting if not to discuss the Pre-Contract? Then there's that letter Richard sent off to York on 10 June asking for men to be sent because the Woodvilles were planning to murder him and Buckingham. Now, based on the time-frame, it loks to me that it's likely the the Woodville plot to kill Richard and Buckingham originated before the Council had any knowledge of the Pre-Contract, which is why Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were tried and executed. If the plot originated after the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, whether using your time-line or mine, there simply wouldn't have been time for those three to get involved. I agree with you that there's absolutely no reason for Hastings to ally himself with the Hastings but, and this is where we differ, once the Pre-Contract became known to Council, that changed completely.
As you say, Hastings had just been re-nominated for his post as Master of the Mint and retained the Captaincy of Calais. So what could the Woodvilles offer him that he didn't already have? Perhaps that's the wrong question, though? Perhaps the question should be: What, once the Pre-Contract came before the Council could the Woodvilles offer him? And this is where, I think, Morton comes in. Just as he later did with Buckingham, Morton managed to convince Hastings that, should the Pre-Contract be accepted and Richard become king, Hastings was toast. What would Richard do to the man who'd accompanied, or worse even led, Edward into debauchery? Risking his Edward's immortal soul for all eternity for illicit pleasures? At the very least, there'd go being Master of the Mint, Captain of Calais and likely any properties Edward had given Hastings a life interest in. That, I think, was the hook Morton used. And, IMO anyway, it worked. Of course, it also means that the Pre-Contract was likely brought before the Council before 13 June and the meeting that day was, or so I think, the second time the matter had been brought before the Council. If Morton and Hastings were at the Tower meeting on 13 June, the last date for the coronation committee meeting would have to have been some time prior. I don't suppose we have a date for its' last meeting, do we? For some reason, I've gotten the impression that part of the Council that met at the Tower did so on a weekly schedule, so its' previous meeting would have been 6 June. However, if 6 June was the date the Pre-Contract was first brought before the Council and it was only the regular Tower members at the meeting, I find it hard to believe that the other members of the Council wouldn't also be informed of the matter. What sort of decision could be expected from someone who'd just had the Pre-Contract, and all it meant, dumped on them?

Hilary continued:
Now after the October rebellions Richard did a number of different things:
Welsh offices were split up amongst a number of people
Stanley was made Constable and the lands we have in the deed (which doesn't appear in the CPR)
Percy was made Chamberlain (like Stanley for supporting Richard's kingship as well as putting down the rebels) and given Buck's lands in Yorkshire
Maxstoke was given to Walter Graunt, an Usher of Anne's Chamber

Doug here:
It appears Richard was rewarding those who'd supported him or in Stanley's case, didn't support Buckingham, anyway.

Hilary concluded:
I really want to know who instigated TR - was the Council as a whole just desperate for a way out of all this, but putting young Edward aside would bring with it the knowledge that Richard would continue to promote Buckingham and were they even willing to put up with that? Seems so. And also of course when and why did MB declare her hand? She was attainted in Feb 1484 when some of her Northants lands were given to Lovell.
What I am pretty sure of is that this was no huge conspiracy plan; it's much too messy for that. It's unstable people trying to cling to what they have in a very fast changing environment.

Doug here:
The problem was, since Edward hard married EW in secret, the Council didn't even have the option of hurriedly sending a courier to the Pope asking for a dispensation that would legitimize her children. Without that option, the only thing left was to decide whether or not to accept the Pre-Contract and whatever evidence for it that had been provided. Either the Pre-Contract had to be disproven and labeled a monstrous slur on Edward IV and his Queen or accepted, with all that acceptance meant. Seemingly the evidence provided in support was such that the Pre-Contract couldn't be dismissed. Or, at the very least, would still leave enough doubts as to call into question Edward V's right to the throne regardless of the Council's condemnation, because once the Pre-Contract was brought before the entire Council there was no way to keep it a secret  too many people now knew of the charge.
I wonder if fear of Richard's relationship with Buckingham was ever even considered. After all, the period between when Richard and Buckingham arrived in London and when the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council consists of 5-6 weeks at most and I don't know of any reports about Buckingham's behavior during that period that are disadvantageous to his reputation (mainly because at that time he didn't have much of reputation one way or another, as best I can tell).
FWIW, right now I'm looking at yet another Woodville attempt to remove Richard, which is what Rivers et al were executed for. I have Morton as their London contact, with Hastings being roped in, but only when he was threatened by the Pre-Contract with the possibility of losing those so-recently re-confirmed positions.
Well, I think it makes sense  for now, anyway...
Doug


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



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-11-30 18:45:06
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Hi Doug, I agree that it makes the most sense that it was Buckingham who spread the rumours. MB has also been suggested, but he had the most to gain. Nevertheless, I have always suspected that she was keen to keep Buckingham on her side. I think she and Stanley had a lot in common with keeping themselves in a position to be on the winning side. At this stage, I believe her goal was to get HT back and then promote his career through any means possible, so once Buckingham launched his own bid, she may have given him a bit of quiet assistance, and passed a few rumours on herself. If the EofY marriage would help HT, she would keep working for that, but it is just my instinct that she had a natural preference for Buckingham, and could get just as much from him, and would have been happy to ditch EofY if she could get a better deal from him. Doug here: I agree with your idea that, at least at that point in time, MB was more interested in getting her son back in England than anything else. Her involvement in the events of May/June 1483 seem to have been limited to that deal with EW to marry Henry to EoY. Presuming he knew about her plotting, Richard doesn't seem to have held her dealing with EW against her; but when she was found to have been working with Buckingham, even if it was only to get her son back, that was a step too far. Something I find very interesting is that, as far as I know, we have no factual evidence that it was Margaret Beaufort who set those terms for her son's return. What if those terms were Henry's? Arrived at with, at first, the advice of dyed-in-the-wool Lancastrians, then later by members of the Woodville clan?
Nico continued:
I think it must be Dorset's arrogance after Edward IV's death and the events leading to Stony Stratford that confirms my unpleasant image of him. It is true that EW would provide for her sons and they would be a source of armed men in the event of conflict. But, did someone known mostly for facilitating the seedier aspects of Edward IV's lifestyle really need to be made a marquis and have so many unearned honours heaped on him? All that does is breed resentment. Maybe that resentment was a unifying force for Richard and Buckingham in the early years, and both thought they could gain from it in 1483. Doug here: I put that Marquisate(?) and the other honors down to his being EW's eldest son and, even though he wasn't royal, he was closely related to the King by marriage. Dorset didn't receive his title until 1475, when he was 20 years old. I wonder if it was less Dorset corrupting Edward than in was the other way around?
Nico continued: Richard could be forgiven for thinking that Buckingham would be be happy with such a powerful position in the West. If handled well, it could easily have led to the type of positions Buckingham appeared to be hoping for. If Buckingham couldn't see that, it is in itself an indicator a shortsightedness and impulsivity that may have led to him being seen as a liability in the past. However, the fact that it was Anthony Woodville's former position may have rankled with the remaining EW and the remaining Woodvilles. Surely, that could have encouraged them to leave him out of their conspiracy despite his marriage to Katherine. Doug here: How extensive were the powers of members of the Prince of Wales' establishment at Ludlow? Because it does appear to me as if what Richard was doing was substituting Buckingham for his nephew. The consipracy that lead to the rebellion in September/October 1483 must have originated almost as soon as the one of May/June collapsed, surely? Buckingham was with Richard until he was sent off to Wales in late August. Unless Buckingham was already plotting rebellion in August, then it means someone else was and the most likely candidates are the remaining Woodvilles and their adherents. Nico concluded: That would put Buckingham in a position where he felt slighted by Richard, but wasn't welcome with the Woodvilles. Therefore, his options were either stay loyal to Richard or push his own agenda. The latter may not have required much persuasion. Why push the claim of an illegitimate boy when you are an adult with an undisputed claim to the throne? However, while it does appear that the precontract was generally accepted, there were those who were still pushing for Edward V's restoration. To draw them in, it was best if it were generally thought both Princes were dead. The question I am giving more consideration to is, was it just a rumour or did Buckingham at some point feel the need to make it a reality?
Doug here: Then there's that attempt in September to rescue Edward and Richard from the Tower; just who was behind it? Right now, my money is on MB, still plotting with EW to get Henry back via that marriage with the boys' sister, EoY. By the time Buckingham joined the rebellion, the attempt had failed and I rather wonder if that failure wasn't what gave Buckingham the idea of spreading that rumor? Whether Buckingham would have had the boys killed had the rebellion been successful, I really can't say. Perhaps his reasoning was that once he'd defeated Richard, he could then do what Tudor later did  claim the crown by right of conquest? And back that claim with his indisputably legitimate descent from Edward III? It's just an idea but, if the rumors weren't spread by Buckingham in a mistaken belief they'd help him get the throne, then one option is that they were spread in order to ensure that he didn't. In that case the person responsible would most likely be Morton. Possibly I'm relying too much on that scribbled note that says that it was some time after Easter when the boys were no longer seen in the Tower, but I see no reason to doubt that it's true. Doug

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

High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-11-30 18:50:12
Doug Stamate
Mary, I don't recall the article either, but I do remember the topic being discussed here. I think that the consensus was that, because the summons had originally been issued in the name of Edward V, the resulting gathering couldn't be termed a parliament, but rather a meeting of the Three Estates, with their decision later ratified by a legally-constituted Parliament. Doug Mary wrote: Doug just to say that Annette Carson wrote an article about the summons to Parliament in 1483. It is quite a while since I read it but if I remember rightly it dealt with the fact that not all of the Parliament were there because they were coming from different parts of the country and obviously some were a lot further away than others. I think the question that she was answering was would it have been legal for them to ask Richard to take the throne because not everyone was there and I think that she came to the conclusion that it was because there were enough of them there. The reason for the lack of attendance was because the pre-contract problem came on them suddenly. I am not sure if I have remembered all this correctly but will look online to see if I can find the article.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who didn't

2018-11-30 20:55:58
justcarol67
Mary wrote:

"Also we all know that James Tyrell's "confession" was probably made up by H7."

Carol responds:

Or Sir Thomas More, who is the first to mention it. There was no published confession.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheri

2018-11-30 21:58:23
justcarol67


Doug wrote:

I"t's only my view, but I think what got Hastings involved with EW and MB was that it appeared that the Council was going to accept the Pre-Contract and all that it meant in debarring Edward IV's children from the throne.As I see it, as long as Edward V was on the throne, there was a place for Hastings in the group that would be running the country. He'd no longer be the Chamberlain to the King, with all the perks that brought, but his support would still be needed on the Council by Richard in order to balance whatever influence the Woodvilles would have in that body.OTOH, if Richard became king in his own right, Hastings' value to Richard would disappear."

Carol responds:

Well, yes, that's the traditional view. But we need to look closely at the timing. The Woodville plot against Richard, Buckingham, and "all the blood royal of this royaume" was apparently discovered June 10, when Richard sent urgent messages to York. Hastings' execution was three days later, so if he really was involved in a treason plot (as seems likely from his having met with Morton, Rotherham, and I'm not sure who else "in each others' houses), it must have been that same Woodville plot (no more unlikely than Warwick's uneasy alliance with MOA). About a week later, the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think) convinced EW to let RoY join his brother in the Tower. Only at the end of the month did the Three Estates present Richard with the petition to set aside his nephew's claim and accept the kingship. At some point between those last two incidents, EV's coronation was postponed but not cancelled. We don't know when Stillington (if it *was* Stillington) revealed the Pre-Contract, but certainly Richard had made no move toward accepting the crown at the time of Hastings' death. So the plot might simply have been to bring control of EV back into the Woodvilles' hands rather than Richard's (they had been trying to do that since before Stony Stratford), and if Hastings felt that Buckingham was taking his share of power and control, he may have chosen to join them. After all, he may have worked with Richard and even sided with him on occasion, but they had virtually nothing in common: Hastings was a generation older and neither could have approved of the other's moral code. (I suspect that the profligate Hastings saw upright Richard in much the same terms as William Hastings did, "Olde Dyk" at age thirty.)

Anyway, I don't think that Hastings' treason had anything to do with Richard's supposed plans to "seize" the throne, but they may have had something to do with the plan for an extended Protectorate amounting almost to a regency discussed in the draft of Bishop Russell's (never delivered) coronation sermon. That plan appears to have been an attempt to control the Woodvilles.

I can't remember where I read that sermon (which is dreadfully long-winded and allegorical but nevertheless very important). Marie, if by chance you're still here, do you happen to know where we can find it? We really need your expertise!

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-11-30 23:57:37
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"Apologies for butting in, but I rather think this is a case of royalty using we where everyone else would use I. Later in the proclamation, our is used when it's obvious the reference is to Richard/Perkin only.
The link is very interesting, thank you!"

Carol responds:

I was going to say the same thing. I also noticed how similar in style and substance the manifesto is to proclamations by Richard III and other kings--either "Perkin" had been taught well or someone familiar with the style of royal proclamations wrote it for him. I must say that if I had been King James of Scotland, I would probably have accepted him as the genuine Duke of York (restored to that title by the repeal of Titulus Regius). It also has a remarkable air of sincerity and a very Richard III-like attitude toward his "subjects."

Do you know, Nico, whether the Buck manuscript included as the third part of the appendix is the original version by Sir George Buck or the heavily edited (plagiarized) version by his great nephew published in 1646? I couldn't tell from a cursory examination. If the former, it's good to know that it's online.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-01 10:43:25
Hilary Jones
Can I add one tiny thing to all this?
We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead
It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French!
So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?
So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 20:45:30 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Hi Doug, I agree that it makes the most sense that it was Buckingham who spread the rumours. MB has also been suggested, but he had the most to gain. Nevertheless, I have always suspected that she was keen to keep Buckingham on her side. I think she and Stanley had a lot in common with keeping themselves in a position to be on the winning side. At this stage, I believe her goal was to get HT back and then promote his career through any means possible, so once Buckingham launched his own bid, she may have given him a bit of quiet assistance, and passed a few rumours on herself. If the EofY marriage would help HT, she would keep working for that, but it is just my instinct that she had a natural preference for Buckingham, and could get just as much from him, and would have been happy to ditch EofY if she could get a better deal from him. Doug here: I agree with your idea that, at least at that point in time, MB was more interested in getting her son back in England than anything else. Her involvement in the events of May/June 1483 seem to have been limited to that deal with EW to marry Henry to EoY. Presuming he knew about her plotting, Richard doesn't seem to have held her dealing with EW against her; but when she was found to have been working with Buckingham, even if it was only to get her son back, that was a step too far. Something I find very interesting is that, as far as I know, we have no factual evidence that it was Margaret Beaufort who set those terms for her son's return. What if those terms were Henry's? Arrived at with, at first, the advice of dyed-in-the-wool Lancastrians, then later by members of the Woodville clan?
Nico continued:
I think it must be Dorset's arrogance after Edward IV's death and the events leading to Stony Stratford that confirms my unpleasant image of him. It is true that EW would provide for her sons and they would be a source of armed men in the event of conflict. But, did someone known mostly for facilitating the seedier aspects of Edward IV's lifestyle really need to be made a marquis and have so many unearned honours heaped on him? All that does is breed resentment. Maybe that resentment was a unifying force for Richard and Buckingham in the early years, and both thought they could gain from it in 1483. Doug here: I put that Marquisate(?) and the other honors down to his being EW's eldest son and, even though he wasn't royal, he was closely related to the King by marriage. Dorset didn't receive his title until 1475, when he was 20 years old. I wonder if it was less Dorset corrupting Edward than in was the other way around?
Nico continued: Richard could be forgiven for thinking that Buckingham would be be happy with such a powerful position in the West. If handled well, it could easily have led to the type of positions Buckingham appeared to be hoping for. If Buckingham couldn't see that, it is in itself an indicator a shortsightedness and impulsivity that may have led to him being seen as a liability in the past. However, the fact that it was Anthony Woodville's former position may have rankled with the remaining EW and the remaining Woodvilles. Surely, that could have encouraged them to leave him out of their conspiracy despite his marriage to Katherine. Doug here: How extensive were the powers of members of the Prince of Wales' establishment at Ludlow? Because it does appear to me as if what Richard was doing was substituting Buckingham for his nephew. The consipracy that lead to the rebellion in September/October 1483 must have originated almost as soon as the one of May/June collapsed, surely? Buckingham was with Richard until he was sent off to Wales in late August. Unless Buckingham was already plotting rebellion in August, then it means someone else was and the most likely candidates are the remaining Woodvilles and their adherents. Nico concluded: That would put Buckingham in a position where he felt slighted by Richard, but wasn't welcome with the Woodvilles. Therefore, his options were either stay loyal to Richard or push his own agenda. The latter may not have required much persuasion. Why push the claim of an illegitimate boy when you are an adult with an undisputed claim to the throne? However, while it does appear that the precontract was generally accepted, there were those who were still pushing for Edward V's restoration. To draw them in, it was best if it were generally thought both Princes were dead. The question I am giving more consideration to is, was it just a rumour or did Buckingham at some point feel the need to make it a reality?
Doug here: Then there's that attempt in September to rescue Edward and Richard from the Tower; just who was behind it? Right now, my money is on MB, still plotting with EW to get Henry back via that marriage with the boys' sister, EoY. By the time Buckingham joined the rebellion, the attempt had failed and I rather wonder if that failure wasn't what gave Buckingham the idea of spreading that rumor? Whether Buckingham would have had the boys killed had the rebellion been successful, I really can't say. Perhaps his reasoning was that once he'd defeated Richard, he could then do what Tudor later did  claim the crown by right of conquest? And back that claim with his indisputably legitimate descent from Edward III? It's just an idea but, if the rumors weren't spread by Buckingham in a mistaken belief they'd help him get the throne, then one option is that they were spread in order to ensure that he didn't. In that case the person responsible would most likely be Morton. Possibly I'm relying too much on that scribbled note that says that it was some time after Easter when the boys were no longer seen in the Tower, but I see no reason to doubt that it's true. Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-01 14:09:33
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
Something I find very interesting is that, as far as I know, we have no factual evidence that it was Margaret Beaufort who set those terms for her son's return. What if those terms were Henry's? Arrived at with, at first, the advice of dyed-in-the-wool Lancastrians, then later by members of the Woodville clan?
I hadn't thought of that; I had assumed it was her idea, but you make a good point there. Margaret Beaufort's terms certainly went beyond the previous requests for Henry's return that she made to Edward and Richard. Also, it was an ambitious plan if it turned out to be something Henry would have no interest in. Jasper Tudor's involvement is also plausible. I wonder how easily MB could get messages to him and HT.
I wonder if it was less Dorset corrupting Edward than in was the other way around?That is also a possibility if Dorset was exposed to the sleazier elements of Edward's life from an early age (if indeed EIV was as lecherous as his reputation suggested. JA-H seemed to think there was some exaggeration, but imho the contemporary evidence does seem to suggest otherwise.) However, as far as children were concerned, his instructions for Edward V's upbringing clearly intend to protect him from immorality, suggesting that the debauchery at his court was for adults. Dorset was closer to the scene however, probably knowing what was going as a teenager and realized that playing along and joining in was how you got on. He had a reputation for treating women very badly himself. Overall, a rather strange choice of mentor for young Richard of Shrewsbury.

How extensive were the powers of members of the Prince of Wales' establishment at Ludlow? Because it does appear to me as if what Richard was doing was substituting Buckingham for his nephew. The consipracy that lead to the rebellion in September/October 1483 must have originated almost as soon as the one of May/June collapsed, surely? Buckingham was with Richard until he was sent off to Wales in late August. Unless Buckingham was already plotting rebellion in August, then it means someone else was and the most likely candidates are the remaining Woodvilles and their adherents...Then there's that attempt in September to rescue Edward and Richard from the Tower; just who was behind it? Right now, my money is on MB, still plotting with EW to get Henry back via that marriage with the boys' sister, EoY. By the time Buckingham joined the rebellion, the attempt had failed and I rather wonder if that failure wasn't what gave Buckingham the idea of spreading that rumor?...It's just an idea but, if the rumors weren't spread by Buckingham in a mistaken belief they'd help him get the throne, then one option is that they were spread in order to ensure that he didn't. In that case the person responsible would most likely be Morton...Possibly I'm relying too much on that scribbled note that says that it was some time after Easter when the boys were no longer seen in the Tower, but I see no reason to doubt that it's true.

The members of the Prince of Wales council at Ludlow were responsible for the guardianship and education of the the future Edward V. Anthony Woodville was Govenor of the Princes' Household, with the ultimate authority over decision making. Anything that could not be dealt with by him had to be referred to Edward. However, as we discovered earlier this year, he only visited Ludlow sporadically, so responsibility for Edward was delegated to other members such as Vaughan. However AW was also Govenor of the Marches and was responsible for law and order in that region, but according to some historians (Hicks and Horrox, I think) he wasn't rated very highly in that role. That isn't surprising if he wasn't around very much, but if Buckingham had taken the role seriously and gained the respect of the region, he may have been successful in keeping control of that volatile region, something that would have been a passport to greater things. Richard had done that with the North, and he probably expected the same from Buckingham.
Buckingham unfortunately had other ideas, but when he started plotting isn't clear. Morton may have started working on him at Brecon, perhaps around September. However, wasn't the Tower Rescue attempt in late July? If MB and Morton were involved in that, it could have played a part with whatever induced Buckingham. I can imagine him in a serious conspiracy with him more that the Woodvilles, perhaps in the initial stages envisaging a King Maker role, but then changed his mind. Perhaps it was his superior legal claim, but I have also wondered if Edward V was died in or as a result of the Tower Rescue. Whatever happened, it would make sense to move the Princes from London after that, and I think they would have been gone quite some time before Easter.
Nico

On Saturday, 1 December 2018, 10:44:12 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Can I add one tiny thing to all this?
We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead
It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French!
So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?
So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 20:45:30 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Hi Doug, I agree that it makes the most sense that it was Buckingham who spread the rumours. MB has also been suggested, but he had the most to gain. Nevertheless, I have always suspected that she was keen to keep Buckingham on her side. I think she and Stanley had a lot in common with keeping themselves in a position to be on the winning side. At this stage, I believe her goal was to get HT back and then promote his career through any means possible, so once Buckingham launched his own bid, she may have given him a bit of quiet assistance, and passed a few rumours on herself. If the EofY marriage would help HT, she would keep working for that, but it is just my instinct that she had a natural preference for Buckingham, and could get just as much from him, and would have been happy to ditch EofY if she could get a better deal from him. Doug here: I agree with your idea that, at least at that point in time, MB was more interested in getting her son back in England than anything else. Her involvement in the events of May/June 1483 seem to have been limited to that deal with EW to marry Henry to EoY. Presuming he knew about her plotting, Richard doesn't seem to have held her dealing with EW against her; but when she was found to have been working with Buckingham, even if it was only to get her son back, that was a step too far. Something I find very interesting is that, as far as I know, we have no factual evidence that it was Margaret Beaufort who set those terms for her son's return. What if those terms were Henry's? Arrived at with, at first, the advice of dyed-in-the-wool Lancastrians, then later by members of the Woodville clan?
Nico continued:
I think it must be Dorset's arrogance after Edward IV's death and the events leading to Stony Stratford that confirms my unpleasant image of him. It is true that EW would provide for her sons and they would be a source of armed men in the event of conflict. But, did someone known mostly for facilitating the seedier aspects of Edward IV's lifestyle really need to be made a marquis and have so many unearned honours heaped on him? All that does is breed resentment. Maybe that resentment was a unifying force for Richard and Buckingham in the early years, and both thought they could gain from it in 1483. Doug here: I put that Marquisate(?) and the other honors down to his being EW's eldest son and, even though he wasn't royal, he was closely related to the King by marriage. Dorset didn't receive his title until 1475, when he was 20 years old. I wonder if it was less Dorset corrupting Edward than in was the other way around?
Nico continued: Richard could be forgiven for thinking that Buckingham would be be happy with such a powerful position in the West. If handled well, it could easily have led to the type of positions Buckingham appeared to be hoping for. If Buckingham couldn't see that, it is in itself an indicator a shortsightedness and impulsivity that may have led to him being seen as a liability in the past. However, the fact that it was Anthony Woodville's former position may have rankled with the remaining EW and the remaining Woodvilles. Surely, that could have encouraged them to leave him out of their conspiracy despite his marriage to Katherine. Doug here: How extensive were the powers of members of the Prince of Wales' establishment at Ludlow? Because it does appear to me as if what Richard was doing was substituting Buckingham for his nephew. The consipracy that lead to the rebellion in September/October 1483 must have originated almost as soon as the one of May/June collapsed, surely? Buckingham was with Richard until he was sent off to Wales in late August. Unless Buckingham was already plotting rebellion in August, then it means someone else was and the most likely candidates are the remaining Woodvilles and their adherents. Nico concluded: That would put Buckingham in a position where he felt slighted by Richard, but wasn't welcome with the Woodvilles. Therefore, his options were either stay loyal to Richard or push his own agenda. The latter may not have required much persuasion. Why push the claim of an illegitimate boy when you are an adult with an undisputed claim to the throne? However, while it does appear that the precontract was generally accepted, there were those who were still pushing for Edward V's restoration. To draw them in, it was best if it were generally thought both Princes were dead. The question I am giving more consideration to is, was it just a rumour or did Buckingham at some point feel the need to make it a reality?
Doug here: Then there's that attempt in September to rescue Edward and Richard from the Tower; just who was behind it? Right now, my money is on MB, still plotting with EW to get Henry back via that marriage with the boys' sister, EoY. By the time Buckingham joined the rebellion, the attempt had failed and I rather wonder if that failure wasn't what gave Buckingham the idea of spreading that rumor? Whether Buckingham would have had the boys killed had the rebellion been successful, I really can't say. Perhaps his reasoning was that once he'd defeated Richard, he could then do what Tudor later did  claim the crown by right of conquest? And back that claim with his indisputably legitimate descent from Edward III? It's just an idea but, if the rumors weren't spread by Buckingham in a mistaken belief they'd help him get the throne, then one option is that they were spread in order to ensure that he didn't. In that case the person responsible would most likely be Morton. Possibly I'm relying too much on that scribbled note that says that it was some time after Easter when the boys were no longer seen in the Tower, but I see no reason to doubt that it's true. Doug

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-01 14:24:45
ricard1an
I think that the French were crucial in this. After the death of Louis XI they were in the same position as England had been with an underage heir. Something that I have thought too is that while HT had absolutely no claim to the throne of England he was descended from Catherine of Valois and I wonder if he had played the Henry V card if you support me to invade England then I won't try to claim the French throne. While he didn't have much of a chance of winning a battle in France it might have frightened them. On the other hand he might have put himself forward as the French Prince galloping to their rescue and invading England before Richard could invade France.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-12-01 14:29:14
Nicholas Brown
Hi Carol,
Unfortunately, I don't know whether Perkin's Proclamation was in Buck's original or the nephew's version. I will see if I can find a reference. I agree with you about the quality of the language. Also, the Buckingham novel looks very interesting.
Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-01 14:38:03
Pamela Bain
And how about Spain?
On Dec 1, 2018, at 8:25 AM, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I think that the French were crucial in this. After the death of Louis XI they were in the same position as England had been with an underage heir. Something that I have thought too is that while HT had absolutely no claim to the throne of England he was descended from Catherine of Valois and I wonder if he had played the Henry V card if you support me to invade England then I won't try to claim the French throne. While he didn't have much of a chance of winning a battle in France it might have frightened them. On the other hand he might have put himself forward as the French Prince galloping to their rescue and invading England before Richard could invade France.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-01 16:46:57
Doug Stamate
Hilary, For now, I'm putting Buckingham's actions down to an over-sized ego in company with his over-all inexperience in, well, just about everything. As best I can tell, Edward IV never made us of him, not even as a figure-head. You made a reference to how Buckingham's income from his properties was always in arrears, never being collected without expenditures, which tells me that he didn't take up managing his estates/properties either. IOW, while he was a duke of royal descent and the holder of innumerable properties, he had no training at all. I think what may have happened is that, at least initially, Richard took Buckingham as his own valuation and possibly Richard's sending Buckingham off to Wales in August was because Richard was beginning to realize the gap between Buckingham's opinion of himself and Buckingham's actual capabilities. After all, upon whom did Richard bestow the position of Constable of England, the second most powerful position in the country? He gave it to Lord Thomas Stanley. If Buckingham did have an unjustified sense of importance, based solely on his descent and title, that would have hurt. Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, I understand your need for long explanations, it's a difficult subject. My over-riding worry now is just why Richard gave Buckingham so much. He as good as made him 'king' of Wales, let alone all the other bits. Did Richard have a 'wobble' in April? We know for example that George almost certainly did when Isabel died and the two of them had had a very traumatic childhood. Perhaps Richard was so busy immediately after Edward's death that the reality never really sank in until things calmed down? That's not an unusual feature of the grieving process. And he potentially had another wobble after Anne died, when he made the public statement renouncing EOY. One can see how Buckingham could misinterpret all this. In his head Richard couldn't manage without him and this was further bolstered by the post of Constable. He'd taken on the role which Richard had fulfilled for Edward, or so he thought. But then Richard found his feet again ...... H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-01 16:56:57
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I'm just rushing off and will respond to the rest later but it did occur to me overnight that the majority of lands given to Buckingham in May 1483 had been under the jurisdiction of Rivers - almost certainly the Marches. Now that would give the Woodvilles a real will to get rid of Buckingham, wouldn't it? Doug here: Perhaps the original plan to kill Richard, the one after Stony Stratford that is, was only directed at Richard and Buckingham was added in? (Sort of a gimme, as we say over here?) Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-01 16:57:36
justcarol67
Doug wrote:
"In rebuttal, I offer this from the second page of the Proclamation:
...All which subtle and corrupt labours by him made, to our great jeopardy and peril, we have, by God's might, graciously escaped and over-passed as well as by land as by sea, and be now with the right high and mighty prince our dearest cousin the king of Scots...
Surely not a reference to himself and his brother?"

Carol adds:

In support of Doug's position, let me quote a famous letter by Richard III, the portion of the famous "most untrue creature living" letter that was written in his own hand:

"We would most gladly that ye [Bishop Russell] came yourself if you may, and if ye may not, we pray you not to fail, but to accomplish in all diligence our said commandment, to send our seal incontinent upon the sight hereof, as we trust you, with such as you trust and the officers pertaining to attend with it, praying you to ascertain us of your news. Here, loved be God, is all well and truly determined, and for to resist the malice of him that had best cause to be true, the Duke of Buckingham, the most untrue creature living; whom with God's grace we shall not be long till that we will be in those parts, and subdue his malice. We assure you there was never false traitor better purveyed for, as this bearer, Gloucester, shall show you."

"We" clearly refers to Richard himself. (Interestingly, he used "I" in writing to his mother--the king as dutiful son.)

To return to Perkin/RoY, he's clearly writing as the rightful king and using the royal "we" as part of that stance (along with references to his subjects). If I'm not mistaken, HT did the same thing in *his* pose as the rightful king before Bosworth.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-12-01 17:49:38
justcarol67
David wrote:

"Isn't there another section in which Perkin refers to the fact that Henry has stolen the crown 'rightly to us pertaining'. That has to be unambiguously a 'royal we' because the crown can only pertain to a single individual.
"So in a passage so littered with royal plurals it is unsafe to assume that any single occurrence has a different significance - especially in light of his letter, which states that his brother was killed in the Tower."
Carol responds:

I agree with you that the "royal We" is just that, but I wouldn't use the letter (contradicted by the coerced confession) to back it up. We really don't know what, if anything, that he wrote is true, but it's quite clear that he is here presenting himself as the rightful king, in which case, yes, Edward V must be either dead or firmly believed to be dead and the "we" can't include him.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-12-01 20:41:31
Doug Stamate
Carol, First off, it's nice to see you back! The timeline I'm using is: 29 April  Rivers, Grey and Vaughan plan an ambush to kill Richard and Buckingham as they ride to meet Edward V at Stony Stratford. 13 May - Summons for Parliament issued. Hastings re-confirmed as Master of the Mint and Captain of Calais. 10 June - Richard sends a letter to York asking for help because the Woodvilles are plotting to kill him and Buckingham. 13 June  Hastings executed for treason, Morton taken into custody. 16 June  EW allows her son, Richard, to join his brother in the Royal Apartments in the Tower. ???????  Edward V's coronation cancelled, as are the summons to Parliament. 22 June  Original date for Edward V's coronation, Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's Cross 25 June  Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed. 26 June  Three Estates urge Richard to accept the crown, he agrees. My understanding is that Richard, after he'd been accepted as Protector, had wanted to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughan because of the Stony Stratford plot, but the Council was against it, so he didn't. I know I read it somewhere but, of course, now I can't find it! At any rate, it seems to me that, while those three may have known about the second attempt, they weren't in any position to control it. But if it wasn't Rivers, Grey or Vaughan who planned that second attempt, who did? Well, of those involved in the second attempt in June, the most notable one to die was Hastings, with Morton being placed in Buckingham's custody. I believe there were two other executions, but they were of people who, while they may have been instrumental in the plan's execution, almost certainly weren't its' originators. However, there was another person in London whose presence we seem to keep forgetting  Dorset. True, he was in sanctuary with his mother, but as I pointed out in another post, messages, verbal if not written, could still be smuggled out. There's no proof, but right now my money is on Dorset at the London mastermind, keeping his relatives informed of what was being planned and providing names to Morton of people who could be of value in another attempt on Richard's life. The problem that remains, of course, is why did Hastings apparently ally himself with the Woodvilles in this plot? Even if Hastings had concealed an incredibly powerful streak of ambition for decades, what could they offer that he didn't already have? OTOH, if there was a possibility of Hastings losing what he held, their offer might be that he retain what he currently held. The only reason I can come up with for Hastings to fear the loss of those positions is that Richard might become king. And the only reason for that to occur is that the Pre-Contract was already known to the members of the Council; both those meeting regularly at the Tower and those planning the coronation. Any decision about the Pre-Contract would require the attendance, if not agreement, of the entire Council. Nor could it be expected that such an important decision be made by people who'd only just been informed of the matter at the beginning of the meeting, could it? Which is why I think the Pre-Contract, and the evidence supporting it, was likely revealed to the Tower group at their 6 June meeting and that the meeting on 13 June was to make a preliminary decision about what course the Council should take. I don't think a final decision was intended on that date, but something more on the line of a general consensus, with details to be worked out. From what later happened, I also think that whatever the evidence was that was presented, it was sufficiently convincing so that acceptance of the Pre-Contract, while perhaps not 100% certain, was still more than likely. This would also mean that it's quite possible when EW gave her son into the Council's care, besides being aware that the second attempt on Richard's life had failed, she also knew the matter of the Pre-Contract was before the Council. I also think it's entirely possible she did so because she was blind-sided by the news of the Pre-Contract and in a state of shock. Especially if the evidence in support of the Pre-Contract was also part of the news she received. IOW, she'd lost and she knew it. FWIW, and all the posturing by later authors to the contrary, I don't think Elizabeth Woodville ever feared for the lives of her two young sons; certainly not while Richard was Protector or King. After all, she spent nine months in sanctuary trying to cut a deal with Richard. If she feared for her sons' lives why give up one voluntarily? Why not force Richard to accept the odium of breaking sanctuary to get hold of a woman and her children? Doug Carol wrote:
Well, yes, that's the traditional view. But we need to look closely at the timing. The Woodville plot against Richard, Buckingham, and "all the blood royal of this royaume" was apparently discovered June 10, when Richard sent urgent messages to York. Hastings' execution was three days later, so if he really was involved in a treason plot (as seems likely from his having met with Morton, Rotherham, and I'm not sure who else "in each others' houses), it must have been that same Woodville plot (no more unlikely than Warwick's uneasy alliance with MOA). About a week later, the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think) convinced EW to let RoY join his brother in the Tower. Only at the end of the month did the Three Estates present Richard with the petition to set aside his nephew's claim and accept the kingship. At some point between those last two incidents, EV's coronation was postponed but not cancelled. We don't know when Stillington (if it *was* Stillington) revealed the Pre-Contract, but certainly Richard had made no move toward accepting the crown at the time of Hastings' death. So the plot might simply have been to bring control of EV back into the Woodvilles' hands rather than Richard's (they had been trying to do that since before Stony Stratford), and if Hastings felt that Buckingham was taking his share of power and control, he may have chosen to join them. After all, he may have worked with Richard and even sided with him on occasion, but they had virtually nothing in common: Hastings was a generation older and neither could have approved of the other's moral code. (I suspect that the profligate Hastings saw upright Richard in much the same terms as William Hastings did, "Olde Dyk" at age thirty.)
Anyway, I don't think that Hastings' treason had anything to do with Richard's supposed plans to "seize" the throne, but they may have had something to do with the plan for an extended Protectorate amounting almost to a regency discussed in the draft of Bishop Russell's (never delivered) coronation sermon. That plan appears to have been an attempt to control the Woodvilles.
I can't remember where I read that sermon (which is dreadfully long-winded and allegorical but nevertheless very important). Marie, if by chance you're still here, do you happen to know where we can find it? We really need your expertise!
--
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

2018-12-02 10:44:23
Hilary Jones
Very good last point Doug. I think we can agree on this :) :) After all, who hasn't interviewed someone who claims to have impressive talents - it's the stuff on which 'The Apprentice' is based. BTW it's yet another indication that Stanley supported Richard from the start, as did Percy. H
On Saturday, 1 December 2018, 16:48:13 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, For now, I'm putting Buckingham's actions down to an over-sized ego in company with his over-all inexperience in, well, just about everything. As best I can tell, Edward IV never made us of him, not even as a figure-head. You made a reference to how Buckingham's income from his properties was always in arrears, never being collected without expenditures, which tells me that he didn't take up managing his estates/properties either. IOW, while he was a duke of royal descent and the holder of innumerable properties, he had no training at all.. I think what may have happened is that, at least initially, Richard took Buckingham as his own valuation and possibly Richard's sending Buckingham off to Wales in August was because Richard was beginning to realize the gap between Buckingham's opinion of himself and Buckingham's actual capabilities. After all, upon whom did Richard bestow the position of Constable of England, the second most powerful position in the country? He gave it to Lord Thomas Stanley. If Buckingham did have an unjustified sense of importance, based solely on his descent and title, that would have hurt. Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, I understand your need for long explanations, it's a difficult subject. My over-riding worry now is just why Richard gave Buckingham so much. He as good as made him 'king' of Wales, let alone all the other bits. Did Richard have a 'wobble' in April? We know for example that George almost certainly did when Isabel died and the two of them had had a very traumatic childhood. Perhaps Richard was so busy immediately after Edward's death that the reality never really sank in until things calmed down? That's not an unusual feature of the grieving process. And he potentially had another wobble after Anne died, when he made the public statement renouncing EOY. One can see how Buckingham could misinterpret all this. In his head Richard couldn't manage without him and this was further bolstered by the post of Constable. He'd taken on the role which Richard had fulfilled for Edward, or so he thought. But then Richard found his feet again ...... H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-12-02 10:58:20
Hilary Jones
Can I be provocative and throw a third alternative in re Hastings? What if he were working for/with the French? As far as they're concerned he's in a very important location - Calais, which is another bit of France they want to get back. And he has both the English garrison and the mercenary armies there. What if he went over to the dark side after Edward humiliated him? He was able to cause quite a lot of instability by warning Richard and ensuring a rift with the Woodvilles in April 1483. Just another of my daft ideas.
However, on the plus side of a relationship between Richard and Hastings:
1. He was Anne's uncle, Cis's nephew-in-law and therefore great uncle to the next heir apparent, Richard's Edward. He was unlikely to be sidelined with the support of Cis and Anne.
2. His treasonable act, whatever it was, didn't stop Richard letting him be buried by Edward in that great chapel of the House of York, St George's Windsor. Had it been to injure either the princes or Richard I just couldn't see the latter letting that happen. I tend to go with the theory that Richard found out soon afterwards that things had not been as he had been informed and that he deeply regretted his action. H

On Saturday, 1 December 2018, 20:41:39 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Carol, First off, it's nice to see you back! The timeline I'm using is: 29 April  Rivers, Grey and Vaughan plan an ambush to kill Richard and Buckingham as they ride to meet Edward V at Stony Stratford. 13 May - Summons for Parliament issued. Hastings re-confirmed as Master of the Mint and Captain of Calais. 10 June - Richard sends a letter to York asking for help because the Woodvilles are plotting to kill him and Buckingham. 13 June  Hastings executed for treason, Morton taken into custody. 16 June  EW allows her son, Richard, to join his brother in the Royal Apartments in the Tower. ???????  Edward V's coronation cancelled, as are the summons to Parliament. 22 June  Original date for Edward V's coronation, Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's Cross 25 June  Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed. 26 June  Three Estates urge Richard to accept the crown, he agrees. My understanding is that Richard, after he'd been accepted as Protector, had wanted to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughan because of the Stony Stratford plot, but the Council was against it, so he didn't. I know I read it somewhere but, of course, now I can't find it! At any rate, it seems to me that, while those three may have known about the second attempt, they weren't in any position to control it. But if it wasn't Rivers, Grey or Vaughan who planned that second attempt, who did? Well, of those involved in the second attempt in June, the most notable one to die was Hastings, with Morton being placed in Buckingham's custody. I believe there were two other executions, but they were of people who, while they may have been instrumental in the plan's execution, almost certainly weren't its' originators. However, there was another person in London whose presence we seem to keep forgetting  Dorset. True, he was in sanctuary with his mother, but as I pointed out in another post, messages, verbal if not written, could still be smuggled out. There's no proof, but right now my money is on Dorset at the London mastermind, keeping his relatives informed of what was being planned and providing names to Morton of people who could be of value in another attempt on Richard's life. The problem that remains, of course, is why did Hastings apparently ally himself with the Woodvilles in this plot? Even if Hastings had concealed an incredibly powerful streak of ambition for decades, what could they offer that he didn't already have? OTOH, if there was a possibility of Hastings losing what he held, their offer might be that he retain what he currently held. The only reason I can come up with for Hastings to fear the loss of those positions is that Richard might become king. And the only reason for that to occur is that the Pre-Contract was already known to the members of the Council; both those meeting regularly at the Tower and those planning the coronation. Any decision about the Pre-Contract would require the attendance, if not agreement, of the entire Council. Nor could it be expected that such an important decision be made by people who'd only just been informed of the matter at the beginning of the meeting, could it? Which is why I think the Pre-Contract, and the evidence supporting it, was likely revealed to the Tower group at their 6 June meeting and that the meeting on 13 June was to make a preliminary decision about what course the Council should take. I don't think a final decision was intended on that date, but something more on the line of a general consensus, with details to be worked out. From what later happened, I also think that whatever the evidence was that was presented, it was sufficiently convincing so that acceptance of the Pre-Contract, while perhaps not 100% certain, was still more than likely. This would also mean that it's quite possible when EW gave her son into the Council's care, besides being aware that the second attempt on Richard's life had failed, she also knew the matter of the Pre-Contract was before the Council. I also think it's entirely possible she did so because she was blind-sided by the news of the Pre-Contract and in a state of shock. Especially if the evidence in support of the Pre-Contract was also part of the news she received. IOW, she'd lost and she knew it. FWIW, and all the posturing by later authors to the contrary, I don't think Elizabeth Woodville ever feared for the lives of her two young sons; certainly not while Richard was Protector or King. After all, she spent nine months in sanctuary trying to cut a deal with Richard. If she feared for her sons' lives why give up one voluntarily? Why not force Richard to accept the odium of breaking sanctuary to get hold of a woman and her children? Doug Carol wrote:
Well, yes, that's the traditional view. But we need to look closely at the timing.. The Woodville plot against Richard, Buckingham, and "all the blood royal of this royaume" was apparently discovered June 10, when Richard sent urgent messages to York. Hastings' execution was three days later, so if he really was involved in a treason plot (as seems likely from his having met with Morton, Rotherham, and I'm not sure who else "in each others' houses), it must have been that same Woodville plot (no more unlikely than Warwick's uneasy alliance with MOA). About a week later, the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think) convinced EW to let RoY join his brother in the Tower. Only at the end of the month did the Three Estates present Richard with the petition to set aside his nephew's claim and accept the kingship. At some point between those last two incidents, EV's coronation was postponed but not cancelled. We don't know when Stillington (if it *was* Stillington) revealed the Pre-Contract, but certainly Richard had made no move toward accepting the crown at the time of Hastings' death. So the plot might simply have been to bring control of EV back into the Woodvilles' hands rather than Richard's (they had been trying to do that since before Stony Stratford), and if Hastings felt that Buckingham was taking his share of power and control, he may have chosen to join them. After all, he may have worked with Richard and even sided with him on occasion, but they had virtually nothing in common: Hastings was a generation older and neither could have approved of the other's moral code. (I suspect that the profligate Hastings saw upright Richard in much the same terms as William Hastings did, "Olde Dyk" at age thirty.)
Anyway, I don't think that Hastings' treason had anything to do with Richard's supposed plans to "seize" the throne, but they may have had something to do with the plan for an extended Protectorate amounting almost to a regency discussed in the draft of Bishop Russell's (never delivered) coronation sermon. That plan appears to have been an attempt to control the Woodvilles.
I can't remember where I read that sermon (which is dreadfully long-winded and allegorical but nevertheless very important). Marie, if by chance you're still here, do you happen to know where we can find it? We really need your expertise!
--
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

2018-12-02 11:07:18
Hilary Jones
I think these are really good points Mary. One tends to forget the Catherine of Valois connection, which really can't be disputed. Now the French would cite Salic Law, but as you say, that didn't stop Edward III or Henry V. If he did put such a suggestion forward then what's the betting it was conceived by Uncle Jasper with a bit of drafting by Reggie Bray? H
On Saturday, 1 December 2018, 14:25:42 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I think that the French were crucial in this. After the death of Louis XI they were in the same position as England had been with an underage heir. Something that I have thought too is that while HT had absolutely no claim to the throne of England he was descended from Catherine of Valois and I wonder if he had played the Henry V card if you support me to invade England then I won't try to claim the French throne. While he didn't have much of a chance of winning a battle in France it might have frightened them. On the other hand he might have put himself forward as the French Prince galloping to their rescue and invading England before Richard could invade France.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-12-03 17:47:32
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Can I be provocative and throw a third alternative in re Hastings? What if he were working for/with the French? As far as they're concerned he's in a very important location - Calais, which is another bit of France they want to get back. And he has both the English garrison and the mercenary armies there. What if he went over to the dark side after Edward humiliated him? He was able to cause quite a lot of instability by warning Richard and ensuring a rift with the Woodvilles in April 1483. Just another of my daft ideas.' Doug here: I have trouble imagining Hastings would work with the French if he thought Calais might be at risk; being Captain of the Calais garrison was what made him so important in English affairs. However, I can imagine Hastings being brought around to the idea that his future depended on maintaining Edward V on the throne, regardless of where that idea originated. Hilary concluded: However, on the plus side of a relationship between Richard and Hastings: 1. He was Anne's uncle, Cis's nephew-in-law and therefore great uncle to the next heir apparent, Richard's Edward. He was unlikely to be sidelined with the support of Cis and Anne. 2. His treasonable act, whatever it was, didn't stop Richard letting him be buried by Edward in that great chapel of the House of York, St George's Windsor. Had it been to injure either the princes or Richard I just couldn't see the latter letting that happen. I tend to go with the theory that Richard found out soon afterwards that things had not been as he had been informed and that he deeply regretted his action. Doug here: FWIW, I have the impression that your reason #1 would work against Hastings should he be found to be involved in any plot. As a member of Richard's family, so to speak, treason on his part would be unforgiveable. Could it be that, by allowing Hastings to be interred at Windsor with Edward IV, Richard was just acknowledging Hastings' motive for his treason  his support of Edward's son? Richard knew Hastings was Edward's very close friend; could he have viewed participation in the plot as a misguided effort on Hastings part to protect Edward's sons' inheritance? BTW, do we know how the bodies of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were treated after their executions? Perhaps that might help? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-03 18:07:32
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I can certainly imagine the French dabbling in English affairs, the important question/s would be How deeply and When did that dabbling begin, wouldn't it? Edward IV's death came as a surprise, as far as we know, to the English, so I seriously doubt it wasn't also a surprise to the French. I also doubt the French had any greater understanding of the powers and authority of a Protector of England who was also Constable, than most modern historians, so that could support your idea that the French feared what Richard might do, simultaneously holding both positions. But that would also mean, wouldn't it, that to a great extent the French were reacting to events and not shaping them? IOW, they may have helped stir the pot, but it was already on the fire and bubbling away before they ever got involved. Once the Pre-Contract became known to the members of the Council, it would quickly become known to the French and provide them with even more ammunition for their rumor mill. Doug Hilary wrote: Can I add one tiny thing to all this? We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French! So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?le I can see So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H
--
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

2018-12-03 20:11:28
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I hadn't thought of that; I had assumed it was her idea, but you make a good point there. Margaret Beaufort's terms certainly went beyond the previous requests for Henry's return that she made to Edward and Richard. Also, it was an ambitious plan if it turned out to be something Henry would have no interest in. Jasper Tudor's involvement is also plausible. I wonder how easily MB could get messages to him and HT. Doug here: It just seemed to me that, in presuming MB wanted to make Henry king from the get-go, we were also making a presumption for which there really wasn't very much support. OTOH, if we work on the hypothesis that, at least until the spring of 1485, MB's sole intention was to get Henry back into England without having to spend any time in custody, and possibly restored to some if not all of his titles/estates, then her actions, and the way she was treated by Richard makes much more sense. Even presuming Richard knew that sometime in May 1483 MB had cut a deal with EW over Henry's marriage to EoY in order to get support for Edward V, Richard may likely have viewed that arrangement as acceptable under the circumstances. After all, Henry marrying EoY, and even presuming it was to help Edward V remain on the throne, in and of itself, didn't necessarily lead to Richard being killed. It's a more generous view than I'd likely have, but still valid. I think...
Nico continued: That is also a possibility if Dorset was exposed to the sleazier elements of Edward's life from an early age (if indeed EIV was as lecherous as his reputation suggested. JA-H seemed to think there was some exaggeration, but imho the contemporary evidence does seem to suggest otherwise.) However, as far as children were concerned, his instructions for Edward V's upbringing clearly intend to protect him from immorality, suggesting that the debauchery at his court was for adults. Dorset was closer to the scene however, probably knowing what was going as a teenager and realized that playing along and joining in was how you got on. He had a reputation for treating women very badly himself. Overall, a rather strange choice of mentor for young Richard of Shrewsbury. Doug here: Dorset was born in 1455 and would have come of age (18) in 1473 and been 28 when Edward died. Do we know when Dorset's quarrel with Hastings developed? I have the impression it wasn't all that long before Edward's death, but I could be mistaken. At any rate, rather looks as if what happened was that Dorset started palling around with Edward well after he [Dorset] was a teen-ager.
Nico concluded: "The members of the Prince of Wales council at Ludlow were responsible for the guardianship and education of the the future Edward V. Anthony Woodville was Govenor of the Princes' Household, with the ultimate authority over decision making. Anything that could not be dealt with by him had to be referred to Edward. However, as we discovered earlier this year, he only visited Ludlow sporadically, so responsibility for Edward was delegated to other members such as Vaughan. However AW was also Govenor of the Marches and was responsible for law and order in that region, but according to some historians (Hicks and Horrox, I think) he wasn't rated very highly in that role. That isn't surprising if he wasn't around very much, but if Buckingham had taken the role seriously and gained the respect of the region, he may have been successful in keeping control of that volatile region, something that would have been a passport to greater things. Richard had done that with the North, and he probably expected the same from Buckingham. Buckingham unfortunately had other ideas, but when he started plotting isn't clear. Morton may have started working on him at Brecon, perhaps around September. However, wasn't the Tower Rescue attempt in late July? If MB and Morton were involved in that, it could have played a part with whatever induced Buckingham. I can imagine him in a serious conspiracy with him more that the Woodvilles, perhaps in the initial stages envisaging a King Maker role, but then changed his mind. Perhaps it was his superior legal claim, but I have also wondered if Edward V was died in or as a result of the Tower Rescue. Whatever happened, it would make sense to move the Princes from London after that, and I think they would have been gone quite some time before Easter. Doug here; Ah, so while the Prince's establishment wasn't in charge of Wales, a Woodville was? That would explain the necessity of putting someone else in charge after Rivers & Co. had been arrested. FWIW, I also think that Richard may have intended for Buckingham to replicate in Wales something on the order of the Council of the North. Apparently, though, that wasn't Buckingham's intent... I checked my notes and late July does seem to be when the attempt was made. Perhaps it was that failure that led Morton to try his luck with suborning Buckingham? My understanding of what happened after the rescue attempt was that the boys were moved from the Royal Apartments to a part of the Tower that provided more security for them. We have references to the boys being seen at archery practice in a garden in the Tower. Would that garden be part of some inner buildings; perhaps someplace less accessible to those with business in the Tower, but still with as much freedom as they'd have if they'd been sent off to some isolated country manor. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-12-03 23:00:19
ricard1an
Just to throw something in re Hastings and the French. What if they had offered to re-instate his pension that he had gained after Treaty of Picquiny and Louis had then taken it away? Merely speculating.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-12-04 10:57:14
Hilary Jones
Indeed! What if they had offered him to retain the captaincy of Calais working for them a few years' down the line? You can stir up a lot of trouble from Calais. H
On Monday, 3 December 2018, 23:00:24 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just to throw something in re Hastings and the French. What if they had offered to re-instate his pension that he had gained after Treaty of Picquiny and Louis had then taken it away? Merely speculating.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-04 11:01:04
Hilary Jones
Doug FWIW I think the French knew a lot about the instability of English Protectorates. They had seen the fall of Humphrey of Gloucester once his brother was dead - in fact the presence of an English child heir had helped turn the tide of war in their favour. Does make you wonder why they supported HT if they thought an English child could be re-instated; unless they thought that those child/children were dead? H
On Monday, 3 December 2018, 18:07:39 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I can certainly imagine the French dabbling in English affairs, the important question/s would be How deeply and When did that dabbling begin, wouldn't it? Edward IV's death came as a surprise, as far as we know, to the English, so I seriously doubt it wasn't also a surprise to the French. I also doubt the French had any greater understanding of the powers and authority of a Protector of England who was also Constable, than most modern historians, so that could support your idea that the French feared what Richard might do, simultaneously holding both positions. But that would also mean, wouldn't it, that to a great extent the French were reacting to events and not shaping them? IOW, they may have helped stir the pot, but it was already on the fire and bubbling away before they ever got involved. Once the Pre-Contract became known to the members of the Council, it would quickly become known to the French and provide them with even more ammunition for their rumor mill. Doug Hilary wrote: Can I add one tiny thing to all this? We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French! So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?le I can see So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H
--
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

2018-12-04 14:36:45
Doug Stamate
Mary, The only point I'd pick with you is over that word crucial. I can certainly see Louis or his successors taking full advantage of the circumstances, but I have a great deal of trouble imagining them as originators, at least until Tudor began planning his invasion in 1485. Now that enterprise ay very well have been instigated by the French. Something on the order of You want our support, here are some troops and money.Time to poisson ou appat coupe* or we'll cut a deal with Richard. It would be phrased much more diplomatically, of course... Doug *Google's translation of fish or cut bait. Mary wrote: I think that the French were crucial in this. After the death of Louis XI they were in the same position as England had been with an underage heir. Something that I have thought too is that while HT had absolutely no claim to the throne of England he was descended from Catherine of Valois and I wonder if he had played the Henry V card if you support me to invade England then I won't try to claim the French throne. While he didn't have much of a chance of winning a battle in France it might have frightened them. On the other hand he might have put himself forward as the French Prince galloping to their rescue and invading England before Richard could invade France.
--
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

2018-12-04 14:41:54
Doug Stamate
Pamela, Do you have anything particular in mind? Because my understanding is that the Spanish hadn't yet finished the Reconquesta; and I also seem to recall some squabble over the throne of Castile, but that may have been settled by this time. Doug Pamela wrote: And how about Spain?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-04 15:03:05
Doug Stamate
Mary, I can visualize Hastings accepting money from the French with the understanding that the funds were to be used to keep Edward V on the throne. However, to accept a pension from the French under the conditions that existed in 1483 would taint Hastings motives should it ever become known. His support of Edward V would appear to have been purchased by England's historical enemy. Certainly an impression to be avoided, I would think. Doug Mary wrote: Just to throw something in re Hastings and the French. What if they had offered to re-instate his pension that he had gained after Treaty of Picquiny and Louis had then taken it away? Merely speculating.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-04 15:11:29
Doug Stamate
Hilary, What would the French have to do with Hastings retaining the captaincy of Calais? Or have I missed something? Doug Hilary wrote: Indeed! What if they had offered him to retain the captaincy of Calais working for them a few years' down the line? You can stir up a lot of trouble from Calais.
--
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

2018-12-04 16:39:20
Paul Trevor bale
The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne. So France had little time to worry about what was going on in England. In fact after Picquiny in 1475 France had stopped worrying about any English threat and wouldn't again until all of a sudden the young man who had stormed away from Picquiny in a fit of peak after refusing to engage in the same deal as his brother Edward did, suddenly was king, with no love for France unless he was perhaps ruling it! Hence the infamous comment in their parliament around late 1483 about how Richard had become king over the bodies of his nephews, based on no facts whatsoever, but France doing its best to make Richard look bad in case he was thinking of invading. As if he didn't have enough on his plate without that! Anne Of Beaujeu had enough of her father in her to pull no punches. She is still considered something of a good thing in France, as she ruled from 1483 until her brother came of age in 1491. French help for Tudor, or lack of it, was Anne playing the game of thrones with England along the lines her father had taught her. Incredibly intelligent and very strong willed, Anne effectively ruled as monarch, while her husband played house husband if such a thing were possible at that time.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 déc. 2018 à 16:28, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary, I can certainly imagine the French dabbling in English affairs, the important question/s would be How deeply and When did that dabbling begin, wouldn't it? Edward IV's death came as a surprise, as far as we know, to the English, so I seriously doubt it wasn't also a surprise to the French. I also doubt the French had any greater understanding of the powers and authority of a Protector of England who was also Constable, than most modern historians, so that could support your idea that the French feared what Richard might do, simultaneously holding both positions. But that would also mean, wouldn't it, that to a great extent the French were reacting to events and not shaping them? IOW, they may have helped stir the pot, but it was already on the fire and bubbling away before they ever got involved. Once the Pre-Contract became known to the members of the Council, it would quickly become known to the French and provide them with even more ammunition for their rumor mill. Doug Hilary wrote: Can I add one tiny thing to all this? We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French! So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?le I can see So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-05 10:37:27
Hilary Jones
Hi, well if the French took back Calais, as they were working on taking back Burgundy and Brittany and 're-uniting' France then,. why not retain the guy who knew it best? It's only like the Spanish and Gibralter or Argentina and the Falklands. And Calais is on their mainland and a vital trade route. The reason that the Readeption failed is that the London merchants refused to transfer their trade routes from the Hansa to France. That was Louis's big aim in backing MOA and Warwick then. It was the key to the agreement. He always had a motive, usually involving gaining land - or money. H
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018, 15:11:46 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, What would the French have to do with Hastings retaining the captaincy of Calais? Or have I missed something? Doug Hilary wrote: Indeed! What if they had offered him to retain the captaincy of Calais working for them a few years' down the line? You can stir up a lot of trouble from Calais.
--
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

2018-12-05 10:55:08
Hilary Jones
Doug, I don't know about the exact quarrel, if there was one, but the Hastings and Greys were bitter rivals in Leicestershire and Edward did seem to be smiling on Dorset once he came of age.
The mention of Edward does throw up another point about Buckingham though. Whatever Edward's lifestyle, he does seem to have worked incredibly hard right to the end. Ross affirms this and you can see it not only in the nationally held Rolls but also in local archives like the York House Books and the Coventry Leet Books. Edward's finger (and Richard's) was always on the pulse.
In fact the job of a medieval king (and his deputies in the regions) wasn't just holding Court, dancing, chewing on chicken bones (as portrayed in so many films on Henry VIII) and fighting the odd battle. It was hours and hours and hours of administration - basically doing the job that the Civil Service do today. You really appreciate that when you trawl through the CPR, the CFR and the Parliament Rolls. No wonder the Tudors took on people like Wolsey and Cecil.
Now I don't think that would fit with Buckingham's lifestyle at all. We know he and his ancestors enjoyed parading round the country with the ducal retinue and running up debts. Imagine the first time Richard sends for him and asks him to fill him in on fishing rights on the River Dee (I'm making that up but Richard always had the fishgarths job in York) and then sends him off with another load of paperwork. A bit beneath our Harry, don't you think? And probably much too hard? H
On Monday, 3 December 2018, 20:11:51 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I hadn't thought of that; I had assumed it was her idea, but you make a good point there. Margaret Beaufort's terms certainly went beyond the previous requests for Henry's return that she made to Edward and Richard. Also, it was an ambitious plan if it turned out to be something Henry would have no interest in. Jasper Tudor's involvement is also plausible. I wonder how easily MB could get messages to him and HT. Doug here: It just seemed to me that, in presuming MB wanted to make Henry king from the get-go, we were also making a presumption for which there really wasn't very much support. OTOH, if we work on the hypothesis that, at least until the spring of 1485, MB's sole intention was to get Henry back into England without having to spend any time in custody, and possibly restored to some if not all of his titles/estates, then her actions, and the way she was treated by Richard makes much more sense. Even presuming Richard knew that sometime in May 1483 MB had cut a deal with EW over Henry's marriage to EoY in order to get support for Edward V, Richard may likely have viewed that arrangement as acceptable under the circumstances. After all, Henry marrying EoY, and even presuming it was to help Edward V remain on the throne, in and of itself, didn't necessarily lead to Richard being killed. It's a more generous view than I'd likely have, but still valid. I think...
Nico continued: That is also a possibility if Dorset was exposed to the sleazier elements of Edward's life from an early age (if indeed EIV was as lecherous as his reputation suggested. JA-H seemed to think there was some exaggeration, but imho the contemporary evidence does seem to suggest otherwise.) However, as far as children were concerned, his instructions for Edward V's upbringing clearly intend to protect him from immorality, suggesting that the debauchery at his court was for adults. Dorset was closer to the scene however, probably knowing what was going as a teenager and realized that playing along and joining in was how you got on. He had a reputation for treating women very badly himself. Overall, a rather strange choice of mentor for young Richard of Shrewsbury. Doug here: Dorset was born in 1455 and would have come of age (18) in 1473 and been 28 when Edward died. Do we know when Dorset's quarrel with Hastings developed? I have the impression it wasn't all that long before Edward's death, but I could be mistaken. At any rate, rather looks as if what happened was that Dorset started palling around with Edward well after he [Dorset] was a teen-ager.
Nico concluded: "The members of the Prince of Wales council at Ludlow were responsible for the guardianship and education of the the future Edward V. Anthony Woodville was Govenor of the Princes' Household, with the ultimate authority over decision making. Anything that could not be dealt with by him had to be referred to Edward. However, as we discovered earlier this year, he only visited Ludlow sporadically, so responsibility for Edward was delegated to other members such as Vaughan. However AW was also Govenor of the Marches and was responsible for law and order in that region, but according to some historians (Hicks and Horrox, I think) he wasn't rated very highly in that role. That isn't surprising if he wasn't around very much, but if Buckingham had taken the role seriously and gained the respect of the region, he may have been successful in keeping control of that volatile region, something that would have been a passport to greater things. Richard had done that with the North, and he probably expected the same from Buckingham. Buckingham unfortunately had other ideas, but when he started plotting isn't clear. Morton may have started working on him at Brecon, perhaps around September. However, wasn't the Tower Rescue attempt in late July? If MB and Morton were involved in that, it could have played a part with whatever induced Buckingham. I can imagine him in a serious conspiracy with him more that the Woodvilles, perhaps in the initial stages envisaging a King Maker role, but then changed his mind. Perhaps it was his superior legal claim, but I have also wondered if Edward V was died in or as a result of the Tower Rescue. Whatever happened, it would make sense to move the Princes from London after that, and I think they would have been gone quite some time before Easter. Doug here; Ah, so while the Prince's establishment wasn't in charge of Wales, a Woodville was? That would explain the necessity of putting someone else in charge after Rivers & Co. had been arrested. FWIW, I also think that Richard may have intended for Buckingham to replicate in Wales something on the order of the Council of the North. Apparently, though, that wasn't Buckingham's intent... I checked my notes and late July does seem to be when the attempt was made. Perhaps it was that failure that led Morton to try his luck with suborning Buckingham? My understanding of what happened after the rescue attempt was that the boys were moved from the Royal Apartments to a part of the Tower that provided more security for them. We have references to the boys being seen at archery practice in a garden in the Tower. Would that garden be part of some inner buildings; perhaps someplace less accessible to those with business in the Tower, but still with as much freedom as they'd have if they'd been sent off to some isolated country manor. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-05 17:34:27
Doug Stamate
Hilary, If the Wikipedia article on Duke Humphrey is accurate, it places most of his problems on the Council's refusal to go along with the provisions of Henry V's will that would have made Humphrey as powerful a Protector as Edward IV's will did Richard. Apparently Humphrey had to contend with an opposition that wasn't as generally disliked and mistrusted as the Woodvilles later were. How accurate that assessment is, I can't say. However, any minority could be destabilizing for a country (it was, I think, Louis' greatest fear for his son) and something to be taken advantage of in any way possible. What I do find interesting is that, when anyone fled England in 1483, they didn't go to France, but to Brittany. My guess is that they knew too close an association with France could doom any future attempts to return to England by tarring them as simply acting as front men for French interests. I also really think there's a difference between the events of 1483 and 1485 in that after Edward IV's death, and before the Three Estates asked Richard to accept the crown, there was a minor on the English throne and the very real possibility of major dissension among the English governing classes. Thus, it made perfect sense to try and sow as much dissension as possible; anything that diverted English attention away from France was to the good. There was the risk that someone, Richard?, might try and paper over any dissension by leading England into a war with the traditional enemy, but that could easily backfire. All it would take is one lost battle, especially if the losses were major, and the whole idea could boomerang on its' originator and greatly lessen the chances of any further English involvement in France. As best I can discover, there wasn't any French involvement in the events of May and June 1483, except for possibly spreading some anti-Protector propaganda, anyway. When Tudor made his decision to join the October Rebellion, he departed from Brittany and had, if my memory is correct, only two or three ships with him on his journey. Whether the French thought Edward V could be reinstated, I have no idea, but they apparently made no attempt to assist in his restoration. In 1485, however, the basics had changed. Edward V and his brother had been acknowledged as illegitimate. Richard, even though he lacked a declared heir, was securely on the throne and now it was France that had a minor as its' king. And, as opposed to 1483 when Henry had to borrow money from the Duke of Brittany to finance his invasion, in 1485 the entire affair was financed by the French, up to and including the pay for those never-mentioned-in-English-histories mercenaries and required a considerable fleet for their transport. Nor was the 1485 expedition undertaken to restore Edward V to the throne, it was done to place Henry there in place of his not-yet future brother-in-law. Supporting Tudor in 1485 made perfect sense for a France worried about what might happen while a minor sat on its' throne. If Henry's attempt made good, then there would be someone on England's throne who owed where they were to France. If Henry decided to ignore who'd placed him where he was, there'd almost certainly be opposition to him that could be supported just as he had been. If Richard won, there'd likely be another round of attainders creating yet another group of people possibly amenable to French help. At any rate, while Richard was dealing with invasion and its' aftermath, he'd have no time to consider the Plantagenet claims to the French throne. Doug Hilary wrote: Doug FWIW I think the French knew a lot about the instability of English Protectorates. They had seen the fall of Humphrey of Gloucester once his brother was dead - in fact the presence of an English child heir had helped turn the tide of war in their favour. Does make you wonder why they supported HT if they thought an English child could be re-instated; unless they thought that those child/children were dead?
--
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] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-05 19:04:27
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Oh, it's not that I don't think Louis didn't want Calais back and wasn't working to get it, just that until he had it in his hot little hands (so to speak), the captaincy wasn't his to give or even make promises about. The pensions received bb Edward IV, Hastings and others weren't in exchange for Calais, they were, basically, protection money  offered by Louis, and taken by Edward et al, in lieu of fighting. Edward gave up nothing when he accepted that pension that I know of; well, except the possibility of losing battles and ending up worse off than when he started. OTOH, for Hastings to make any deals with Louis over Calais would constitute Hastings agreeing Calais was French and belonged to France. To the best of my knowledge, the English position, officially anyway, was still that France belonged to England, or at least to the English king. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, well if the French took back Calais, as they were working on taking back Burgundy and Brittany and 're-uniting' France then,. why not retain the guy who knew it best? It's only like the Spanish and Gibralter or Argentina and the Falklands. And Calais is on their mainland and a vital trade route. The reason that the Readeption failed is that the London merchants refused to transfer their trade routes from the Hansa to France.. That was Louis's big aim in backing MOA and Warwick then. It was the key to the agreement. He always had a motive, usually involving gaining land - or money.
--
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

2018-12-06 10:00:54
Hilary Jones
Just found this Paul. Absolutely! And of course Anne of Beaujeu came to deeply regret that involvement with HT!
The bit i was thinking about is June 1483, when Louis was still alive. As you say, a deeply paranoid person, he'd remember that young man who'd stormed away (despite his gift of horses) and any chance of him getting anywhere near ruling England would need to be 'discouraged' in whatever way it could. H
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018, 16:42:52 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

So France had little time to worry about what was going on in England. In fact after Picquiny in 1475 France had stopped worrying about any English threat and wouldn't again until all of a sudden the young man who had stormed away from Picquiny in a fit of peak after refusing to engage in the same deal as his brother Edward did, suddenly was king, with no love for France unless he was perhaps ruling it! Hence the infamous comment in their parliament around late 1483 about how Richard had become king over the bodies of his nephews, based on no facts whatsoever, but France doing its best to make Richard look bad in case he was thinking of invading. As if he didn't have enough on his plate without that! Anne Of Beaujeu had enough of her father in her to pull no punches. She is still considered something of a good thing in France, as she ruled from 1483 until her brother came of age in 1491. French help for Tudor, or lack of it, was Anne playing the game of thrones with England along the lines her father had taught her. Incredibly intelligent and very strong willed, Anne effectively ruled as monarch, while her husband played house husband if such a thing were possible at that time.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 déc. 2018 à 16:28, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary, I can certainly imagine the French dabbling in English affairs, the important question/s would be How deeply and When did that dabbling begin, wouldn't it? Edward IV's death came as a surprise, as far as we know, to the English, so I seriously doubt it wasn't also a surprise to the French. I also doubt the French had any greater understanding of the powers and authority of a Protector of England who was also Constable, than most modern historians, so that could support your idea that the French feared what Richard might do, simultaneously holding both positions. But that would also mean, wouldn't it, that to a great extent the French were reacting to events and not shaping them? IOW, they may have helped stir the pot, but it was already on the fire and bubbling away before they ever got involved. Once the Pre-Contract became known to the members of the Council, it would quickly become known to the French and provide them with even more ammunition for their rumor mill. Doug Hilary wrote: Can I add one tiny thing to all this? We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French! So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?le I can see So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H
--
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

2018-12-06 10:11:18
Hilary Jones
Paul forgot to ask. Isn't there a brilliant French film on the last days of Louis XI which includes his interaction with Anne? I'm sure I've seen a clip from it (the costumes looked good) but could never recall its name. H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 10:01:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Just found this Paul. Absolutely! And of course Anne of Beaujeu came to deeply regret that involvement with HT!
The bit i was thinking about is June 1483, when Louis was still alive. As you say, a deeply paranoid person, he'd remember that young man who'd stormed away (despite his gift of horses) and any chance of him getting anywhere near ruling England would need to be 'discouraged' in whatever way it could.. H
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018, 16:42:52 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

So France had little time to worry about what was going on in England. In fact after Picquiny in 1475 France had stopped worrying about any English threat and wouldn't again until all of a sudden the young man who had stormed away from Picquiny in a fit of peak after refusing to engage in the same deal as his brother Edward did, suddenly was king, with no love for France unless he was perhaps ruling it! Hence the infamous comment in their parliament around late 1483 about how Richard had become king over the bodies of his nephews, based on no facts whatsoever, but France doing its best to make Richard look bad in case he was thinking of invading. As if he didn't have enough on his plate without that! Anne Of Beaujeu had enough of her father in her to pull no punches. She is still considered something of a good thing in France, as she ruled from 1483 until her brother came of age in 1491. French help for Tudor, or lack of it, was Anne playing the game of thrones with England along the lines her father had taught her. Incredibly intelligent and very strong willed, Anne effectively ruled as monarch, while her husband played house husband if such a thing were possible at that time.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 déc. 2018 à 16:28, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary, I can certainly imagine the French dabbling in English affairs, the important question/s would be How deeply and When did that dabbling begin, wouldn't it? Edward IV's death came as a surprise, as far as we know, to the English, so I seriously doubt it wasn't also a surprise to the French. I also doubt the French had any greater understanding of the powers and authority of a Protector of England who was also Constable, than most modern historians, so that could support your idea that the French feared what Richard might do, simultaneously holding both positions. But that would also mean, wouldn't it, that to a great extent the French were reacting to events and not shaping them? IOW, they may have helped stir the pot, but it was already on the fire and bubbling away before they ever got involved. Once the Pre-Contract became known to the members of the Council, it would quickly become known to the French and provide them with even more ammunition for their rumor mill. Doug Hilary wrote: Can I add one tiny thing to all this? We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet dead It doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French! So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?le I can see So I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H
--
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

2018-12-06 10:50:35
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, I do think the circumstances of Duke Humphrey were somewhat different. For a start, he had his much more popular older brother John who at times kept him in check by making sure the Council clipped his wings. Must have been a pain in the neck. Secondly, he was of a different disposition to Richard, a scholarly man in an age when England was celebrating warfare. And thirdly, he was Protector of a child who would take a long time to come to manhood. And on top of all this he had the Beauforts (!!) and the reputation of his wife to contend with. So poor Humphrey didn't stand much of a chance.
Richard, on the other hand, seems to have been welcomed by all but the Woodvilles. If the Council hadn't wanted him they had the perfect opportunity to condemn him for the arrest of Rivers, and indeed the death of Hastings, but they didn't. In fact they endorsed his kingship. I think this endorsement is often under-rated, as though they were helpless pawns. The English tend not to rebel but if they dissent they can really dig in their heels. Every senior bishop was on that Council and could have appealed to the Pope - excommunication is no small thing! There were enough senior magnates too to have caused a real fuss - yet we know Percy and Stanley, two of the biggest ones, lent their support, let alone Howard, Suffolk and Arundel.
I agree there is a difference between the HT events of 1483 and 1485 which is why I think we could do with knowing more. Was HT under threat of possible 'eviction' from Brittany; there is something about his voyage then which smacks of a bit of desperation? Do you know any more, David? It's unfortunate that Penn's very good biography of HT starts so late - this bit needs filling in. We know of course that the English had made several deputations to Brittany. So what had changed? Need to look.
Finally, the minority in France was quite different - see Paul's post. Louis had trained his daughter Anne for years.She was one talented formidable lady who actually made herself popular by reversing some of Louis's more unpopular decisions. And of course he was the King's sister - and a woman, so no threat! France undoubtedly had its own agenda and it was the 'nuisance' factor of the English, rather than necessarily fear of invasion I reckon that encouraged them to cause mischief here. Imagine the English King trying to invade Wales or Scotland and the French hopping across the channel and causing mayhem. Which of course exactly what HT and his naval commander Daubeny would do. H
On Wednesday, 5 December 2018, 17:40:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, If the Wikipedia article on Duke Humphrey is accurate, it places most of his problems on the Council's refusal to go along with the provisions of Henry V's will that would have made Humphrey as powerful a Protector as Edward IV's will did Richard. Apparently Humphrey had to contend with an opposition that wasn't as generally disliked and mistrusted as the Woodvilles later were. How accurate that assessment is, I can't say. However, any minority could be destabilizing for a country (it was, I think, Louis' greatest fear for his son) and something to be taken advantage of in any way possible. What I do find interesting is that, when anyone fled England in 1483, they didn't go to France, but to Brittany. My guess is that they knew too close an association with France could doom any future attempts to return to England by tarring them as simply acting as front men for French interests. I also really think there's a difference between the events of 1483 and 1485 in that after Edward IV's death, and before the Three Estates asked Richard to accept the crown, there was a minor on the English throne and the very real possibility of major dissension among the English governing classes. Thus, it made perfect sense to try and sow as much dissension as possible; anything that diverted English attention away from France was to the good. There was the risk that someone, Richard?, might try and paper over any dissension by leading England into a war with the traditional enemy, but that could easily backfire. All it would take is one lost battle, especially if the losses were major, and the whole idea could boomerang on its' originator and greatly lessen the chances of any further English involvement in France. As best I can discover, there wasn't any French involvement in the events of May and June 1483, except for possibly spreading some anti-Protector propaganda, anyway. When Tudor made his decision to join the October Rebellion, he departed from Brittany and had, if my memory is correct, only two or three ships with him on his journey. Whether the French thought Edward V could be reinstated, I have no idea, but they apparently made no attempt to assist in his restoration. In 1485, however, the basics had changed. Edward V and his brother had been acknowledged as illegitimate. Richard, even though he lacked a declared heir, was securely on the throne and now it was France that had a minor as its' king. And, as opposed to 1483 when Henry had to borrow money from the Duke of Brittany to finance his invasion, in 1485 the entire affair was financed by the French, up to and including the pay for those never-mentioned-in-English-histories mercenaries and required a considerable fleet for their transport. Nor was the 1485 expedition undertaken to restore Edward V to the throne, it was done to place Henry there in place of his not-yet future brother-in-law. Supporting Tudor in 1485 made perfect sense for a France worried about what might happen while a minor sat on its' throne. If Henry's attempt made good, then there would be someone on England's throne who owed where they were to France. If Henry decided to ignore who'd placed him where he was, there'd almost certainly be opposition to him that could be supported just as he had been. If Richard won, there'd likely be another round of attainders creating yet another group of people possibly amenable to French help. At any rate, while Richard was dealing with invasion and its' aftermath, he'd have no time to consider the Plantagenet claims to the French throne. Doug Hilary wrote: Doug FWIW I think the French knew a lot about the instability of English Protectorates. They had seen the fall of Humphrey of Gloucester once his brother was dead - in fact the presence of an English child heir had helped turn the tide of war in their favour. Does make you wonder why they supported HT if they thought an English child could be re-instated; unless they thought that those child/children were dead?
--
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] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-06 11:11:37
Hilary Jones
Yes indeed the English Kings always signed themselves Kings of France. As you probably know, it was all to do with Salic Law which said a woman could not inherit. Had she been able to, then Isabella, wife of Edward II, was true Queen of France. (For a good understanding of this came about read Druon's "Les Rois Maudits" (Accursed Kings) - it's a long work of fiction but extremely good). Today no doubt the matter would have been decided at the European Court :) :)
I think you're being generous in assuming that everyone automatically towed the line. If Hastings did go over to the dark side of Louis then he wouldn't be the first one. Warwick did exactly the same when he was snubbed by Edward. And in both cases the cause would have been the influence of the Woodvilles.
I would imagine one problem with Edward was that you couldn't automatically assume which way he would jump. You would have expected him to support his sister, Richard and George did. Unfortunately if you did misjudge him you got your knuckles rapped which was a humiliation in itself. H


On Wednesday, 5 December 2018, 19:21:24 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Oh, it's not that I don't think Louis didn't want Calais back and wasn't working to get it, just that until he had it in his hot little hands (so to speak), the captaincy wasn't his to give or even make promises about. The pensions received bb Edward IV, Hastings and others weren't in exchange for Calais, they were, basically, protection money  offered by Louis, and taken by Edward et al, in lieu of fighting. Edward gave up nothing when he accepted that pension that I know of; well, except the possibility of losing battles and ending up worse off than when he started. OTOH, for Hastings to make any deals with Louis over Calais would constitute Hastings agreeing Calais was French and belonged to France. To the best of my knowledge, the English position, officially anyway, was still that France belonged to England, or at least to the English king. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, well if the French took back Calais, as they were working on taking back Burgundy and Brittany and 're-uniting' France then,. why not retain the guy who knew it best? It's only like the Spanish and Gibralter or Argentina and the Falklands. And Calais is on their mainland and a vital trade route. The reason that the Readeption failed is that the London merchants refused to transfer their trade routes from the Hansa to France.. That was Louis's big aim in backing MOA and Warwick then. It was the key to the agreement. He always had a motive, usually involving gaining land - or money.
--
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

2018-12-06 11:16:29
Paul Trevor Bale
Absolutely. It's called Louis XI le Pouvoir fracassé, and the actor playing Louis, Jacques Perrin, is chillingly like his portraits. I have it on DVD, but it has no subtitles. I watch most things with French subtitles now, unless the films are in English of course! Just checked on amazon.fr and even the DVD it has no subtitles. Most things now have subtitles for the deaf or hard of hearing. There are even some cinema showings with French subtitles which with some movies I need, especially when the accents are broad, like Occitane or Marseilles in particular!Costumes and locations as in all French historical productions are superb and accurate.
Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 6 Dec 2018, at 11:11, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Paul forgot to ask. Isn't there a brilliant French film on the last days of Louis XI which includes his interaction with Anne? I'm sure I've seen a clip from it (the costumes looked good) but could never recall its name. H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 10:01:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


Just found this Paul. Absolutely! And of course Anne of Beaujeu came to deeply regret that involvement with HT!
The bit i was thinking about is June 1483, when Louis was still alive. As you say, a deeply paranoid person, he'd remember that young man who'd stormed away (despite his gift of horses) and any chance of him getting anywhere near ruling England would need to be 'discouraged' in whatever way it could.. H
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018, 16:42:52 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

So France had little time to worry about what was going on in England. In fact after Picquiny in 1475 France had stopped worrying about any English threat and wouldn't again until all of a sudden the young man who had stormed away from Picquiny in a fit of peak after refusing to engage in the same deal as his brother Edward did, suddenly was king, with no love for France unless he was perhaps ruling it! Hence the infamous comment in their parliament around late 1483 about how Richard had become king over the bodies of his nephews, based on no facts whatsoever, but France doing its best to make Richard look bad in case he was thinking of invading. As if he didn't have enough on his plate without that! Anne Of Beaujeu had enough of her father in her to pull no punches. She is still considered something of a good thing in France, as she ruled from 1483 until her brother came of age in 1491. French help for Tudor, or lack of it, was Anne playing the game of thrones with England along the lines her father had taught her. Incredibly intelligent and very strong willed, Anne effectively ruled as monarch, while her husband played house husband if such a thing were possible at that time.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 déc. 2018 à 16:28, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :


Hilary,I can certainly imagine the French dabbling in English affairs, the important question/s would be How deeply and When did that dabbling begin, wouldn't it?Edward IV's death came as a surprise, as far as we know, to the English, so I seriously doubt it wasn't also a surprise to the French. I also doubt the French had any greater understanding of the powers and authority of a Protector of England who was also Constable, than most modern historians, so that could support your idea that the French feared what Richard might do, simultaneously holding both positions. But that would also mean, wouldn't it, that to a great extent the French were reacting to events and not shaping them? IOW, they may have helped stir the pot, but it was already on the fire and bubbling away before they ever got involved.Once the Pre-Contract became known to the members of the Council, it would quickly become known to the French and provide them with even more ammunition for their rumor mill.Doug Hilary wrote:Can I add one tiny thing to all this?We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet deadIt doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French!So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?le I can seeSo I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H
--
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] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-06 11:18:56
Paul Trevor Bale
Les Rois Maudits has been down twice on French television. In spite of the latter having Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu in it the original series is best. Superb in fact. Like the book though, very long!
Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 6 Dec 2018, at 12:11, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes indeed the English Kings always signed themselves Kings of France. As you probably know, it was all to do with Salic Law which said a woman could not inherit. Had she been able to, then Isabella, wife of Edward II, was true Queen of France. (For a good understanding of this came about read Druon's "Les Rois Maudits" (Accursed Kings) - it's a long work of fiction but extremely good). Today no doubt the matter would have been decided at the European Court :) :)
I think you're being generous in assuming that everyone automatically towed the line. If Hastings did go over to the dark side of Louis then he wouldn't be the first one. Warwick did exactly the same when he was snubbed by Edward. And in both cases the cause would have been the influence of the Woodvilles.
I would imagine one problem with Edward was that you couldn't automatically assume which way he would jump. You would have expected him to support his sister, Richard and George did. Unfortunately if you did misjudge him you got your knuckles rapped which was a humiliation in itself. H


On Wednesday, 5 December 2018, 19:21:24 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,Oh, it's not that I don't think Louis didn't want Calais back and wasn't working to get it, just that until he had it in his hot little hands (so to speak), the captaincy wasn't his to give or even make promises about.The pensions received bb Edward IV, Hastings and others weren't in exchange for Calais, they were, basically, protection money  offered by Louis, and taken by Edward et al, in lieu of fighting. Edward gave up nothing when he accepted that pension that I know of; well, except the possibility of losing battles and ending up worse off than when he started. OTOH, for Hastings to make any deals with Louis over Calais would constitute Hastings agreeing Calais was French and belonged to France. To the best of my knowledge, the English position, officially anyway, was still that France belonged to England, or at least to the English king.Doug Hilary wrote:Hi, well if the French took back Calais, as they were working on taking back Burgundy and Brittany and 're-uniting' France then,. why not retain the guy who knew it best? It's only like the Spanish and Gibralter or Argentina and the Falklands. And Calais is on their mainland and a vital trade route. The reason that the Readeption failed is that the London merchants refused to transfer their trade routes from the Hansa to France.. That was Louis's big aim in backing MOA and Warwick then. It was the key to the agreement. He always had a motive, usually involving gaining land - or money.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-06 16:49:36
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I do think the circumstances of Duke Humphrey were somewhat different. For a start, he had his much more popular older brother John who at times kept him in check by making sure the Council clipped his wings. Must have been a pain in the neck. Secondly, he was of a different disposition to Richard, a scholarly man in an age when England was celebrating warfare. And thirdly, he was Protector of a child who would take a long time to come to manhood. And on top of all this he had the Beauforts (!!) and the reputation of his wife to contend with. So poor Humphrey didn't stand much of a chance. Doug here: I was very surprised to see just how much influence and power the Beauforts held at that point in time! FWIW, I get the impression that Humphrey was chosen for the job of Protector possibly because his brother felt Humphrey was the least likely person to try any hanky-panky and make a grab for the throne while Henry VI was still a toddler. Perhaps I'm just too cynical? Hilary continued: Richard, on the other hand, seems to have been welcomed by all but the Woodvilles. If the Council hadn't wanted him they had the perfect opportunity to condemn him for the arrest of Rivers, and indeed the death of Hastings, but they didn't. In fact they endorsed his kingship. I think this endorsement is often under-rated, as though they were helpless pawns. The English tend not to rebel but if they dissent they can really dig in their heels. Every senior bishop was on that Council and could have appealed to the Pope - excommunication is no small thing! There were enough senior magnates too to have caused a real fuss - yet we know Percy and Stanley, two of the biggest ones, lent their support, let alone Howard, Suffolk and Arundel. Doug here: I wonder if the Council's agreeing to Hastings' execution wasn't partly because they hadn't agreed earlier when Richard wanted to try Rivers & Co. for attempting to murder the Constable and Protector-designate? Gee, maybe it wasn't Richard being paranoid after all, and the Woodvilles were trying to kill Richard? As for the Council members being portrayed as helpless pawns in later histories; that was necessary in order to blacken Richard's reputation and thus justify Tudor's usurpation. I'm in complete agreement with you that, had the major magnates and bishops been against Richard assuming the throne, Edward V would have remained on it. Which, come to think of it, is yet another point in favor of the Pre-Contract being real. Unless someone wants to try and claim that every member of that Council except Morton were liars and were willing to not only perjure themselves, but risk their immortal souls? Hilary continued: I agree there is a difference between the HT events of 1483 and 1485 which is why I think we could do with knowing more. Was HT under threat of possible 'eviction' from Brittany; there is something about his voyage then which smacks of a bit of desperation? Do you know any more, David? It's unfortunate that Penn's very good biography of HT starts so late - this bit needs filling in.. We know of course that the English had made several deputations to Brittany. So what had changed? Need to look. Doug here: I think, and I could certainly be mistaken in this, that HT was viewed by the rulers of Brittany as a card to be played against France. If the Breton rulers were able to turn Tudor over to Richard, they could use that as a threat against the French. Something along the lines of Leave us alone or Tudor goes to England and Richard is free to invade France if he wants, but likely expressed much more eloquently. OTOH, possession of Tudor also gave the Bretons a card to play with Richard We'll keep Tudor nice and safe and out of England; and in return we'll need England's support against France. If Tudor was ever to be physically turned over to the English, IMO anyway, it would have been part of a some treaty of alliance. Hilary concluded: Finally, the minority in France was quite different - see Paul's post. Louis had trained his daughter Anne for years.She was one talented formidable lady who actually made herself popular by reversing some of Louis's more unpopular decisions. And of course he was the King's sister - and a woman, so no threat! France undoubtedly had its own agenda and it was the 'nuisance' factor of the English, rather than necessarily fear of invasion I reckon that encouraged them to cause mischief here. Imagine the English King trying to invade Wales or Scotland and the French hopping across the channel and causing mayhem. Which of course exactly what HT and his naval commander Daubeny would do. Doug here: The Capetian line of French kings seemed to have had a master plan for uniting France and, through the centuries, managed to carry it out, didn't they? They'd already kicked the English out of all their Plantagenet possessions, annexed half of medieval Burgundy (Franche-Comte) and were working on getting the remainder. That left the English at Calais and its' environs, the kingdom of Navarre and duchy of Brittany yet to be gathered in. It looks to me as if what the French did was to, bit by bit, remove any cause for English intervention in what Paris considered to be French affairs. So, to distract the English from what the French were trying to accomplish in Brittany (annex it), they set Tudor loose to try his luck, tossing in money and ships to help. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-06 16:58:09
Doug Stamate
Paul, It rather looks though as if Anne of Beaujeu thought it worthwhile to spend a few ecus sending Tudor off in 1485. If he won, there was the chance he might allow that assistance to color his dealings with France; if he was more hard-headed, there was a good chance he'd be busy putting down rebellions and creating more enemies via attainders. OTOH, if Richard defeated Tudor, then he would have to deal with the after-effects of executions and attainders. In any case, it would almost certainly rule out any dabbling in French affairs by the English. I think... Doug Paul wrote: The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne. So France had little time to worry about what was going on in England. In fact after Picquiny in 1475 France had stopped worrying about any English threat and wouldn't again until all of a sudden the young man who had stormed away from Picquiny in a fit of peak after refusing to engage in the same deal as his brother Edward did, suddenly was king, with no love for France unless he was perhaps ruling it! Hence the infamous comment in their parliament around late 1483 about how Richard had become king over the bodies of his nephews, based on no facts whatsoever, but France doing its best to make Richard look bad in case he was thinking of invading. As if he didn't have enough on his plate without that! Anne Of Beaujeu had enough of her father in her to pull no punches. She is still considered something of a good thing in France, as she ruled from 1483 until her brother came of age in 1491. French help for Tudor, or lack of it, was Anne playing the game of thrones with England along the lines her father had taught her. Incredibly intelligent and very strong willed, Anne effectively ruled as monarch, while her husband played house husband if such a thing were possible at that time.
--
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} [Richard

2018-12-06 22:16:36
justcarol67
Hilary wrote :

"Doug, I suppose my biggest problem with all this is the assumption that there would be this automatic loyalty to Edward IV's son. I think it's very Victorian, very Tennyson, very Arthurian. It's what led me to look at the 1483 rebels, who some claim to be 'Edwardian Yorkists'. As you know, I found plenty of Woodville Yorkists, and even some Clarence Yorkists, and dare I say it the odd HT supporter, but Edwardian Yorkists - no!"

Carol responds:

Sorry to snip the rest of your post, but it seems to indicate that you take "Edwardian Yorkists" to mean supporters of Edward V. I don't know about anyone else, but I use it to mean former supporters of Edward IV who for whatever reason did not extend their Yorkist loyalty to Richard III--among them, William Stanley. It would include any officials actually displaced by Richard, and those who feared displacement by him. Another Edwardian Yorkist in my sense of the term would be Thomas St. Leger (executed by Richard after the October 1483 rebellion). These people might support EV as the "legitimate" but could also be persuaded to support HT if he promised to marry EoY. These people had accepted the House of York and Edward, but either they didn't see Richard as the legitimate heir or (more likely) they didn't think his election suited their own (financial) interests. I think if we look at the list of 1483 we can probably find quite a few ostensible (or former) Yorkists among them (people Richard would be more likely to regard as traitors than diehard Lancastrians like Oxford, who of course was not involved directly in the 1483 rebellion). And, of course, we have Croyland's word (for what it's worth) that many of the rebels initially intended to reestablish Edward V (not through loyalty to a boy none of them knew but through hope of a continuation of Edward IV's policies and appointments.

By the way, can anyone tell me what exactly constitutes a rebellion? If subjects are up in arms, whom are they taking arms against? Obviously, not the king himself if the rebellion is in, say, Kent, and the king is in Westminster. I know it seems like a silly question, but after seeing the French riots on TV, I started wondering how medieval subjects, whether of Richard, Edward, or the Henrys, took out their frustrations.

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-12-06 23:03:49
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Richard arrests Hastings, who in the ensuing fracas also accuses Stanley, who is reported to have been injured. Stanley does the usual 'Stanley flip' but a day or two later suggests Morton should be put in the care of Buckingham who will be 'guided' by Morton to his own destruction."

Carol responds:

It's only later sources that mention Stanley as involved in the scuffle. Neither Croyland nor Mancini mentions him (nor for that matter is he mentioned in the Stonor letter). I think it's Vergil who has him injured (can't have HT's loyal father-in-law supporting the "usurper Richard!).

Richard's actions in the letter you cited and in making Stanley Constable in Buckingham's place clearly show that A) Stanley (and his son, George) supported Richard's election as king and helped to oppose Buckingham et al., presumably extending that support to Titulus Regius in the January Parliament, and B) Richard had good reason to trust him.

Something happened later (in my view, probably the loss of Richard's heir, which would have destabilized his reign, especially when followed so closely by the loss of his wife) and tempt him to consider switching his support to HT. MB's voice in his ear was no doubt a factor, but self-interest seems to have been his primary motive. Support Richard while he looks strong--as he did until about April 1484--and continue to *seem* to support him while considering other options until Tudor's successful invasion of Wales. He may even have weighed his options during the battle--go with the one who seems to be winning, whether it's the king who has rewarded you or your claimless son-in-law if God (or luck) seems to be on his side.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-06 23:56:38
justcarol67

Mary wrote:

"As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham and possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him?"

Carol responds:

Mancini (who of course believes that Hastings et al. are innocent victims) says that Richard through Buckingham had "sounded the... loyalty" of Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham (Stanley is not mentioned) and found that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses." He also notes that Morton "had been trained in party intrigue" since Henry VI's reign. If we look only at those words and not at Mancini's assumption that Richard wants to remove anyone who stands in the way of his intended "usurpation," it appears that there might well have been a plot and it may have been Buckingham who revealed it.

Mancini has Richard claim after Hastings's death that "an ambush had been prepared for him" and that the perpetrators had "come with hidden arms." Again, if this claim is true (Mancini thinks it's a cover-up for judicial murder), it would seem that Buckingham's revelation saved Richard's life (and his own), which would explain the rich rewards that Richard gave him.

If we look past Mancini's biases, assumptions, and flawed chronology (and his ignorance of English law--he thinks Richard is the regent), we can sometimes find what may be the truth or something close to it.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-12-07 10:58:08
Hilary Jones
Hi Carol, to start with your last question first substitute the word 'protest' for rebellion. This means it doesn't have to take place in the seat of government. For example, one of the big rebellions during the French Revolution was in La Vendee in 1793. That's on the coast. They can spring up wherever people feel aggrieved, or where they have been orchestrated by someone else, which is what certainly happened in 1483.
For example, you talk about Thomas St Leger, but he was bang in the middle of the Kentish rebels, several of whom were sent out to orchestrate rebellions elsewhere He was sent to stir up dissent in Exeter, Devon, his brother Bartholomew in Torrington, Devon. The Cheneys from Kent were sent to stir up trouble in Salisbury. Of the 164 active rebels, 55 came from areas other than that in which they were rebelling and 118 were either blood relatives of each other or their servants. And for Kent read Woodville. This is EW's one last clutch at power. The one exception is Newbury which involved quite a few Clarence supporters - needs further investigation.
The other difference is that, despite what Croyland says (and he was clearly the Fake News of the day) there was no declared aim. On the one hand they are supposedly rebelling to restore the boy king; on the other he's supposedly been dead since June. You can't have it both ways. I agree with what you say about things being driven by self-interest, but even Horrox points out that Richard went out of his way to appoint former servants of Edward. We now know that Sir Thomas Stanley and Percy supported Richard from the start. And we have that in Richard's own declaration.
I just think this whole loyalty to Edward and his son is a very Victorian invention - who would want the instability of the early years of Henry VI? In fact only yesterday I was looking at the forward to Wedgewood's book on the History of Parliament which claimed that Richard's hands were even more blood-stained than those of King John because he killed two children, not one. We are back in the days of Little Nell; except the Victorians conveniently forgot that they were sending little boys up chimneys and under looms.
H (who for her sins spent a year studying the Revolutions of 1848)
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 22:16:43 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote :


"Doug, I suppose my biggest problem with all this is the assumption that there would be this automatic loyalty to Edward IV's son. I think it's very Victorian, very Tennyson, very Arthurian. It's what led me to look at the 1483 rebels, who some claim to be 'Edwardian Yorkists'. As you know, I found plenty of Woodville Yorkists, and even some Clarence Yorkists, and dare I say it the odd HT supporter, but Edwardian Yorkists - no!"

Carol responds:

Sorry to snip the rest of your post, but it seems to indicate that you take "Edwardian Yorkists" to mean supporters of Edward V. I don't know about anyone else, but I use it to mean former supporters of Edward IV who for whatever reason did not extend their Yorkist loyalty to Richard III--among them, William Stanley. It would include any officials actually displaced by Richard, and those who feared displacement by him. Another Edwardian Yorkist in my sense of the term would be Thomas St. Leger (executed by Richard after the October 1483 rebellion). These people might support EV as the "legitimate" but could also be persuaded to support HT if he promised to marry EoY. These people had accepted the House of York and Edward, but either they didn't see Richard as the legitimate heir or (more likely) they didn't think his election suited their own (financial) interests. I think if we look at the list of 1483 we can probably find quite a few ostensible (or former) Yorkists among them (people Richard would be more likely to regard as traitors than diehard Lancastrians like Oxford, who of course was not involved directly in the 1483 rebellion). And, of course, we have Croyland's word (for what it's worth) that many of the rebels initially intended to reestablish Edward V (not through loyalty to a boy none of them knew but through hope of a continuation of Edward IV's policies and appointments.

By the way, can anyone tell me what exactly constitutes a rebellion? If subjects are up in arms, whom are they taking arms against? Obviously, not the king himself if the rebellion is in, say, Kent, and the king is in Westminster. I know it seems like a silly question, but after seeing the French riots on TV, I started wondering how medieval subjects, whether of Richard, Edward, or the Henrys, took out their frustrations.

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-07 11:00:59
Hilary Jones
I'll see if I can find it and give it a go Paul - that's how I knew it was about Louis XI, I recognised him! I read French fluently but I was brought up in the school that thought that De Gaulle's pronunciation was the norm. But he was giving speeches - slowly - not ordering a baguette :) :) H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 11:16:36 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Absolutely. It's called Louis XI le Pouvoir fracassé, and the actor playing Louis, Jacques Perrin, is chillingly like his portraits. I have it on DVD, but it has no subtitles. I watch most things with French subtitles now, unless the films are in English of course! Just checked on amazon.fr and even the DVD it has no subtitles. Most things now have subtitles for the deaf or hard of hearing. There are even some cinema showings with French subtitles which with some movies I need, especially when the accents are broad, like Occitane or Marseilles in particular!

Costumes and locations as in all French historical productions are superb and accurate.
Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 6 Dec 2018, at 11:11, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Paul forgot to ask. Isn't there a brilliant French film on the last days of Louis XI which includes his interaction with Anne? I'm sure I've seen a clip from it (the costumes looked good) but could never recall its name. H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 10:01:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:


Just found this Paul. Absolutely! And of course Anne of Beaujeu came to deeply regret that involvement with HT!
The bit i was thinking about is June 1483, when Louis was still alive. As you say, a deeply paranoid person, he'd remember that young man who'd stormed away (despite his gift of horses) and any chance of him getting anywhere near ruling England would need to be 'discouraged' in whatever way it could.. H
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018, 16:42:52 GMT, Paul Trevor bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

The thing to remember about this period is that the Universal Spider, Louis XI, had just died, leaving a young boy as heir, 13 year old Charles, under the Regency of his sister Anne.

So France had little time to worry about what was going on in England. In fact after Picquiny in 1475 France had stopped worrying about any English threat and wouldn't again until all of a sudden the young man who had stormed away from Picquiny in a fit of peak after refusing to engage in the same deal as his brother Edward did, suddenly was king, with no love for France unless he was perhaps ruling it! Hence the infamous comment in their parliament around late 1483 about how Richard had become king over the bodies of his nephews, based on no facts whatsoever, but France doing its best to make Richard look bad in case he was thinking of invading. As if he didn't have enough on his plate without that! Anne Of Beaujeu had enough of her father in her to pull no punches. She is still considered something of a good thing in France, as she ruled from 1483 until her brother came of age in 1491. French help for Tudor, or lack of it, was Anne playing the game of thrones with England along the lines her father had taught her. Incredibly intelligent and very strong willed, Anne effectively ruled as monarch, while her husband played house husband if such a thing were possible at that time.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 déc. 2018 à 16:28, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :


Hilary,I can certainly imagine the French dabbling in English affairs, the important question/s would be How deeply and When did that dabbling begin, wouldn't it?Edward IV's death came as a surprise, as far as we know, to the English, so I seriously doubt it wasn't also a surprise to the French. I also doubt the French had any greater understanding of the powers and authority of a Protector of England who was also Constable, than most modern historians, so that could support your idea that the French feared what Richard might do, simultaneously holding both positions. But that would also mean, wouldn't it, that to a great extent the French were reacting to events and not shaping them? IOW, they may have helped stir the pot, but it was already on the fire and bubbling away before they ever got involved.Once the Pre-Contract became known to the members of the Council, it would quickly become known to the French and provide them with even more ammunition for their rumor mill.Doug Hilary wrote:Can I add one tiny thing to all this?We mustn't forget the French . They had been 'trained' by us in the Hundred Years' War that rumour could cause enormous upheaval/discontent everywhere, enough to de-stablise a regime. When you read the Parliament Rolls and the CFR for May 1483 things seem to be settling down - calm even. Offices are given out (yes including that enormous one to Buckingham), the business of government is being set up, preparations are being made for the Coronation. There's no indication of the chaos which is to ensure in mid-June. Louis XI isn't yet deadIt doesn't necessarily suit the French to have such calm in England. Louis knew what manner of man Edward had been. He knew Richard had opposed the English withdrawal and pension (now withdrawn of course). Even as Protector (and currently Constable) Richard could have enough power and influence to revive the old French claim, particularly if they put a foot out of line elsewhere, such as Burgundy and the Low Countries. And we know they were intending to do that. No, another Henry V didn't suit the French!So it's pretty easy to put rumours round London - 'who's seen the boys lately?', 'is Richard intending to move the centre of Government to York?', 'is Buckingham going to be King of Wales?'. You can imagine all this getting the London merchant classes going. How's it going to effect the economy? Nothing really changes does it?le I can seeSo I think in any group of meddlers youv'e got to include the French. H
--
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] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-07 11:03:29
Hilary Jones
I saw the whole of the first which I think was in black and white? The bit about the Templars was very chilling. I never go to Chinon without looking at 'that island' and shuddering. I just caught the last bit of the second. It was good and the costumes superb. Yes very long book (s). Better to see if you can. H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 11:19:46 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Les Rois Maudits has been down twice on French television. In spite of the latter having Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu in it the original series is best. Superb in fact. Like the book though, very long!


Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 6 Dec 2018, at 12:11, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes indeed the English Kings always signed themselves Kings of France. As you probably know, it was all to do with Salic Law which said a woman could not inherit. Had she been able to, then Isabella, wife of Edward II, was true Queen of France. (For a good understanding of this came about read Druon's "Les Rois Maudits" (Accursed Kings) - it's a long work of fiction but extremely good). Today no doubt the matter would have been decided at the European Court :) :)
I think you're being generous in assuming that everyone automatically towed the line. If Hastings did go over to the dark side of Louis then he wouldn't be the first one. Warwick did exactly the same when he was snubbed by Edward. And in both cases the cause would have been the influence of the Woodvilles.
I would imagine one problem with Edward was that you couldn't automatically assume which way he would jump. You would have expected him to support his sister, Richard and George did. Unfortunately if you did misjudge him you got your knuckles rapped which was a humiliation in itself. H


On Wednesday, 5 December 2018, 19:21:24 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,Oh, it's not that I don't think Louis didn't want Calais back and wasn't working to get it, just that until he had it in his hot little hands (so to speak), the captaincy wasn't his to give or even make promises about.The pensions received bb Edward IV, Hastings and others weren't in exchange for Calais, they were, basically, protection money  offered by Louis, and taken by Edward et al, in lieu of fighting. Edward gave up nothing when he accepted that pension that I know of; well, except the possibility of losing battles and ending up worse off than when he started. OTOH, for Hastings to make any deals with Louis over Calais would constitute Hastings agreeing Calais was French and belonged to France. To the best of my knowledge, the English position, officially anyway, was still that France belonged to England, or at least to the English king.Doug Hilary wrote:Hi, well if the French took back Calais, as they were working on taking back Burgundy and Brittany and 're-uniting' France then,. why not retain the guy who knew it best? It's only like the Spanish and Gibralter or Argentina and the Falklands. And Calais is on their mainland and a vital trade route. The reason that the Readeption failed is that the London merchants refused to transfer their trade routes from the Hansa to France.. That was Louis's big aim in backing MOA and Warwick then. It was the key to the agreement. He always had a motive, usually involving gaining land - or money.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-07 11:25:51
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, I agree with what you say about Duke Humphrey. He was by all accounts a nice guy, someone who has been appreciated much more in later centuries than he was at the time. Like Edward II (and I don't mean on grounds of sexuality) he didn't fit the established model of a royal prince and he'd had three brothers who did Throw in the Beaufort power-grabbers and a 'witch' wife and it's a wonder he survived as long as he did. And, as you say, not the sort to plan a coup.
Since I've been on this forum I've thought long and hard over the Pre-Contract. When I first joined I must admit that, despite JAH's 'Eleanor I was sceptical. I always believed that Richard believed in it, but I wasn't sure it hadn't been manufactured by others to get the country out of the risk imposed by a Woodville heir. I am coming more and more to your conclusion. If it had been manufactured, perhaps with the knowledge of some and not of others then those others would require proof. There's no way they would have taken such a huge step and put their souls at peril without it. The odd one might, of course, but you have people like Bourchier, who are old, have reached the top and have absolutely nothing to gain. And Bourchier is faced with having to crown someone (Richard) he knows may not be the rightful king. It just doesn't ring right. And then you have Stillington who was reporting the Archbishop of York to the Pope when he was in his thirties. Would he hesitate to do it over something as severe as this? So i now believe - I just don't believe Stillington was a witness.
I thing your last paragraph sums up the France/Brittany situation brilliantly! H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 16:50:24 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I do think the circumstances of Duke Humphrey were somewhat different.. For a start, he had his much more popular older brother John who at times kept him in check by making sure the Council clipped his wings. Must have been a pain in the neck. Secondly, he was of a different disposition to Richard, a scholarly man in an age when England was celebrating warfare. And thirdly, he was Protector of a child who would take a long time to come to manhood. And on top of all this he had the Beauforts (!!) and the reputation of his wife to contend with. So poor Humphrey didn't stand much of a chance. Doug here: I was very surprised to see just how much influence and power the Beauforts held at that point in time! FWIW, I get the impression that Humphrey was chosen for the job of Protector possibly because his brother felt Humphrey was the least likely person to try any hanky-panky and make a grab for the throne while Henry VI was still a toddler. Perhaps I'm just too cynical? Hilary continued: Richard, on the other hand, seems to have been welcomed by all but the Woodvilles. If the Council hadn't wanted him they had the perfect opportunity to condemn him for the arrest of Rivers, and indeed the death of Hastings, but they didn't. In fact they endorsed his kingship. I think this endorsement is often under-rated, as though they were helpless pawns. The English tend not to rebel but if they dissent they can really dig in their heels. Every senior bishop was on that Council and could have appealed to the Pope - excommunication is no small thing! There were enough senior magnates too to have caused a real fuss - yet we know Percy and Stanley, two of the biggest ones, lent their support, let alone Howard, Suffolk and Arundel. Doug here: I wonder if the Council's agreeing to Hastings' execution wasn't partly because they hadn't agreed earlier when Richard wanted to try Rivers & Co. for attempting to murder the Constable and Protector-designate? Gee, maybe it wasn't Richard being paranoid after all, and the Woodvilles were trying to kill Richard? As for the Council members being portrayed as helpless pawns in later histories; that was necessary in order to blacken Richard's reputation and thus justify Tudor's usurpation. I'm in complete agreement with you that, had the major magnates and bishops been against Richard assuming the throne, Edward V would have remained on it. Which, come to think of it, is yet another point in favor of the Pre-Contract being real. Unless someone wants to try and claim that every member of that Council except Morton were liars and were willing to not only perjure themselves, but risk their immortal souls? Hilary continued: I agree there is a difference between the HT events of 1483 and 1485 which is why I think we could do with knowing more. Was HT under threat of possible 'eviction' from Brittany; there is something about his voyage then which smacks of a bit of desperation? Do you know any more, David? It's unfortunate that Penn's very good biography of HT starts so late - this bit needs filling in.. We know of course that the English had made several deputations to Brittany. So what had changed? Need to look. Doug here: I think, and I could certainly be mistaken in this, that HT was viewed by the rulers of Brittany as a card to be played against France. If the Breton rulers were able to turn Tudor over to Richard, they could use that as a threat against the French. Something along the lines of Leave us alone or Tudor goes to England and Richard is free to invade France if he wants, but likely expressed much more eloquently. OTOH, possession of Tudor also gave the Bretons a card to play with Richard We'll keep Tudor nice and safe and out of England; and in return we'll need England's support against France. If Tudor was ever to be physically turned over to the English, IMO anyway, it would have been part of a some treaty of alliance. Hilary concluded: Finally, the minority in France was quite different - see Paul's post. Louis had trained his daughter Anne for years.She was one talented formidable lady who actually made herself popular by reversing some of Louis's more unpopular decisions. And of course he was the King's sister - and a woman, so no threat! France undoubtedly had its own agenda and it was the 'nuisance' factor of the English, rather than necessarily fear of invasion I reckon that encouraged them to cause mischief here. Imagine the English King trying to invade Wales or Scotland and the French hopping across the channel and causing mayhem. Which of course exactly what HT and his naval commander Daubeny would do. Doug here: The Capetian line of French kings seemed to have had a master plan for uniting France and, through the centuries, managed to carry it out, didn't they? They'd already kicked the English out of all their Plantagenet possessions, annexed half of medieval Burgundy (Franche-Comte) and were working on getting the remainder. That left the English at Calais and its' environs, the kingdom of Navarre and duchy of Brittany yet to be gathered in. It looks to me as if what the French did was to, bit by bit, remove any cause for English intervention in what Paris considered to be French affairs. So, to distract the English from what the French were trying to accomplish in Brittany (annex it), they set Tudor loose to try his luck, tossing in money and ships to help. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-12-07 11:44:00
Hilary Jones
Yes re your last paragraph Carol I do wonder if there is a scenario where Richard and his household set off on their charge, Stanley sees/hears that Richard is unhorsed (and therefore likely at best to be defeated at worst to die) and has to make the lightening decision to save his own skin and charge in on behalf of HT. I don't know enough about the battle to know if that's a possibility, or indeed about the actions of Sir William either. H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 23:03:59 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"Richard arrests Hastings, who in the ensuing fracas also accuses Stanley, who is reported to have been injured. Stanley does the usual 'Stanley flip' but a day or two later suggests Morton should be put in the care of Buckingham who will be 'guided' by Morton to his own destruction."

Carol responds:

It's only later sources that mention Stanley as involved in the scuffle. Neither Croyland nor Mancini mentions him (nor for that matter is he mentioned in the Stonor letter). I think it's Vergil who has him injured (can't have HT's loyal father-in-law supporting the "usurper Richard!).

Richard's actions in the letter you cited and in making Stanley Constable in Buckingham's place clearly show that A) Stanley (and his son, George) supported Richard's election as king and helped to oppose Buckingham et al., presumably extending that support to Titulus Regius in the January Parliament, and B) Richard had good reason to trust him.

Something happened later (in my view, probably the loss of Richard's heir, which would have destabilized his reign, especially when followed so closely by the loss of his wife) and tempt him to consider switching his support to HT. MB's voice in his ear was no doubt a factor, but self-interest seems to have been his primary motive. Support Richard while he looks strong--as he did until about April 1484--and continue to *seem* to support him while considering other options until Tudor's successful invasion of Wales. He may even have weighed his options during the battle--go with the one who seems to be winning, whether it's the king who has rewarded you or your claimless son-in-law if God (or luck) seems to be on his side.

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-07 11:48:04
Hilary Jones
I agree with your last paragraph Carol!
Just one point, Buckingham already had the huge reward of custodianship of Wales and the Marches given to him on 16 May, nearly a month before this happened. This was actually when most of the Offices were affirmed or re-affirmed. A assume you are meaning the 'Constable' job? I suppose after Hastings' death there were few left to fill it? H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 23:56:44 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:


Mary wrote:

"As for being set up I think there is something about him meeting Morton and Buckingham and possibly Stanley in the days before the 13th. What if he had gone to talk about the ongoing situation and then one of them possibly Buckingham or Stanley told Richard there was a plot to kill him?"

Carol responds:

Mancini (who of course believes that Hastings et al. are innocent victims) says that Richard through Buckingham had "sounded the... loyalty" of Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham (Stanley is not mentioned) and found that "sometimes they forgathered in each other's houses." He also notes that Morton "had been trained in party intrigue" since Henry VI's reign. If we look only at those words and not at Mancini's assumption that Richard wants to remove anyone who stands in the way of his intended "usurpation," it appears that there might well have been a plot and it may have been Buckingham who revealed it.

Mancini has Richard claim after Hastings's death that "an ambush had been prepared for him" and that the perpetrators had "come with hidden arms." Again, if this claim is true (Mancini thinks it's a cover-up for judicial murder), it would seem that Buckingham's revelation saved Richard's life (and his own), which would explain the rich rewards that Richard gave him.

If we look past Mancini's biases, assumptions, and flawed chronology (and his ignorance of English law--he thinks Richard is the regent), we can sometimes find what may be the truth or something close to it.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-07 18:59:27
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Poor Humphrey does seem to have been badly used (to say the least!), doesn't he? FWIW, if the Pre-Contract had been manufactured, there was nothing to stop Tudor from showing it up for being exactly that by having Parliament examine the person who made the Bill  Stillington, but that was the one thing Henry was absolutely determined not to do. Tudor, who tried to get out of marrying EoY and didn't have her crowned for what, more than a year after they were finally married, didn't want to hurt his wife's feelings? As they say  Puhlease! I also don't think Stillington was a witness to Edward and Eleanor's marriage, so the question becomes: What proofs could be provided that would sway, first the Royal Council, then the Three Estates and finally a regularly-constituted Parliament? Which is why, considering the age, I think it was some sort of death-bed admission and that admission was from one of the, at most, only three participants: Edward, Eleanor and possibly a priest who performed the ceremony. And that last person may not even have been there as my understanding is that simply saying I wed you or whatever its' equivalent would be, was enough to make a marriage valid. Which leads back to the proofs having possibly been provided by Eleanor herself in some form that all but guaranteed the veracity of the claim. Perhaps that's where Catesby or his family comes in? Doug Who, before I forget, also wants to thank you for the kind words about my summary! Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I agree with what you say about Duke Humphrey. He was by all accounts a nice guy, someone who has been appreciated much more in later centuries than he was at the time. Like Edward II (and I don't mean on grounds of sexuality) he didn't fit the established model of a royal prince and he'd had three brothers who did Throw in the Beaufort power-grabbers and a 'witch' wife and it's a wonder he survived as long as he did. And, as you say, not the sort to plan a coup. Since I've been on this forum I've thought long and hard over the Pre-Contract. When I first joined I must admit that, despite JAH's 'Eleanor I was sceptical. I always believed that Richard believed in it, but I wasn't sure it hadn't been manufactured by others to get the country out of the risk imposed by a Woodville heir. I am coming more and more to your conclusion. If it had been manufactured, perhaps with the knowledge of some and not of others then those others would require proof. There's no way they would have taken such a huge step and put their souls at peril without it. The odd one might, of course, but you have people like Bourchier, who are old, have reached the top and have absolutely nothing to gain. And Bourchier is faced with having to crown someone (Richard) he knows may not be the rightful king. It just doesn't ring right. And then you have Stillington who was reporting the Archbishop of York to the Pope when he was in his thirties. Would he hesitate to do it over something as severe as this? So i now believe - I just don't believe Stillington was a witness. I think your last paragraph sums up the France/Brittany situation brilliantly!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-07 19:24:27
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Doug, I don't know about the exact quarrel, if there was one, but the Hastings and Greys were bitter rivals in Leicestershire and Edward did seem to be smiling on Dorset once he came of age. Doug here: Well, that bit about Grey certainly gives Hastings reasons for his animosity to the Woodvilles, doesn't it? Hastings may also have viewed Dorset as a potential rival, someone who might replace him at the Mint and in Calais. FWIW, while a quarrel over a woman is exactly the sort of juicy gossip people like to repeat, quarrels over property and influence at Court sound more likely as a better reason. Perhaps it's me? Hilary continued: The mention of Edward does throw up another point about Buckingham though. Whatever Edward's lifestyle, he does seem to have worked incredibly hard right to the end. Ross affirms this and you can see it not only in the nationally held Rolls but also in local archives like the York House Books and the Coventry Leet Books. Edward's finger (and Richard's) was always on the pulse. In fact the job of a medieval king (and his deputies in the regions) wasn't just holding Court, dancing, chewing on chicken bones (as portrayed in so many films on Henry VIII) and fighting the odd battle. It was hours and hours and hours of administration - basically doing the job that the Civil Service do today. You really appreciate that when you trawl through the CPR, the CFR and the Parliament Rolls. No wonder the Tudors took on people like Wolsey and Cecil. Doug here: I can't recall where I read it, and I think it was in reference to Edward III, but a medieval monarch risked working himself to death unless he could find trust-worthy people to appoint as Lord Chamberlain, Lord Chancellor and Lord Treasurer. Even with people whom he could trust in those posts, a king still had to be involved in almost everything the government did. And contrary to modern beliefs, a government in the Middle Ages did do a lot. Part of the problem, I think, was that before Edward IV, only the upper nobility or bishops were considered appropriate to fill those important positions. It took a couple of centuries to discover that being a Duke or a bishop didn't automatically translate into competency at the Treasury or on the Bench. However, using bishops in so many positions was much sensible in that bishops could be appointed, and removed, much more easily, as their membership didn't consist only of offshoots of the nobility. A lot of them were from poor or middling families, weren't they? Hilary concluded: Now I don't think that would fit with Buckingham's lifestyle at all. We know he and his ancestors enjoyed parading round the country with the ducal retinue and running up debts. Imagine the first time Richard sends for him and asks him to fill him in on fishing rights on the River Dee (I'm making that up but Richard always had the fishgarths job in York) and then sends him off with another load of paperwork. A bit beneath our Harry, don't you think? And probably much too hard? Doug here: I think you may have gotten it right with that A bit beneath our Harry, don't you think? Stafford would be good as a front man, perhaps, but he doesn't seem to have taken any interest in his estates, except as they could provide him with money. Perhaps that was what turned Morton off his support of Buckingham? He discovered that Stafford would neither do those things necessary to managing a rebellion nor allow Morton to? Best leave while it was possible, then. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-12-07 21:55:38
justcarol67
Nico wrote:

"Anne[Duchess of Buckingham]'s loyalties may have been complex as she was closely associated with Jacquetta and carried EW's train at her coronation, but old allegiances can still bubble beneath the surface."

Carol responds:

I suspect that, given the death of her husband and serious injury of her son at the hands of the Lancastrians, that Anne remained staunchly Lancastrian. Her association with Jacquetta would have gone back to the days when Jacquetta was married to John, Duke of Bedford (younger brother of Henry V). The Woodvilles (and Greys) were also, of course, originally Lancastrian. Both EW's father and her first husband were Lancastrian knights. So there is really no conflict between her loyalty to EW (as opposed to her own nephew, Edward IV) and the original loyalty to the House of Lancaster (which made her a fit "keeper" for her sister Cecily and Cecily;s children after Ludlow).

Nico wrote:

"As for the marriage to Katherine Woodville, I'm am sceptical of the rumours that he disliked her personally. [snip] FWIW, I don't agree with a lot of Susan Higginbotham's interpretations, but she is good with facts about the Woodvilles, and this article was quite the best I have found on Buckingham's early life."

Carol responds:

I'm not entirely sure of Higginbotham's facts (and sources)--certainly any statement she makes about Richard is suspect. This is the first I've heard of Richard's supporters destroying documents, for example. I thought that was a Tudor tactic. It's also not certain that Humphrey Stafford died of the plague. He may have died of his inadequately treated battle wounds, or at least they would have been a factor in his failure to recover from his illness. As far as I know, no one else in the household seems to have died at that time, which would make plague an unlikely culprit. But the early loss of his father and missing father figure would have been important in shaping Buckingham's character, regardless.

I think she is right, though, about Katherine's age and "Harry's" upbringing by EW. She also makes an interesting point about Buckingham's marriage to Katherine as among the many causes of Warwick's resentment against the Woodvilles. He ("Harry") would have been about the right age to marry Anne. Imagine how different history would have been if that had happened!

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-07 22:29:52
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"I really want to know who instigated TR - was the Council as a whole just desperate for a way out of all this, but putting young Edward aside would bring with it the knowledge that Richard would continue to promote Buckingham and were they even willing to put up with that? Seems so."

Carol responds:

From what I understand, it wasn't the Council but the Three Estates (after the Council or Stillington or someone had informed them of the precontract) who initiated the petition to Richard to become king. Unlike the members of the Council, they would not have cared one way or the other about Buckingham's influence.

Although I firmly believe that E4's marriage to marriage Eleanor Talbot/Butler was real and that Stillington must have presented convincing evidence to the Three Estates or they would never have dared to present a petition deposing one king and electing another, I also think that many of them (like the Anglo-Saxons long before who set aside Edgar Atheling in favor of Harold Godwinson) much preferred a man of proven ability, integrity, and courage to an unknown child, who in this case had the additional disadvantage of having been raised by Woodvilles. "Woe to the land whose king is a child!" Even though few people would have remembered the minority of Henry VI some forty-five to sixty years earlier, everyone knew of and some had experienced the turmoil of Henry's adult years, including his so-called readeption in 1470-71.

TR (really the petition with a new preface) after all emphasizes not only the disqualifications of Edward's and George's children (and the irregularities of the Woodville "marriage" in addition to the previous marriage to Eleanor Butler) but Richard's own qualifications:

"Over this we consider how that You be the undoubted Son and Heir or Richard late Duke of York, very inheritor to the said Crown and Dignity Royal, and as is in right King of England, by way of Inheritance; and that at this time, the premises duly considered, there is no other person living but You only, that by Right may claim the said Crown and Dignity Royal, by way of Inheritance, and how that You be born within this Land; by reason whereof, as deem in our minds, You be more naturally inclined to the prosperity and common well-being of the same; and all the three Estates of the Land have, and may have, more certain knowledge of your Birth and Filiations above said. We consider also the great Wit, Prudence, Justice, Princely Courage, and the memorable and laudable Acts in diverse battles, which as we by experience know You heretofore have done, for the salvation and defence of this same Realm; and also the great dignity and excellence of your Birth and Blood, as of him that is descended of the three most Royal houses in Christendom, that is to say, England, France and Hispania.

"Wherefore, these promises by us diligently considered, we desiring effectively the peace, tranquillity, and well-being public of this Land, and the reduction of the same to the ancient honourable estate and prosperity, and having in your great Prudence, Justice, Princely Courage and excellent Virtue, singular confidence, have chosen in all that which in us is, and by this our Writing choose You, high and mighty Prince, into our King and Sovereign Lord etc., to whom we know for certain it belongs of inheritance so to be chosen."

In other words, they really wanted Richard (as opposed to EV) and strongly believed that he was the person best qualified to lead them. They must have felt that the discovery and revelation of EV's illegitimacy was a (literal) gift from God.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-08 01:02:07
justcarol67
Doug wrote:
I have some problems with your ...at the time of Hastings' death no-one knew that young Edward was to be put aside... We know that the Pre-Contract was public knowledge by 25 June because that was when the Three Estates offered the crown to Richard and their offer was based on it. We can move the date of the Pre-Contract being revealed back to 22 June when Shaa gave his sermon at St. Paul's Cross. What we don't have, as far as I know, is a date for when the subject was brought before the Council. In another post, based on the summons for Edward's coronation Parliament being issued on 13 May and subsequently being cancelled on an undetermined date, I suggested 27 May as a possibility."

Carol responds:

The Woodvilles had scheduled their impossibly early coronation for May 4 (the same day that EV arrived in London escorted by Richard). I'm not sure where you find the date of May 13, but according to Croyland, some time not long after May 4, the Council, after confirming Richard as Protector, rescheduled the coronation for "the Feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist" (June 24), a date that would give them time to prepare but without too long a wait. There was no cancellation of Parliament, however. (No writs had been sent out.)

There was almost certainly no discussion of the precontract during May and no postponements that month. Everything seemed to be proceeding smoothly toward the coronation on June 24 until June 10, when Richard wrote to York about the Woodville plot to assassinate him and Buckingham. That date was still in effect when, three days later, Hastings was executed (and Morton et al. arrested) for treason. Three days after that, the Archbishop of Canterbury secured the release of RoY (who, it appears from Stallworth's letter, was happy to come out of sanctuary). That same day, the coronation was again postponed, this time until November 9, and the Council apparently sent out a few letters cancelling the intended Parliament. Although it looks in hindsight as if they were reacting to Stillington's revelation, there were other reasons to postpone, including the recent plots against Richard (and Buckingham), EW's refusal to leave sanctuary, and possibly a general state of unrest in London following Hastings's execution.

It appears that Richard still considered himself to be in danger because on June 19 he sent out a proclamation to York ordering "all maner of men" to come to London to assist him in "subdewing, correctyng and punysshing" the Queen and her "blode" (blood) and other adherents who Intend to "murther and utterly distroi" Richard himself, Buckingham, and others of royal or noble blood, along with the "noble men of their companies." As you say, the sermon at Paul's Cross was ostensibly delivered on June 22 (though the Croyland chronicler mentions no sermons), and the London chroniclers all have Buckingham presenting Richard's claim to the throne on June 24. On June 25, Woodville, Grey, and Vaughn, were tried, found guilty, and executed by the Earl of Northumberland, who then went to London as ordered to support Richard against the Woodvilles. On June 26, the Three Estates presented their petition.

So, it seems to me that the revelation must have come on or just before June 16, and that Richard and the Council (including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had a prominent role in persuading EW to release RoY to Richard) weren't sure at first what to do. The first step had to be postponing--not cancelling--the coronation to give them time to consider the matter (and presumably examine the evidence). It was also essential to get RoY out of EW's hands so she couldn't plot to smuggle him out of sanctuary once she got word of the precontract. At about that point, Buckingham, Stillington, and perhaps Catesby may have begun pressuring Richard to take the throne himself. What his own thoughts were (he seems to have been preoccupied with the Woodville plots) is impossible to say. He may well have believed that he was better qualified to rule than EV (just as EIV was better qualified than Henry VI, whom he deposed), and he certainly had concerns for his own safety (and that of his family and close associates) under a Woodville regime. (I suspect that EW would have come out of sanctuary the moment her son was safely crowned.) But he probably also had qualms about deposing his brother's son. I doubt very much that his reluctance in receiving the petition was feigned.

Anyway, it's possible that the revelation of the precontract was made earlier than June 16 and that Hastings's treason had something to do with it, but I don't think so since the coronation had not yet been postponed and he would have had no reason to suspect Richard of planning to depose EV. It might have had something to do with the extended Protectorship advocated by Bishop Russell to keep the Woodvilles under control but more likely, in my view, to do with resentment of Buckingham's advancement.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-08 14:06:24
Paul Trevor bale
I think they showed the original on UK tv, and yes it was in b&w.

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 7 déc. 2018 à 12:03, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

I saw the whole of the first which I think was in black and white? The bit about the Templars was very chilling. I never go to Chinon without looking at 'that island' and shuddering. I just caught the last bit of the second. It was good and the costumes superb. Yes very long book (s). Better to see if you can. H
On Thursday, 6 December 2018, 11:19:46 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:

Les Rois Maudits has been down twice on French television. In spite of the latter having Jeanne Moreau and Gerard Depardieu in it the original series is best. Superb in fact. Like the book though, very long!


Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 6 Dec 2018, at 12:11, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes indeed the English Kings always signed themselves Kings of France. As you probably know, it was all to do with Salic Law which said a woman could not inherit. Had she been able to, then Isabella, wife of Edward II, was true Queen of France. (For a good understanding of this came about read Druon's "Les Rois Maudits" (Accursed Kings) - it's a long work of fiction but extremely good). Today no doubt the matter would have been decided at the European Court :) :)
I think you're being generous in assuming that everyone automatically towed the line. If Hastings did go over to the dark side of Louis then he wouldn't be the first one. Warwick did exactly the same when he was snubbed by Edward. And in both cases the cause would have been the influence of the Woodvilles.
I would imagine one problem with Edward was that you couldn't automatically assume which way he would jump. You would have expected him to support his sister, Richard and George did. Unfortunately if you did misjudge him you got your knuckles rapped which was a humiliation in itself. H


On Wednesday, 5 December 2018, 19:21:24 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,Oh, it's not that I don't think Louis didn't want Calais back and wasn't working to get it, just that until he had it in his hot little hands (so to speak), the captaincy wasn't his to give or even make promises about.The pensions received bb Edward IV, Hastings and others weren't in exchange for Calais, they were, basically, protection money  offered by Louis, and taken by Edward et al, in lieu of fighting. Edward gave up nothing when he accepted that pension that I know of; well, except the possibility of losing battles and ending up worse off than when he started. OTOH, for Hastings to make any deals with Louis over Calais would constitute Hastings agreeing Calais was French and belonged to France. To the best of my knowledge, the English position, officially anyway, was still that France belonged to England, or at least to the English king.Doug Hilary wrote:Hi, well if the French took back Calais, as they were working on taking back Burgundy and Brittany and 're-uniting' France then,. why not retain the guy who knew it best? It's only like the Spanish and Gibralter or Argentina and the Falklands. And Calais is on their mainland and a vital trade route. The reason that the Readeption failed is that the London merchants refused to transfer their trade routes from the Hansa to France.. That was Louis's big aim in backing MOA and Warwick then. It was the key to the agreement. He always had a motive, usually involving gaining land - or money.
--
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

2018-12-08 15:23:55
ricard1an
With regard to your paragraph on the TR Carol, it seems to me that they really knew the real Richard. No wonder Tudor wanted it destroyed unread. He couldn't hope to live up to that.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-08 15:30:16
justcarol67

Hilary wrote:

"So sorry folks, the summons is on 5 June and the Coronation on 22."

Carol responds:

I think the ceremony on June 22 was supposed to be the knighthood of several men in preparation for the coronation, which was planned for June 24. By the way, does anyone know what happened to those would-be knights? Were they knighted before Richard's coronation or "stood up at the altar," so to speak? Did any of them fight for (or against) Richard at Bosworth?

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-08 15:39:56
justcarol67



Mary wrote:

"'His lands in Kesteven were given to Hastings' with dower allowed to his widow Katherine Neville, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly wife of John Woodville"

Carol responds:

Wait. Hastings was married to the dowager duchess of Norfolk, who was about eighty when she married the twenty-year-old John Woodville in 1465? She would have been about ninety-eight in 1483! (I'm pretty sure that the marriage to Woodville was her last. It ended with his illegal execution by Warwick in 1469.)

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-12-08 19:22:51
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"Carol,

First off, it's nice to see you back!

The timeline I'm using is:

29 April  Rivers, Grey and Vaughan plan an ambush to kill Richard and Buckingham as they ride to meet Edward V at Stony Stratford.

13 May - Summons for Parliament issued. Hastings re-confirmed as Master of the Mint and Captain of Calais.

10 June - Richard sends a letter to York asking for help because the Woodvilles are plotting to kill him and Buckingham.

13 June  Hastings executed for treason, Morton taken into custody.

16 June  EW allows her son, Richard, to join his brother in the Royal Apartments in the Tower.

???????  Edward V's coronation cancelled, as are the summons to Parliament.

22 June  Original date for Edward V's coronation, Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's Cross

25 June  Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed.

26 June  Three Estates urge Richard to accept the crown, he agrees."


Carol responds:
Hi, Doug. Thank you. As you can see from my various posts, I was quite far behind. I've been working on my family's genealogy and sort of put Richard to one side for awhile.

My timeline (partially included in an earlier post) is:

May 4--Original date for EV's coronation as planned by the Woodvilles. Richard and EV arrive in London.

May 5-8 (?)--Richard confirmed as Protector, coronation scheduled for Saint John the Baptist's feast day (June 24), arrangements made to move EV to the Tower.

May 13--Summonses sent out for the Parliament on June 25 (finally found this reference in Kendall!).

June 9-- A letter from Richard to York in which all appears normal. Ditto for Stallworth's first letter to Stonor, in which he describes "great business" related to the coronation, scheduled for a fortnight later, which he says would be the 23rd (Croyland has 24th).

June 10--The letter from Richard to York asking for help against the Queen. (Letter received June 15. The mayor arranges to send 200 horsemen to the Earl of Northumberland in Pontefract arriving on June 22 and going from there to London.) Anne Neville arrives in London.

June 11: Richard sends a second, handwritten letter "in hast[e]" to Lord Neville, asking him personally for help (with details to be supplied by Richard Ratcliffe).

June 12--EV signs his last writ appointing a bishop.

June 13--Hastings executed; Morton and Rotherham arrested.

June 16--EW releases her younger son from sanctuary. Richard meets him at the door of the Star Chamber "with many lovynge wordys" (Stallworth). (The troops mentioned in several sources must have been supplied by Buckingham as the men of York and the Earl of Northumberland had not yet arrived.) That same day, the coronation is postponed to November 9 and the Parliament scheduled for June 25 is also postponed. (However, not many notes of cancellation seem to have been sent out given the number of people who showed up for the intended Parliament and coronation.)

June 19--Richard's proclamation to the City of York ordering "all maner of men" to come to London "in their best defensabill araie" with Northumberland and Lord Neville to aid him and Buckingham against the Queen and her adherents. The Mayor and Aldermen make plans to keep the peace and organize a watch.

June 21--Stallworth's second letter to Stonor noting among other things that Hastings's men have become Buckingham's men.

June 22--Ralph Shaa's sermon ("Bastard slips shall not take root"). Sources for this sermon are late and confused, but it probably did take place.

June 24--Buckingham addresses London leaders to convince them that Richard is the rightful king.

June 25--In Pontefract, the Earl of Northumberland tries Rivers, Grey, and Vaughn, who are found guilty and executed. (Side note: Rivers accepts his fate in a philosophical poem about Fortune's wheel and appoints Richard his executor, evidence in my view that he knew Richard and Northumberland were acting justly.) Northumberland, Neville, and the men of York finally set out for London. The Three Estates, assembled as they would have done for Parliament, draw up their petition.

June 26--The Three Estates present their petition. Richard accepts the kingship with the new duke of Norfolk (John Howard) on his right and the duke of Suffolk (Richard's brother-in-law, John de la Pole) on his left. I'm assuming there's some symbolic significance here--note that Buckingham is not included.

My source for most of this chronology is "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond and Anne F. Sutton. I highly recommend it to every Ricardian as it includes primary sources as well as bits from Mancini and Croyland with nothing from More and only the praise of Richard's courage at Bosworth from Vergil. (A few details are from Kendall.)

Doug wrote:


"My understanding is that Richard, after he'd been accepted as Protector, had wanted to execute Rivers, Grey and Vaughan because of the Stony Stratford plot, but the Council was against it, so he didn't. I know I read it somewhere but, of course, now I can't find it!"

Carol responds:

I can't find the exact quotation, either, but the source (according to Kendall) is Mancini. Croyland says nothing about it.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2018-12-08 21:01:01
justcarol67
I wrote as part of my chronology:

"June 12--EV signs his last writ appointing a bishop."

I now can't locate this reference. It doesn't seem to be in Hammond and Sutton. If anyone knows of a record of the few writs, letters, or other documents signed by Edward V, I'd appreciate your letting me know where to find it. (I know about the three-signature document and the bill or writ rewarding a favorite chaplain signed while Richard, Buckingham, and young Edward were still at Saint Albans.) I think the dates for any documents written by Richard in EV's name would help a little with our chronology at least to give us a last approximate date for when EV was still regarded as king. (Of course, he was still *technically* king until June 26, but at what point the council and Richard decided that he needed to be deposed is unclear. It seems to be some time between June 16 and June 22, with June 16 being the point at which they realized that, whether EV remained king or Richard took the crown, RoY had to be taken out of EW's hands, especially if she had learned (or already knew) about the precontract. The arguments ostensibly used to persuade EW (that the boy was needed as part of the coronation ceremony and that he should be liberated from sanctuary, where he was being held against his will, and allowed to be with his brother) might have convinced *Richard* if he was reluctant to (seemingly) violate sanctuary.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-08 21:14:20
ricard1an
No Carol it was the heir to Beaumont of Folkingham Castle. I made the same mistake when I originally read it. I think if I remember correctly that Hastings was married to Warwick's sister who was also named Katherine. That may not be correct as I have just written it off the top of my head without checking on Hastings wife. The Dowager Duchess was married at least three times it seems.
Mary

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-08 22:05:48
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"I can visualize Hastings accepting money from the French with the understanding that the funds were to be used to keep Edward V on the throne. However, to accept a pension from the French under the conditions that existed in 1483 would taint Hastings motives should it ever become known. His support of Edward V would appear to have been purchased by England's historical enemy. Certainly an impression to be avoided, I would think."
Carol responds:

I don't think there was time for such a deal. Hastings (assuming that he knew about the precontract--I'm not convinced that it had been revealed at the time he died--certainly would not have wanted the French to know that EV was (or might be) illegitimate, and Richard and the Council would have kept it secret until they had heard all the evidence and decided what to do (on or just before June 22). Meanwhile, Richard was still focused on the Woodville plots as shown by his proclamation of June 19 (three days after the queen had been stripped of her most useful pawn, RoY).

Of course, it's possible that the traditional view is right and that the knowledge of the precontract brought with it the assumption on the part of the conspirators that Richard would "usurp" the crown and that the plots (revealed on June 10 but perhaps beginning before that) were based on that assumption, but there is no evidence that Richard was planning any coronation other than Edward V's even as late as June 16, when the coronation was postponed but not cancelled. There was, however, talk of extending the Protectorship to eliminate or control Woodville influence, as Bishop Russell's intended sermon indicates. That would fit with the Woodville plots and the fear of Richard's continued and strengthened power not only on their part but on that of Hastings, Morton, and poor old Rotherham, whose toes had been stepped on when Richard deprived him of the Great Seal and the Chancellorship. And Morton would have played upon any jealousy Hastings felt of Buckingham as well.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-09 11:46:55
Hilary Jones
Yes indeed Mary. Hastings was married to Warwick's sister, Katherine who was a niece of Cis. She'd previously been married to Lord Bonvile of Chute who died at Wakefield.She was also of course sister-in-law to Sir Thomas Stanley, since her sister Eleanor was his first wife. By her first husband Katherine was mother-in-law to Dorset. All very incestuous isn't it?
BTW the Hastings family were originally of course from Yorkshire. It was Hastings' father, Ralph who moved to Leicestershire. H
On Saturday, 8 December 2018, 21:14:27 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

No Carol it was the heir to Beaumont of Folkingham Castle. I made the same mistake when I originally read it. I think if I remember correctly that Hastings was married to Warwick's sister who was also named Katherine. That may not be correct as I have just written it off the top of my head without checking on Hastings wife. The Dowager Duchess was married at least three times it seems.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-09 11:51:16
Hilary Jones
This Katherine Neville (died 1483) was Cis's sister and aunt to Katherine, Hastings' wife. I know it gets all very confusing and then you get Katherine Woodville thrown in as well. H
On Saturday, 8 December 2018, 15:47:21 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:




Mary wrote:

"'His lands in Kesteven were given to Hastings' with dower allowed to his widow Katherine Neville, Dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly wife of John Woodville"

Carol responds:

Wait. Hastings was married to the dowager duchess of Norfolk, who was about eighty when she married the twenty-year-old John Woodville in 1465? She would have been about ninety-eight in 1483! (I'm pretty sure that the marriage to Woodville was her last. It ended with his illegal execution by Warwick in 1469.)

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-09 12:07:52
Hilary Jones
Promised to look at this for you before Carol. You've set me my task for tomorrow. H
On Saturday, 8 December 2018, 15:30:57 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

"So sorry folks, the summons is on 5 June and the Coronation on 22."

Carol responds:

I think the ceremony on June 22 was supposed to be the knighthood of several men in preparation for the coronation, which was planned for June 24. By the way, does anyone know what happened to those would-be knights? Were they knighted before Richard's coronation or "stood up at the altar," so to speak? Did any of them fight for (or against) Richard at Bosworth?

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-09 21:37:39
ricard1an
Thank you Hilary for sorting my memory out.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2018-12-09 22:23:21
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Hi Carol, to start with your last question first substitute the word 'protest' for rebellion. This means it doesn't have to take place in the seat of government. For example, one of the big rebellions during the French Revolution was in La Vendee in 1793. That's on the coast. They can spring up wherever people feel aggrieved, or where they have been orchestrated by someone else, which is what certainly happened in 1483.
"For example, you talk about Thomas St Leger, but he was bang in the middle of the Kentish rebels, several of whom were sent out to orchestrate rebellions elsewhere He was sent to stir up dissent in Exeter, Devon, his brother Bartholomew in Torrington, Devon. The Cheneys from Kent were sent to stir up trouble in Salisbury."

Carol responds:

Thanks for your response, some of which I snipped. I mentioned Thomas St. Leger as an example (along with William Stanley) of an Edwardian Yorkist in the sense that he had supported (and benefited from) Edward IV's reign but did not support Richard. (I'm quite sure that he was no bleeding-heart supporter of poor little Edward V, but he doesn't quite fit in your Woodville camp, either. (I suspect that Richard didn't approve of St. Leger's marriage to his [Richard's] sister, Anne, Duchess of Exeter, and St. Leger may have feared for that reason that Richard would be unlikely to give him any lucrative posts.) Another such person was Sir John Cheney, who had been Edward IV's master of horse, but Richard gave that position (along with master of henchmen) to Sir James Tyrrell. These are exactly the type of people who, as you say, could be used to stir up trouble against Richard--get the locals to sympathize with the poor "princes in the Tower" and then persuade them to support HT (as long as he promised to marry EoY) once the rumors (which they no doubt helped to spread) began to surface, These men were in no sense Lancastrians like Oxford or true Tudor supporters like Nuncle Jasper or even, as far as I know, Woodville supporters. They were just disgruntled Yorkists who were happy to join (or foment) rebellions against a king who didn't indulge them as Edward IV had done. (Hastings, had he lived, might well have fallen into the same camp.)

I still don't quite understand what constituted a rebellion (or protest). Were the rock-throwing rioters or arsonists or what? I've always pictured a bunch of men on horseback but that doesn't make sense as most of them wouldn't have had any armor or weapons and there was no one except local officials (who might or might not have been on their side) to harrass. I'm quite sure they weren't holding up signs that said "Save the Princes!" or "Old Dick has to go!"

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-09 22:56:33
justcarol67



Hilary wrote:

"I agree with your last paragraph Carol!
"Just one point, Buckingham already had the huge reward of custodianship of Wales and the Marches given to him on 16 May, nearly a month before this happened. This was actually when most of the Offices were affirmed or re-affirmed. A assume you are meaning the 'Constable' job? I suppose after Hastings' death there were few left to fill it?"

Carol responds:

Well, yes, mostly. The constableship was a huge responsibility and giving someone that responsibility was a sign of trust and a reward for loyalty. Edward had rewarded Richard with it when Richard was still in his teens--just sixteen, I think. At any rate, the post of Lord High Constable probably meant a great deal to Richard personally. The office had been abused in the past (by Tiptoft) and Richard would have wanted to make sure that kind of power didn't get into the wrong hands. (Poor Richard!)

But also I had thought that Buckingham finally received the Bohun lands (which Edward IV had denied him) after the death of Hastings.

BTW, I think that Norfolk would have made a better constable than either Buckingham or Stanley, but maybe he was content with his new dukedom or maybe he just didn't want the job. And in the case of Buckingham, I think Richard was rewarding him as he himself had been rewarded, expecting in return the kind of loyalty he had given his brother. The difference was that Edward knew Richard's character and temperament, and Richard only thought he knew Buckingham's.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-09 23:49:09
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"FWIW, if the Pre-Contract had been manufactured, there was nothing to stop Tudor from showing it up for being exactly that by having Parliament examine the person who made the Bill  Stillington, but that was the one thing Henry was absolutely determined not to do. Tudor, who tried to get out of marrying EoY and didn't have her crowned for what, more than a year after they were finally married, didn't want to hurt his wife's feelings? As they say  Puhlease! I also don't think Stillington was a witness to Edward and Eleanor's marriage, so the question becomes: What proofs could be provided that would sway, first the Royal Council, then the Three Estates and finally a regularly-constituted Parliament?"

Carol responds:

I agree with you (in the part I snipped) that Catesby had something to do with it. Otherwise, his being one of the few men executed after Bosworth is inexplicable. But I also wonder whether Eleanor's sister, the dowager duchess of Norfolk, might have secretly testified, under oath, to her sister having married Edward IV. Perhaps the marriage of her daughter Anne Mowbray to the little Duke of York (whom she would have know to be illegitimate if she knew about the precontract) was his way of simultaneously buying her off and ensuring her silence regarding the illegitimacy of her son-in-law (and Edward's children in general). Just a thought that has often occurred to me. She was very much alive in 1483.

Does anyone know what happened to her during Tudor's reign? She seems to have kept a low profile. The Wikipedia article is no help at all, and in fact has her daughter inheriting the *Warwick* lands, an indication that it's very poorly researched.

I just realized that her nephew by marriage, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, showed up to support Richard, the then Protector, on or before June 21. Since Stallworth, who reports that Lord Lisle has "come to my Lorde Protectour and awates apon hyme" just after he discusses the release of RoY from sanctuary, it's possible that these events occurred at about the same time. Could Viscount Lisle have been a messenger carrying a letter from his aunt? He participated in Richard's coronation and was with him in York, so he certainly wasn't denying his other aunt's marriage to EIV. (Technically, they're his wife's aunts, but still, they're family.) He was also the brother of EW's (Lancastrian) first husband, Sir John Grey, so he had a connection to the Woodvilles but chose Richard's side. Has anyone investigated him before? He doesn't seem to have been at Bosworth though some Greys who may have been his relatives fought for Richard. His daughter first married a son of Thomas Howard (who had fought for Richard but came to terms of sorts with HT) and then, somewhat ironically, Edward IV's illegitimate son Arthur, who in turn became Viscount Lisle in honor of his wife.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-10 11:01:50
Hilary Jones
I just have to keep it all on a database otherwise I'd have a totally scrambled head, Mary! H
On Sunday, 9 December 2018, 21:37:44 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Thank you Hilary for sorting my memory out.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-12-10 18:45:37
justcarol67



Mary wrote:

"With regard to your paragraph on the TR Carol, it seems to me that they really knew the real Richard. No wonder Tudor wanted it destroyed unread. He couldn't hope to live up to that."
Carol responds:

Exactly. It showed not only the real Richard as he was viewed by those contemporaries who actually knew him but his qualifications for the crown (in stark contrast to Henry, who had to claim the throne by right of conquest since he had no other valid claim). People always say that he had TR destroyed (unread) because of it proclaimed his wife as illegitimate, but he hadn't married EoY yet and was still uncertain about doing so. I think the real reason is that it proved that Richard was no usurper but the rightful king--which made Henry (through the actions of William Stanley, Rhys ap Thomas, et al.), not only a usurper himself but a regicide. No wonder Henry and his advisors (read Morton) didn't want anyone to read it.

Carol

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

2018-12-11 11:44:50
Nicholas Brown
Hi Carol,

I agree with you. The Duchess of Buckingham's loyalties would have been to her family who had made such sacrifices for the Lancastrians, and would far outweigh any friendship she may have had with Jacquetta Woodville in her Duchess of Bedford days, and there it was unlikely that even Cecily was her sister would be a conflict of interest.

As for Susan Higginbotham, she is quite good on dates and documents regarding the Woodvilles because she wrote a book on them, but I am cautious about other things she says, especially her interpretations of some events - especially in the light of the fact that she is so anti-Richard. I also thought that the cause of Humphrey Stafford's death was unknown, and complications from battle wounds sounds familiar. The lack of a consistent father figure probably did contribute to Buckingham's fragile ego. He would indeed have been about the right age to marry Anne Neville. I wonder what kind of a pairing they would have made.
Good to have you back on the forum.

Nico


On Friday, 7 December 2018, 21:55:43 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote:


"Anne[Duchess of Buckingham]'s loyalties may have been complex as she was closely associated with Jacquetta and carried EW's train at her coronation, but old allegiances can still bubble beneath the surface."

Carol responds:

I suspect that, given the death of her husband and serious injury of her son at the hands of the Lancastrians, that Anne remained staunchly Lancastrian. Her association with Jacquetta would have gone back to the days when Jacquetta was married to John, Duke of Bedford (younger brother of Henry V). The Woodvilles (and Greys) were also, of course, originally Lancastrian. Both EW's father and her first husband were Lancastrian knights. So there is really no conflict between her loyalty to EW (as opposed to her own nephew, Edward IV) and the original loyalty to the House of Lancaster (which made her a fit "keeper" for her sister Cecily and Cecily;s children after Ludlow).

Nico wrote:

"As for the marriage to Katherine Woodville, I'm am sceptical of the rumours that he disliked her personally. [snip] FWIW, I don't agree with a lot of Susan Higginbotham's interpretations, but she is good with facts about the Woodvilles, and this article was quite the best I have found on Buckingham's early life."

Carol responds:

I'm not entirely sure of Higginbotham's facts (and sources)--certainly any statement she makes about Richard is suspect. This is the first I've heard of Richard's supporters destroying documents, for example. I thought that was a Tudor tactic. It's also not certain that Humphrey Stafford died of the plague. He may have died of his inadequately treated battle wounds, or at least they would have been a factor in his failure to recover from his illness. As far as I know, no one else in the household seems to have died at that time, which would make plague an unlikely culprit. But the early loss of his father and missing father figure would have been important in shaping Buckingham's character, regardless.

I think she is right, though, about Katherine's age and "Harry's" upbringing by EW. She also makes an interesting point about Buckingham's marriage to Katherine as among the many causes of Warwick's resentment against the Woodvilles. He ("Harry") would have been about the right age to marry Anne. Imagine how different history would have been if that had happened!

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-11 11:47:52
Nicholas Brown
Carol wrote: I also wonder whether Eleanor's sister, the dowager duchess of Norfolk, might have secretly testified, under oath, to her sister having married Edward IV. Perhaps the marriage of her daughter Anne Mowbray to the little Duke of York (whom she would have know to be illegitimate if she knew about the precontract) was his way of simultaneously buying her off and ensuring her silence regarding the illegitimacy of her son-in-law (and Edward's children in general). Just a thought that has often occurred to me. She was very much alive in 1483.

Does anyone know what happened to her during Tudor's reign? She seems to have kept a low profile. The Wikipedia article is no help at all, and in fact has her daughter inheriting the *Warwick* lands, an indication that it's very poorly researched.

I just realized that her nephew by marriage, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, showed up to support Richard, the then Protector, on or before June 21. Since Stallworth, who reports that Lord Lisle has "come to my Lorde Protectour and awates apon hyme" just after he discusses the release of RoY from sanctuary, it's possible that these events occurred at about the same time. Could Viscount Lisle have been a messenger carrying a letter from his aunt? He participated in Richard's coronation and was with him in York, so he certainly wasn't denying his other aunt's marriage to EIV. (Technically, they're his wife's aunts, but still, they're family.) He was also the brother of EW's (Lancastrian) first husband, Sir John Grey, so he had a connection to the Woodvilles but chose Richard's side. Has anyone investigated him before? He doesn't seem to have been at Bosworth though some Greys who may have been his relatives fought for Richard. His daughter first married a son of Thomas Howard (who had fought for Richard but came to terms of sorts with HT) and then, somewhat ironically, Edward IV's illegitimate son Arthur, who in turn became Viscount Lisle in honor of his wife.

Hi,

I think if anyone knew about the precontract, it would have been Eleanor's sister, Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk, and her testimony would have been very valuable. The two sisters were very close, but I also suspect her other siblings and possibly other relatives could also back up the story, along with perhaps a servant or two. In addition to the circumstantial evidence, there is no other explanation for Eleanor's ownership of the properties that J-AH linked to Edward. That is likely where Catesby came in. As a lawyer from the relevant area, he may have been able to provide some written evidence such as land transfers. Elizabeth herself retired to the Abbey of the Minoresses in Aldgate where Anne Mowbray was buried along with with a number of other aristocratic women with prominent links to the House of York, such as her sister in law, Jane Talbot (wife of Humphrey), Sir Robert Brackenbury's widow and Sir James Tyrrell's aunt and sister. Alison Weir wrote something about Thomas More visiting the ladies at the Minories and suggested that he may have heard terrible stories about Richard from them. If he did in fact befriend these ladies, I think it more likely that he may have found out that whatever he heard from Morton wasn't true.

There are so many Greys that I had never made the connection between Lord Lisle and the Woodvilles, through his marriage to Eleanor Talbot's niece Elizabeth. I forgot he was the brother of EW's first husband. I lean towards thinking that the Woodvilles were unaware of the precontract before it was revealed, and assumed that the rush to get Edward V crowned was more to do with them securing their own power base, but that is a significant link where news could travel to the Woodvilles, epecially through his nephews, Dorset and Richard Grey. He is certainly worth a closer look.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of other 'Eleanors,' although Eleanor Talbot was probably the first. If he was serious about making Elizabeth Woodville his Queen why didn't he marry her openly? There may have been disapproval, but he was King. Personally, I suspect that Jacquetta and Richard Woodville, and perhaps Anthony put pressure on him. Secret marriages were hard to prove and even harder when it is the King's word against someone else. He was also probably aware of Richard of York's role in a petition to Parliament to confirm that his cousin Eleanor Holland was in fact illegitimate despite her claims about her mother's alleged secret marriage. Eleanor lost her case, and I wonder if Edward got the idea that a secret marriage was the way to an unwilling lady's heart, knowing that she could be easily paid off when he decided to move on.
Nico



On Sunday, 9 December 2018, 23:49:16 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote:

"FWIW, if the Pre-Contract had been manufactured, there was nothing to stop Tudor from showing it up for being exactly that by having Parliament examine the person who made the Bill  Stillington, but that was the one thing Henry was absolutely determined not to do. Tudor, who tried to get out of marrying EoY and didn't have her crowned for what, more than a year after they were finally married, didn't want to hurt his wife's feelings? As they say  Puhlease! I also don't think Stillington was a witness to Edward and Eleanor's marriage, so the question becomes: What proofs could be provided that would sway, first the Royal Council, then the Three Estates and finally a regularly-constituted Parliament?"

Carol responds:

I agree with you (in the part I snipped) that Catesby had something to do with it. Otherwise, his being one of the few men executed after Bosworth is inexplicable. But I also wonder whether Eleanor's sister, the dowager duchess of Norfolk, might have secretly testified, under oath, to her sister having married Edward IV. Perhaps the marriage of her daughter Anne Mowbray to the little Duke of York (whom she would have know to be illegitimate if she knew about the precontract) was his way of simultaneously buying her off and ensuring her silence regarding the illegitimacy of her son-in-law (and Edward's children in general). Just a thought that has often occurred to me. She was very much alive in 1483.

Does anyone know what happened to her during Tudor's reign? She seems to have kept a low profile. The Wikipedia article is no help at all, and in fact has her daughter inheriting the *Warwick* lands, an indication that it's very poorly researched.

I just realized that her nephew by marriage, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, showed up to support Richard, the then Protector, on or before June 21. Since Stallworth, who reports that Lord Lisle has "come to my Lorde Protectour and awates apon hyme" just after he discusses the release of RoY from sanctuary, it's possible that these events occurred at about the same time. Could Viscount Lisle have been a messenger carrying a letter from his aunt? He participated in Richard's coronation and was with him in York, so he certainly wasn't denying his other aunt's marriage to EIV. (Technically, they're his wife's aunts, but still, they're family.) He was also the brother of EW's (Lancastrian) first husband, Sir John Grey, so he had a connection to the Woodvilles but chose Richard's side. Has anyone investigated him before? He doesn't seem to have been at Bosworth though some Greys who may have been his relatives fought for Richard. His daughter first married a son of Thomas Howard (who had fought for Richard but came to terms of sorts with HT) and then, somewhat ironically, Edward IV's illegitimate son Arthur, who in turn became Viscount Lisle in honor of his wife.

Carol

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-11 15:06:56
Doug Stamate
Carol,
I hadn't known, or had forgotten, that Eleanor's sister was both the Dowager
Duchess of Norfolk and Richard of Shrewsbury's mother-in-law; thank you for
reminding me!
I can easily envisage Eleanor leaving a letter for her sister the Dowager
Duchess, but I sincerely doubt the latter would ever let Edward know she
had. To do so would simply be too dangerous. And, without making use of the
letter (if it existed), she'd have no reason to oppose the marriage between
her daughter and Edward's younger son. Now, once Edward IV died, that would
change; her daughter was also dead and there'd be no reason for her to not
provide whatever evidence she may have had to Stillington.
FWIW, I think there was difference between the two marriage ceremonies
Edward participated in. I tend to think that the first ceremony was solely a
verbal exchange of vows, with only Edward and Eleanor present. Under canon
law it was still a valid marriage, but Edward may have believed otherwise.
Or he may simply not have cared - after all, wasn't he the King? Later,
Edward tried the same tactic with Elizabeth Woodville, but was outwitted by
her and her mother who ensured there were witnesses other than the two main
protagonists. I also think it's possible Edward used his "marriage" to
Elizabeth Woodville in his maneuverings with Warwick over just who was going
to be in charge. Of course, once he'd publicly acknowledged Elizabeth
Woodville as his wife, Edward was sort of stuck with her. However, if Edward
did know his marriage to Elizabeth could be challenged because of his
previous marriage to Eleanor Butler, there's also the possibility he may
have kept that knowledge in reserve; something to be used if necessary,
otherwise ignored. It was only after the birth of his two sons that the
legality of any previous marriage became a matter of such importance that
the simple knowledge of that marriage having happened became dangerous - to
the person who held it.
I have, at various times, tried to come up with a scenario where all the
gifts and honors Edward bestowed on the various Woodvilles were the result
of Elizabeth Woodville knowing her marriage wasn't legal but, while the idea
might be of help in answering some of the questions we face, it also raises
quite a few more. Where's someone with a smart-phone when you need them?
Doug

Carol wrote:
"I agree with you (in the part I snipped) that Catesby had something to do
with it. Otherwise, his being one of the few men executed after Bosworth is
inexplicable. But I also wonder whether Eleanor's sister, the dowager
duchess of Norfolk, might have secretly testified, under oath, to her sister
having married Edward IV. Perhaps the marriage of her daughter Anne Mowbray
to the little Duke of York (whom she would have know to be illegitimate if
she knew about the precontract) was his way of simultaneously buying her off
and ensuring her silence regarding the illegitimacy of her son-in-law (and
Edward's children in general). Just a thought that has often occurred to me.
She was very much alive in 1483.
Does anyone know what happened to her during Tudor's reign? She seems to
have kept a low profile. The Wikipedia article is no help at all, and in
fact has her daughter inheriting the *Warwick* lands, an indication that
it's very poorly researched.
I just realized that her nephew by marriage, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle,
showed up to support Richard, the then Protector, on or before June 21.
Since Stallworth, who reports that Lord Lisle has "come to my Lorde
Protectour and awates apon hyme" just after he discusses the release of RoY
from sanctuary, it's possible that these events occurred at about the same
time. Could Viscount Lisle have been a messenger carrying a letter from his
aunt? He participated in Richard's coronation and was with him in York, so
he certainly wasn't denying his other aunt's marriage to EIV. (Technically,
they're his wife's aunts, but still, they're family.) He was also the
brother of EW's (Lancastrian) first husband, Sir John Grey, so he had a
connection to the Woodvilles but chose Richard's side. Has anyone
investigated him before? He doesn't seem to have been at Bosworth though
some Greys who may have been his relatives fought for Richard. His daughter
first married a son of Thomas Howard (who had fought for Richard but came to
terms of sorts with HT) and then, somewhat ironically, Edward IV's
illegitimate son Arthur, who in turn became Viscount Lisle in honor of his
wife."



--
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

2018-12-11 18:34:56
Paul Trevor Bale
With you on that Carol. Completely agree.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 10 déc. 2018 à 19:44, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :




Mary wrote:

"With regard to your paragraph on the TR Carol, it seems to me that they really knew the real Richard. No wonder Tudor wanted it destroyed unread. He couldn't hope to live up to that."
Carol responds:

Exactly. It showed not only the real Richard as he was viewed by those contemporaries who actually knew him but his qualifications for the crown (in stark contrast to Henry, who had to claim the throne by right of conquest since he had no other valid claim). People always say that he had TR destroyed (unread) because of it proclaimed his wife as illegitimate, but he hadn't married EoY yet and was still uncertain about doing so. I think the real reason is that it proved that Richard was no usurper but the rightful king--which made Henry (through the actions of William Stanley, Rhys ap Thomas, et al.), not only a usurper himself but a regicide. No wonder Henry and his advisors (read Morton) didn't want anyone to read it.

Carol

Re: High Sheriffs who didn't turn up at Bosworth (as far as we know)

2018-12-12 11:08:56
Nicholas Brown
Doug, that is an excellent post. More or less my thoughts on Edward's marriages. I think he saw the idea of the secret marriage as a useful ploy because if there were no witnesses he knew they were difficult to challenge even if the parties were of equal standing, and since he was King he had the last word. I can't imagine him having much familiarity with the finer details of canon law that could have held him to account, so he may have honestly believed that an exchange of vows with no witnesses really did have no legal value. Eventually he moved on and paid off Eleanor as a consolation prize, but didn't realize the seriousness of what he had done. He was probably trying the same trick with EW, but Jacquetta found witnesses and put a spanner in the works. If she hadn't, he would probably have done what Kings normally did and made an alliance involving a marriage with a foreign princess, saving a lot of the misery that followed.
I'm still in two minds about whether the Woodvilles ever found out about Eleanor. The Lisle link is a close one and I sometimes get the feeling that they had something on Edward. Also, they did plan a very hasty coronation for Edward V; once he was crowned, he would have been much more difficult to challenge.

Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-12 17:11:39
justcarol67
Nico wrote:

"If he [Edward IV] was serious about making Elizabeth Woodville his Queen why didn't he marry her openly? There may have been disapproval, but he was King. Personally, I suspect that Jacquetta and Richard Woodville, and perhaps Anthony put pressure on him. Secret marriages were hard to prove and even harder when it is the King's word against someone else."

Carol responds:

There's also the matter of his being pressured to marry Bona of Savoy or some other foreign (French) bride. Had he done so and either of his earlier marriages been discovered, he would have been in serious trouble not only with that country and the Pope but also his own subjects. War, excommunication, deposition . . . . So he had the choice of revealing one of the marriages, with the consequence that one of those women would (eventually) be crowned as his queen. He chose EW, possibly because she had more relatives and those relatives were more likely to make a fuss. After all, Eleanor and her family had already remained quiet for several years (three?). He couldn't count on Elizabeth, Anthony, and perhaps especially Jacquetta to do the same if he contracted to (publicly) marry a foreign bride.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-12 18:19:34
Paul Trevor Bale
Am I giving Edward to much credit by imagining by marrying EW he could bring large sections of the Lancastrians to heel? Huge mistake as it turned out. But there is also in the back of my mind the question why did such a strong character as Edward allow the Woodvilles to run riot over his court after his marriage, giving her and her family almost everything they asked of him, including eventually the head of his own brother? Secrets buried everywhere then?

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 12 déc. 2018 à 17:46, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :

Nico wrote:


"If he [Edward IV] was serious about making Elizabeth Woodville his Queen why didn't he marry her openly? There may have been disapproval, but he was King. Personally, I suspect that Jacquetta and Richard Woodville, and perhaps Anthony put pressure on him. Secret marriages were hard to prove and even harder when it is the King's word against someone else."

Carol responds:

There's also the matter of his being pressured to marry Bona of Savoy or some other foreign (French) bride. Had he done so and either of his earlier marriages been discovered, he would have been in serious trouble not only with that country and the Pope but also his own subjects. War, excommunication, deposition . . . . So he had the choice of revealing one of the marriages, with the consequence that one of those women would (eventually) be crowned as his queen. He chose EW, possibly because she had more relatives and those relatives were more likely to make a fuss. After all, Eleanor and her family had already remained quiet for several years (three?). He couldn't count on Elizabeth, Anthony, and perhaps especially Jacquetta to do the same if he contracted to (publicly) marry a foreign bride.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-13 10:14:53
Nicholas Brown
Carol: There's also the matter of his being pressured to marry Bona of Savoy or some other foreign (French) bride. Had he done so and either of his earlier marriages been discovered, he would have been in serious trouble not only with that country and the Pope but also his own subjects. War, excommunication, deposition . . . . So he had the choice of revealing one of the marriages, with the consequence that one of those women would (eventually) be crowned as his queen. He chose EW, possibly because she had more relatives and those relatives were more likely to make a fuss. After all, Eleanor and her family had already remained quiet for several years (three?). He couldn't count on Elizabeth, Anthony, and perhaps especially Jacquetta to do the same if he contracted to (publicly) marry a foreign bride.
Paul: Am I giving Edward to much credit by imagining by marrying EW he could bring large sections of the Lancastrians to heel? Huge mistake as it turned out. But there is also in the back of my mind the question why did such a strong character as Edward allow the Woodvilles to run riot over his court after his marriage, giving her and her family almost everything they asked of him, including eventually the head of his own brother? Secrets buried everywhere then?
Carol, that is true. A foreign alliance and marriage being put in jeopardy by the revelation of a secret marriage would have been terrible - at best it would have been embarrassing, but it could have totally discredited Edward and lost him major support. At the time of the marriages, I don't believe that he had anything more than a desire to seduce and conquer an unwilling woman, although Lancastrian support may have crossed his mind when he revealed the marriage to EW, but more as a bonus than the main reason, which was that he knew the Jacquetta would not just never keep quiet, but she was someone who would be taken seriously because of her social position and the fact that there were other witnesses. She could have stirred up a lot of trouble with the Lancastrians if she made a fuss about her dishonoured daughter. My guess is that Edward expected everything to go the way it had with Eleanor - no witnesses, he has his fun and then he pays her off when he gets tired of her. However, with EW it all went wrong when Jacquetta turned up with witnesses.

Edward's behaviour towards bother Eleanor and EW (and possibly others) suggests a psychological quirk where he couldn't tolerate refusal and would not stop until he got what he had subdued the object of his desire. Such a determined quality would be an advantage to someone who sought to gain a crown by conquest, but when applied to his personal life it is an unattractive trait. If women of a lower social class refused him, he may have resorted to force, but he knew he couldn't do that with women of Eleanor Talbot and Elizabeth Woodville's standing, so he had to resort to manipulation. Therefore, I agree with you, Paul that it does seem out of character that the Woodvilles were allowed to dominate Edward's court the way they did when everything else about Edward indicates someone who needed to be in charge. Did they have something else on Edward? Maybe they did, but if it was Eleanor that would have scared them too, as once EW's marriage was invalidated they could lose everything. Even so, it would have been enough to make Edward uncomfortable enough to ensure they were kept happy.
Nico




On Wednesday, 12 December 2018, 18:19:51 GMT, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Am I giving Edward to much credit by imagining by marrying EW he could bring large sections of the Lancastrians to heel? Huge mistake as it turned out. But there is also in the back of my mind the question why did such a strong character as Edward allow the Woodvilles to run riot over his court after his marriage, giving her and her family almost everything they asked of him, including eventually the head of his own brother? Secrets buried everywhere then?

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 12 déc. 2018 à 17:46, justcarol67@... [] <> a écrit :

Nico wrote:


"If he [Edward IV] was serious about making Elizabeth Woodville his Queen why didn't he marry her openly? There may have been disapproval, but he was King. Personally, I suspect that Jacquetta and Richard Woodville, and perhaps Anthony put pressure on him. Secret marriages were hard to prove and even harder when it is the King's word against someone else."

Carol responds:

There's also the matter of his being pressured to marry Bona of Savoy or some other foreign (French) bride. Had he done so and either of his earlier marriages been discovered, he would have been in serious trouble not only with that country and the Pope but also his own subjects. War, excommunication, deposition . . . . So he had the choice of revealing one of the marriages, with the consequence that one of those women would (eventually) be crowned as his queen. He chose EW, possibly because she had more relatives and those relatives were more likely to make a fuss. After all, Eleanor and her family had already remained quiet for several years (three?). He couldn't count on Elizabeth, Anthony, and perhaps especially Jacquetta to do the same if he contracted to (publicly) marry a foreign bride.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] High Sheriffs who did

2018-12-13 15:41:05
Doug Stamate
Nico, That's basically my view of what Edward was up to: he wanted to have his cake, so to speak!, and eat it too. As you point out, he was the king and if he denied a marriage ever took place, who would the judges believe? Assuming he even realized the jeopardy he'd put his children, he may likely have felt that his son's position would immunize him against any charges of illegitimacy which could then be passed off as just another false claim of illegitimacy being employed for political reasons. I'm not chained to the idea that the Woodvilles knew about the Pre-Contract before it was brought before the Council. It may have been a situation where, now that Edward IV was dead and couldn't retaliate against anyone who mentioned the subject, someone told EW or one of her close relations. It would certainly explain the plots to kill Richard rather than, say, concentrate on getting Edward V to London, crowned and have him reshape the Council to their liking. That gap between when the news arrived at Ludlow and Edward's departure argues against any knowledge; at least at that point in time, but then, Rivers and some of the other Woodvilles were noted as being, shall we say, cocky? Perhaps they thought possession of the new king would trump everything? Doug Nico wrote: Doug, that is an excellent post. More or less my thoughts on Edward's marriages. I think he saw the idea of the secret marriage as a useful ploy because if there were no witnesses he knew they were difficult to challenge even if the parties were of equal standing, and since he was King he had the last word. I can't imagine him having much familiarity with the finer details of canon law that could have held him to account, so he may have honestly believed that an exchange of vows with no witnesses really did have no legal value. Eventually he moved on and paid off Eleanor as a consolation prize, but didn't realize the seriousness of what he had done. He was probably trying the same trick with EW, but Jacquetta found witnesses and put a spanner in the works. If she hadn't, he would probably have done what Kings normally did and made an alliance involving a marriage with a fo reign princess, saving a lot of the misery that followed. I'm still in two minds about whether the Woodvilles ever found out about Eleanor. The Lisle link is a close one and I sometimes get the feeling that they had something on Edward. Also, they did plan a very hasty coronation for Edward V; once he was crowned, he would have been much more difficult to challenge.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.